Bodangora Wind Farm

I support the wind farm because:
- It is renewable energy
- non polluting
- it will bring money and jobs into the area
- they look interesting

I object to the proposed wind farm due to the problem of infrasound which has proven to be above acceptable levels from a study by a leading acooustician in Australia and not to mention all the studies done overseas including Denmark. They have had 30 years to prove they are efficient and economical and still have to rely on backup from some other source of power. For Australia (a dry country) they are a fire hazard as at least one a year catches on fire and it may not sound much but firefighters have problems getting near them as they throw pieces of twisted metal at least 3 times their height. Definitely too costly and ineffficient.

I object to the planned turbine complex as proven to be adding to rising electricity prices because they require backup from either coal or gas 24/7. Also it has been proven that they cause infrasound and sound from the blades and shadow flidker. If they are so good why do they need RECs and why has the UK had to fork out over 6 billion pounds to subsidise them? They also cause health issue as Davis Versus Fenland was compensated for an uninhabitable house in the UK due to noise. Also Judge in Quinn v AGL (South Aust) had required a number of turbines to be turned off because of sleep deprivation.People are abandoning their homes because of health issues while one farmer has reported eggs without yolks while some farmers have deformed calves since turbines were operational. These ae industrial turbines not windmills and should be treated as an industry not a farm. The countryside is quiet and noise seems to travel a long distance and disrupts the peace. Why not site them in the cities e.g. North Head etc.? Stop ruining the countryside for the city folks who don't care about farms and farmers lives. Most do not bother to research the problems and most of the European countries with smaller turbines are now finding out too late how useless these turbines are in regards to providing power. Why be sheep and follow overseas where they have ruined peoples' lives, the scenic beauty of rural areas and cost the consumer more money. It is about time we led the way in renewable energy by showing better, more efficient and less costly ways of providing power e.g. geothermal, waste to energy and using clever people to come up with solutions. Wind power will never help to attain 20% by 2020 even if all of Australia was covered with turbines. Do unbiased research and not allow people who are affected by turbines to not start legal proceedings against those who approve such developments and hosts of them which were formerly friends. The wind industry uses divide and conquer along with money to promote an inefficient and costly industry while making huge profits for themselves and if all fails they sell up and go back to where they came from mostly overseas.

This development will do nothong to help climate change. All it will do is to grease the palms of self interested Wind Farm developers and opportunistic host families. If this development is approved it will come at a great cost to the environment, people's health and their quality of life.

as per attachment

I believe this project will be very beneficial to the Wellington district in many ways, by providing work to local tradesmen & contractors, bringing employees into the district, improving infrastructure such as roads, helping the towns community with support & funds.
As well as this it is located in an area that is not very populated & spread out over a large area.
Having read the development application I believe Infigen have done adequate assessments & planning for this project.
This I believe is an essential project in the countries quest to achieve the renewable energy target it has set.

Dear Sir,
Re:Bodangora wind farm
My name is Len Stukatsch
My property is with in 2 km of WFG 43, at 38 Mc Gees Lane Bodangora.
A precedet has been set by Goyder Council to reject the Tru Energy Windfarm development at Stony Gap as result of Noise and Heath .
A moratorium on Wind farm development until research on noise and health is carried out,
The noise measurements conducted at Bodangora were recorded dB(A) No information was suplied re Infrasound levels in dB(G) form INFIGEN re the turbines. More information is needed. The Amplitude Modulation factor for the turbines this information was not included.
The visual impact is also a concern as the majority of the turbines will be in view from the property.
The fire risk factor was not shown for the area.
My Object to the construction of the Windfarm are on the grounds of NOISE , HEALTH and Digital TV reception.

The Director General,
Department of Planning and Infrastructure,
32 Bridge Street,
SYDNEY NSW 2791

Dear Sir,

Re: BODANGARA WIND FARM
SUBMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

This letter is an OBJECTION to the Bodangara Wind Farm which is proposed by Infigen Energy. The Environmental Assessment (EA) was compiled by Master Plan (Town and Country Planners).

While I have objections and find deficiencies in many areas of the EA I wish to specifically detail my concerns about the Decommissioning process. This has been dealt with briefly in the EA and in my view is greatly wanting.

The EA states:

"At the end of its economic life, all equipment will either be replaced with comparable new
equipment, or the wind farm will be decommissioned. Replacement may be subject to new
approvals. Decommissioning would involve dismantling or removal of all equipment, and site rehabilitation. Turbine footings would be retained at a level below the ground surface, as acceptable to the landowner. Access tracks may be retained depending on the land owners' wishes. Any overhead wires no longer required will be removed."

This matter was dealt with comprehensively in the Flyers Creek Wind Turbine Awareness Group's Submission to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure on the proposed Flyers Creek Wind Farm MP 08-0252.

The information contained in that document relates also to the Bodangora Wind Farm proposal and bears repeating. The DoPI should make a priority to establish protocols for the decommissioning of industrial wind turbines (IWT) since any failure of the proponent to carry this out properly will lay an onerous burden on both the wind turbine host and the community at large.

I therefore reproduce part of the FCWTAG's submission where it deals with Decommissioning since it behoves the DoPI to consider this matter carefully and place appropriate caveats on any decisions it will make regarding the Bodangora Wind Farm project.

Please note that references for this quotation are available in the FCWTAG submission and the full text of the J. Schneider Report on Decommissioning and Waste Management.

Wind turbine life span for FCWF is stated to be 20 to 25 years. There are few, if any, wind turbines that have completed this period of operation in Australia. The Australian experience does not include the decommissioning of wind turbines, and to obtain a measure of the issues involved it is necessary to review the overseas experience.

Wind developers and some host landholders claim that "scrap value" for turbines will cover or exceed decommissioning costs.

This assumption is incorrect and highlights that decommissioning issues are a critical problem the wind industry and the NSW Government should now be addressing. Industrial wind energy developers are making exactly these same claims in planning applications that have been approved in NSW without question to date11.

FCWTAG has received a report from Waste Management consultant, J. Schneider, examining the implications of the decommissioning process, and has proposed that Infigen Energy pay a bond to cover the costs of decommissioning (Appendix 6). The report's analysis clearly demonstrates that the cost of demolition and removal will be approximately $100,000 per turbine (today's prices) and that there is no guarantee that scrap metal and material prices will be a profitable exercise. A bond of approximately $4,200,000 is proposed.

Overseas Experience of Decommissioning

A recent USA study on public record was independently commissioned regarding realistic decommissioning costs for a proposed 124 turbine project in West Virginia. Energy Ventures Analysis Inc (EVA) undertook this study and found that the wind energy company's decommissioning report stated that costs would be covered by income from sale of the scrap were incorrect. EVA found that the decommissioning costs for that particular 124 wind turbine development were underestimated by US$10million. The final decommissioning estimate (in 2008) was US$100,000 per turbine. A prepaid bond estimate of US$12+million was therefore required at the start of the project. This is examined in detail by J. Schneider (Appendix 6)

Infigen management is on record as not favouring any prepaid decommissioning bond.

A decommissioning report (2007) looking at Comfrey Wind Energy's wind turbine project of fifteen Suzlon S88 2.1MW wind turbines with a height of 80 metres and a rotor diameter of 88 metres. It found that the total estimated cost to dismantle and remove each turbine, without scrap value was US $154,000. This is likely to be an underestimate since no infrastructure dismantling costs were submitted in this report.

The Vermont Public Service Board (2009) made a ruling relating to decommissioning for a project (Deerfield Wind Project - 30MW, 15 turbines) in which scrap value was not allowed to be considered. Among the findings were two that are appropriate for consideration in Australia:

* "The establishment of a fund to decommission the Project is necessary in the event the Project does not succeed, or to ensure its timely and permanent removal at the end of its useful life."

* "Salvage value for scrap is vulnerable to market price volatility and thus should not be considered a reliable funding source for decommissioning the Project. The amount placed in the decommissioning fund should represent the full estimated costs of decommissioning without netting out estimated salvage value."

Future industrial wind energy projects in USA will more than likely require a prepaid bond, without inclusion of any scrap value. It is considered that the fluctuating nature of the scrap metal market cannot be relied upon to predictably cover the cost of decommissioning. Further the IWT industry has not factored any inflationary values for increased labour and maintenance costs at the 20 year expiry of IWT life.

There are currently 19,500 derelict IWT in California alone which remain idle, and for which no legal ownership can be enforced. Should this circumstance occur in NSW the Law would mandate that ownership would revert to the Landowner who would have to assume financial responsibility for turbine removal.

It should be noted that much of the materials contained in the IWT are of a hazardous nature and currently cannot be recycled in Australia.

Decommissioning in New South Wales

In 2009 the New South Wales Parliament, Legislative Council, General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 held an inquiry into Rural Wind Farms. The Inquiry report made several recommendations, specifically recommendation 9 states: "That the Minister for Planning address decommissioning of wind turbines in the NSW Planning and Assessment Guide for Wind Farms, including responsibility for decommissioning, the time period in which turbines should be dismantled and removed and how decommissioning will be funded. And that the Government consider requiring the developer to pay a bond."

Should future government legislation in New South Wales require a bond to be paid by the energy developer, this would place an additional financial burden that may halt a project after a lease has been signed, potentially leaving the landholder tied to an onerous long term lease agreement without income. The potential problem should decommissioning not be underwritten is that this financial burden reverts to the landholder and/or the community.

The NSW guidelines should require for an Australian Bank Guarantee & upfront AAA bond to cover decommissioning costs at the start of the project. The government should administer the decommissioning fund.

It is worthy of note that current decommissioning and IWT removal does not remove the hundreds of tons of concrete foundation. This remains for ever - as may underground cabling!

Decommissioning Arrangements - The Infigen Approach

Apart from the brief mention of decommissioning in the Environmental Assessment there appears to be no decommissioning arrangements. When Flyers Creek Wind Turbine Awareness Group asked about this at a Blayney Council Community forum (28/11/2011, Blayney) Infigen's Senior Development Manager replied that no bond would be necessary as the scrap value of the turbines would cover all costs. In fact he resists the idea of a bond altogether. One assumes this is Infigen's official position.

In a letter to the NSW Department of Planning (22/07/2011) Infigen gives more information about its position on decommissioning than it does in the Environmental Assessment and, as such, bears reproducing:

"Infigen Energy takes responsibility for the decommissioning of the wind farms, including the wind turbines, as part of every one of our landowner agreements. In addition, it is customary, as in NSW, that decommissioning of the wind farm by the wind farm owner is required by the conditions of consent.

"The proposition that a company might abandon the wind turbines without decommissioning them faces several challenges:

1. "Historically, wind farms are far more likely to be re-powered (new turbines installed in place of the old turbines) than decommissioned.

2. "Even if the owner of a wind farm were to go bankrupt and leave the wind turbines standing, the scrap value of the wind turbines (towers, electric cabling etc) far exceeds the cost of bringing in a crane to dismantle the turbines. The value of scrap metal will only rise over time making this trade off even more favourable over time.

"The suggestion that a decommissioning bond be required is unnecessary, and simply represents another attempt ....... to add additional and unnecessary costs to wind farms. Such costs would inevitably have to be passed onto NSW electricity customers, so we trust the NSW Government would reject including a decommissioning bond in the draft wind guidelines."

There are several conclusions to be drawn here:

1. After 20 to 25 years there is no guarantee that Infigen will exist as a viable financial entity to assume its legal responsibility for decommissioning. The energy industry is inherently volatile and subject to takeover and acquisition. Its current viability is ultimately dependent upon Government Subsidy which has a finite and political end point. This does not mean that the responsibility to decommission will not be transferred to the next company, but it is easy to see this being a future difficulty with complex legal argument and ramifications. Experience throughout the USA has found that some wind turbine farms have indeed been simply abandoned at the end of their functional life. To date it is reported that thousands of wind turbines lie abandoned with no one claiming responsibility or any enforceable legal ownership.

2. In NSW it is the land owner who bears the ultimate responsibility and should the land owner be left with abandoned wind turbines he will have to pay for and organise the decommissioning himself.

3. Infigen states that historically the wind farms are more likely to be re-powered. No wind farm in Australia is old enough for anyone to know what "historically" might happen. To contemplate the "historical" future is farcical.

4. The American experience is that the scrap value is always overestimated and in many instances will not cover the cost of removal. The landowner will therefore have to make up the shortfall, which will detract from the income he has received over the past 20-25 years. There is also the massive problem road transfer of bulk steel structures and the perennial problem of the adequacy of narrow country roads generally poorly maintained by impoverished rural Local Councils.

5. Of course, after 20-25 years the original landowner may have sold his property or younger members of the family may have taken it over. Someone who eventually owns the property for a shorter period than the 20-25 years may not appreciate having the reduced income from the turbines and yet still have to pay for decommissioning.

6. The only sensible and logical safeguard is to legislate for the prepayment of a bond by the energy company. This type of payment is now common procedure within the mining industry. At the Council community meeting (28/11/2011) Infigen's Senior Development Officer stated that there was no need for a bond because, unlike the mining industry, little was required in the way of rehabilitation. However the process of dismantling will require significant logistical organisation: cranes, trucks (presumably the same RAVs that were required to bring the wind turbine on site - unless the wind turbine and its parts are dismembered into smaller units), new upgrading of roads and access tracks which conceivably would have fallen back to their rural, and secondary road status. The dismantling of cabling, overhead transmission lines and hazardous material would require specialist involvement.

7. J. Schneider in his report concludes:

"To ensure funds are available to the Blayney Shire Council to cover costs of decommissioning, Flyers Creek Wind Farm developers should post a surety bond or equivalent financial security instrument that would be in place on or before the date thirty (30) days after the commencement of pouring of concrete for the first wind turbine foundation, and would be in place for the life of the project. The security would be renewed by FCWF annually, or another schedule agreed to by the Blayney Shire Council and the Flyers Creek Wind Farm developers.

"The amount of the financial security should be at least $100,000 per turbine based on the figures demonstrated above, and as referenced to the requirements in the United States of America. Terms of the security should include:
- Designation of Blayney Shire Council as beneficiary;
- Terms under which funds would be dispersed;
- A provision that Blayney Shire Council could draw 50% of the funds if FCWF does not renew the security instrument prior to its expiration date; and
- An escalating factor to ensure that the full costs are covered when decommissioning occurs and/or abandonment of the project.

"Every three years an independent engineering firm agreed to by both parties, will review the nett decommissioning costs in a report to the Shire Council. Any adjustment to the security value recommended by the engineer's report would be in place within ninety (90) days of delivery of the report to Blayney Shire Council."

This very important aspect of the IWT life cycle has been largely ignored to date. It is the DoPI's responsibility to ensure that decommissioning, and the regulations and requirement pertaining to it, are as important in the approval process as the commissioning itself. It has obviously been put in the "too hard basket" but this urgently needs to be addressed.

Yours faithfully,

Dr. Colleen J. Watts OAM

The Director General,
Department of Planning & Infrastructure,
32 Bridge Street,
SYDNEY NSW 2000

Dear Sir,

Re: PROPOSED BODANGORA WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT

I wish to register my objection to Bodangora Wind Farm currently before the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for approval.

I make the following comments relating to Chapter 11 on Noise:

1. The industrial wind turbine (IWT) chosen by Master Plan (Infigen's environmental consultant) is Vestas V112 which is a 3 MW turbine. The Environmental Assessment (EA) states that Bodangora Wind Farm will have 33 turbines with a total installed capacity of 120MW. This would mean that each IWT will have to deliver 3.63 MW. Despite the fact that Sonus state the Vestas V112 is being used as model because it will overestimate the characteristics of the eventual IWT installed and thereby provide conservative modelling, it would appear that any 3 MW turbine will "under represent" the eventual model that will be used, introducing significant sources of error.

2. The Sonus report discusses the World Health Organisation's (WHO) position on noise and the fact that the Bodangora Wind Farm will adhere to the WHO recommendations. WHO allows for a maximum indoor level of 30 dB(A) and because of attenuation this translates to 45 dB(A) with windows open and 52 dB(A) with windows closed.

Tables 4 and 5 of the Sonus report (page 6) shows background noise measured during the day and at night. It would seem that the figures obtained are considered to be acceptable because it is possible to subtract 15 dB(A) (windows open) or 22 dB(A) (windows closed) and still obtain a figure for acceptable night-time noise.

However "It is important to note that the use of a 45 dB(A) target outside noise level will not be adequate to protect sleep if the attenuation of sound from outside a home to inside a bedroom is less than 15 dB(A). From measurements we have completed recently, the best attenuation achieved for bedrooms with open windows in three different typical Australian weather board properties on farms was at most 5 dB(A) and was more typically 3 dB(A)." (Huson & Associates (2011) Review Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Aurecon for Flyers Creek Wind Farm. In Flyers Creek Wind Turbine Awareness Group Inc. Submission to Department of Planning & Infrastructure. Appendix 3).

There has been no attempt by Sonus to measure background noise within houses and no attempt to model it convincingly. If attenuation of noise is reduced to 3-5 dB(A) then noise received within bedrooms will be above acceptable levels.

3. The background noise monitoring was conducted between 16th February and 9th March 2011. This short period produces results which are not representative and thus unsuitable for modelling noise levels. Generally background noise is different in winter than summer. For instance cicadas are active in the summer and will contribute to background noise. Winter often produces temperature inversions often resulting in noise travelling further with reduced attenuation.

4. There is no measurement of prediction of tonality. This important characteristic has been completely ignored.

5. Effective monitoring and compliance regimes must be imposed by the planning authority at the outset.

6. The issue of infrasound has been dealt with very dismissively. Despite assurances to the contrary modern IWTs produce little or no infrasound, it has been measured in recent work both in Australia and overseas. See for instance "Peer review of acoustic assessment Flyers Creek Wind Farm, 2011 - The Acoustic Group Pty Ltd." (In Flyers Creek Wind Turbine Awareness Group Inc. Submission to Department of Planning & Infrastructure. Appendix 2). Moreover, recent research overseas is casting doubt on 65 dB(C) for daytime and 60 dB (C) for night-time being suitable limits for infrasound. This is one of the criticisms of the NSW Draft Guidelines for Wind Farms.

7. It is fatuous, as Sonus has done, to discuss the fact that examples of "natural" infrasound abound and that the population generally is not affected. Noise characteristics are important and noise or infrasound from IWTs is often very annoying and can result in sleep disturbance and consequent health sequelae.

8. I refer to Flyers Creek Wind Turbine Awareness Group's Submission to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure on the Proposed Flyers Creek Wind Farm MP08-0252 (2011) which stated:

Despite wind energy company denial there is now a considerable, and growing, body of work that has found that wind turbines do produce infrasound. Low frequency sound is likely produced by wind turbines with the displacement of air by the blades and the turbulence around the blade surface; and as the turbines grow larger the potential to produce infrasound increases. In fact results confirm the hypothesis that the spectrum of wind turbine noise moves down in frequency with increasing turbine size. Compared to medium and high frequencies, low frequency levels decay slowly with distance, are less attenuated by conventionally designed structures (such as homes), cause certain building material to vibrate and can sometimes resonate with rooms, thereby undergoing amplification. Thus infrasound is more likely to be an indoor problem rather than an outdoor. Recent work in Europe has found that infrasound can be measured out to 8-11 kilometres. This has significant implications for the determination of a setback distance of residences from wind turbines.


Infrasound, like audible sound, will affect people in different ways, both as to susceptibility (about 15% of the population exhibit increased noise sensitivity) and symptoms (type and degree). The difference between audible sound and infrasound is that infrasound is felt rather than heard. It manifests as those health impacts associated with audible sound but additionally health effects can include sensations of fullness, pressure, vibration or tinnitus, tiredness and malaise.

Lower frequencies correspond to resonating frequencies of our body organs and in their presence encourage them to vibrate. Shepherd notes that the head resonates at 20-30 Hertz and the abdomen at 4-8 Hertz. The following table illustrates the effects of chronic low frequency vibration and subsequent physiological consequences.

Table 5.1: Psychological and physiological sequelae resulting from low frequency vibration

Frequency of vibration
Symptoms
4 - 9 Hz Feeling of discomfort
5 - 7 Hz Chest pains
10 - 18 Hz Urge to urinate
13 - 20 Hz Head aches

There has been considerable research published in recent years confirming the health impacts of infrasound from wind turbines.

The WHO has stated:

"....a large proportion of low-frequency components in noise may increase the adverse effects on health.... It should be noted that the low frequency noise, for example, from ventilation systems, can disturb rest and sleep even at low sound pressure level...Special attention should be given to: noise sources in an environment with low background sound levels; combinations of noise and vibrations; and to noise sources with low-frequency components."

And further:

"The evidence on low frequency noise is sufficiently strong to warrant immediate concern...Health effects due to low frequency components in noise is estimated to be more severe than for community noises in general".

(References for this excerpt from the FCWTAG Submission are listed in this original document).

A proper assessment of noise and its likely impacts on IWT neighbours is not surprisingly missing from the Bodangora Wind Farm Environmental Assessment and the fact that it is not required under the current Part 3A process and the 2003 SA Wind Farm Guidelines is a travesty. In fact it also seems in large part to be missing from the Draft NSW Wind Farm Guidelines.

It is to be hoped that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure will ensure that accurate monitoring will be undertaken after commissioning of the wind farm (should it be approved) and that there will be a robust process whereby complaints are dealt with and the IWTs can be shut down should they be found to be non-compliant and outside their conditions of consent to operate.

Yours faithfully,




Dr. Alan C. Watts OAM

As poropoonents we are satisfild that no neighbours houses are within 2 kms. We have relied on NSW Health Informationl on both health and noise to be well within world limits.
We are satisfied that 40 wind turbines located on about 10,000 to 15,000 acres will not unduly effect the visual aspect.

As a proponent of the Bodangora wind farm I am satisfied that the turbines have been placed 2 kms or more away from a neighbouring property. It employs around 5 staff for the operations and maintenence of the tubines. Provides annual payment to the farmers which is then injected back into the local community and road access will improve. I am satisfied that this is a new way of producing clean energy and it has little impact on the flora and fauna of the area.

Dear Sir,
My property is with in 2.3 Km from the turbine number 43.
Visual Amenity, majority of the turbines will be seen from the above property shown in the photomontages.

Blade glint and Shadow flicker will be visual nuisance caused be the sun.
Propergation of noise generated by the turbine,such as infrasoundand the modulation factor have not been given by the proponent as a function of the wind velocity if this can not by done then there should be a moratorium on wind farms.
Property values many property holders face the prosect of loss in property values due to noise,health and visual impacts.
Communications,TV Reception .the area is covered by transmitters from MT Canobolas and MT Cenn Curiach .From digital switch over measurements the reception from both transmitter sites is not good.The MER is low. The fill in transmitter from Wellington shows the same results. With the wind farm interference will be present resulting in loss of picture and sound and will be unwatchable.
I hold a licence VK2IQ .The turbines associated with the wind farm will interfere with my transmission in the UHF and Micro wave bands due to the direct line to the turbines
I pay a licence fee to to address the interference factor.
A precedet has been set by the Goyder council by rejecting the Tru Energy proposal at Stony Gap, as a result of noise related health .


Len Stukatsch

Department of planning PO Box 39 Sydney 2001

I wish to make an objection to the proposed Bodangora wind farm by the proponent Bodangora Wind Farm pty ltd, Infigen Energy. Application number 10_0157
* There has been no community consultation; this was evident during the public meeting held by the Bodangora Wind Turbine Awareness Group.

* The proponent has not addressed any concerns relating to the community.
* The Proponents Environmental Assessment is poorly completed, full of mistakes, incomplete and lacking both scientific data and surveys.
* The proponent's survey at Comobella Hall is not accurate of the local opinion.
* The Proponent has lied on several occasions to local community members including thoughs who live directly opposite the proposed project
* The Ea has not mention health effects in its submission of the EA.

* The Noise Assessment has not been completed to industry standards.

* The EA does not comply with the director generals requirements

The Bodangora wind farm should be rejected.

Can the proponent guarantee that there will be no adverse health effects on any individual within or surrounding the project area?

I object to the proposed Bodangora wind farm on the grounds
of safety to the local and wider community.
As a pilot and also an aviation support person with the RFS it puts crews and myself under immense pressure with the potential 33 turbine wind farm.
Due to the nature of the topography in the area pilots will have to negotiate with rising,rugged terrain,smoke,thermals,down drafts and at least 8 turbines above Mount Bodangora. It is imperative that ground crews can get support from the air.
By placing a wind farm at Bodangora it jeopardizes the lives of pilots,residents fire crews,farmers,livestock and wildlife to a potentially much larger fire. Not to mention infrastructure,new,old and historic.
This will lead to wider distruction and remifications not just for Bodangora but the wider community.

I object to the proposed Bodangora Wind Farm Project because of the lack of community consultation on the matter and the fact that the Environmental Assessment for the project is incomplete.

Can the proponent guarantee that there will be no adverse health effects on any individual in or surrounding the project area?

Refer attached files

Please see letter scanned and attached.

Please see scanned attachments.

See attached file