Crookwell 3 Wind Farm

see attached

see attached

see attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attachment

See attached

The project represents an excessive cumulative impact in a small and very scenic area (Pejar Dam) -- already 56 turbines in Crookwell I and II. Very strong local opposition from all impacted near-neighbours -- health impacts, loss of property value, scenic enjoyment, etc. Ignores U.,L.S. wind farm D.C.P., as well as NSW Draft Guidelines. The E.A. lacks specifity in many areas -- eg,"up to" number of turbines, capacity of turbines, height of turbines, etc. No sound studies at affected residences done -- or published. Etc. etc.

My family is forced to become"wind factory refugees" whenever finances allow. 80% of our neighbors have left at least 2 years ago. Financially we cannot. Its come to the stage that we may have to walk away as we cannot sleep due to low level vibrations (infrasound) that we experience (sometimes for 50-60 hrs straight). I feel that the blades passing the towers makes them vibrate like a huge tuning fork.
The wind companies ignore and deny the existance of any peer revued studies regarding infrasound. They have a nonmedical doctor as their spokesman.
Worst of all they take power from the grid more than 80% of the time and the billions in subsidies they receive will bankrupt the country for generations.

Regards XXXXXX

I object to to the Crookwell windfarm 3 being proposed in Upper Lachlan Shire near Roslyn.

1. It will severely impact the views in the beautiful views local area. The

2. Woodhouselee road is a local road & is not up to standard for large industrial vehicles to use. It is very unsafe. I travel to Roslyn every second week & I come across some very scary circumstances due to the fog, animals and a very poor road surface. Woodhouselee road at Roslyn has 2kms of dirt road. Woodhouselee road will service more traffic going into Crookwell & the surface can not handle the amount of traffic along this stretch of dirt road.

3. The total number of wind turbines for the submission to very excessive for the size of the land being requested.

4. In January 2013, this area had extreme fire danger. The works that goes into building this major project is an extreme fire threat to the local community.

Please listen to the local community on this application.

It is my view that the C3 East of this project should be not approved as it is too close to a lot of lifestyle blocks in the Wayo and Woodhouselee Areas.

SUBMISSION TO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & INFRASTRUCTURE
CROOKWELL 3 Application No. MP 10_0034


2 February 2013
Jennifer Price-Jones
Chairperson
Crookwell District Landscape Guardians Inc.
PO Box 175, Crookwell NSW 2583

Personally of :
"Glan Aber"
17 Glan Aber Rd, Crookwell 2583



Major Projects Assessment
Department of Planning & Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Attention: Anna Timbrell




I am the Chairperson of the Crookwell District Landscape Guardians Inc., a large, local community group - the charter of which is to protect the rural landscape and amenity of the area. I submit that this development's Environmental Impact Statement presents many aspects which greatly concern my members.
The Crookwell District Landscape Guardians Inc. opposes the Crookwell 3 Windfarm development on the following grounds.


FIRE

The Crookwell area was directly affected by bushfires during recent weeks. It was due to the employment of aerial water bombing that houses and large numbers of stock were not lost in these fires.

The EIS for the Crookwell 3 windfarm development ACKNOWLEDGES that aerial water bombing will NOT be able to be employed near the turbines.

This has serious repercussions for fighting fires on properties near the development as well as the host properties.

Not only does this mean that the houses and stock on host residences could be left to the mercy of bushfire, but the houses, stock and perhaps lives of residents of NON HOST properties are at great risk of destruction as the result of turbines being built in fire prone areas.

We have been told that some fire captains will not instruct their crews to fight fires in the vicinity of turbines whether the turbines are operating or not and yet the CDPL consultants state that "there are adequate ground-based fire-fighting methods available". The credibility of such statements is highly questionable.

The consequence of this development being approved is that large tracts of land in this area would left without adequate fire fighting protection.

It is unconscionable for a state government authority to allow residents to be placed in this degree of potential danger.

IMPACTS

Visual
The consultant employed by CDPL to assess the visual impact of the development states:
"...The Crookwell 3 East site would have a potential High or Moderate to High visual impact on 19 residential view locations within the Crookwell 3 wind farm 5km viewshed, and that the South site would have a potential High or Moderate to High visual impact on 10 residential view locations within the Crookwell 3 wind farm 5km viewshed...".
Yet its conclusion is that there is no serious visual impact.

Some of the local residents (members of the Crookwell District Landscape Guardians Inc.) who fall within the areas where the visual impact is assessed as "High" or "Moderate to High" DO NOT AGREE that this impact is not serious and can be disregarded.
The EA states that the turbines, when blades are at their zenith, will be 152m tall. The proposed Crookwell 3 East turbines are to be constructed on a ridgeline. These structures will obviously DOMINATE the landscape view and tower over people's homes - to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Further, to suggest that the view of such massively high structures can be eradicated by planting a tree screen is ludicrous!

Devaluation
The members of Crookwell District Landscape Guardians who live in proximity to the proposed Crookwell 3 wind turbine development are greatly concerned about the devaluation of their property as the result of the development.
It is known that some councils within the West Gippsland area of Victoria have recently reduced the rated value of properties which are located near wind turbine developments. Further, the well respected National Sales Manager of Elders Rural Services Australia Ltd, Shane McIntyre, wrote in 2011 that property values DEFINITELY diminished as a result of proximity to wind turbine development. (See Appendix 1 )

Telecommunications
It is apparent, and indeed recognised in the EA ( Appendix 11) that many local residents will have their digital TV, radio and mobile phone reception adversely effected by the introduction of the Crookwell 3 wind turbines. In rural communities, especially those which are fire prone and reliant on mobile communication, this is totally unacceptable.
The positioning of residents' homes in relation to the development in Appendix 11 Telecommunications Impact Assessment is INACCURATE and is typical of the lack of attention to details which directly affect local residents and their ability to accurately assess the impact of the development on their lives. One resident is shown to reside in the middle of a road much further
from any turbine than is the case in reality and ALL other residences are inaccurately positioned.

THIS TYPE OF DISREGARD OF PRESENTING RESIDENTS WITH CORRECT INFORMATION ON WHICH TO BASE AN ASSESSMENT IS OUTRAGEOUS.

Cumulative Effect
The EA refers to the cumulative effects of Crookwell 1,2 and 3 wind turbine developments. But the total cumulative effects are the result of the additional wind developments in the area - local residents are aware of illustrations of windfarm proposals to the north as well as the proposed wind development in Golspie to the north , the approved wind development in Taralga to the north east, the approved Gullen Range development to the south west and the approved Cullarin development and the proposed Collector development to the south.
The cumulative effect for local residents will be the result of 1,000 or more turbines not of 100.

Human Health
The NSW DoP&I is well aware of the many published works by internationally renowned practitioners which outline the negative effects of audible noise and subsonic noise (infrasound) on human health. This department has been provided with these numerous references in the past. For the developer CDPL to suggest that there is a lack of evidence concerning this issue is disingenuous. The developer MUST know that the NMHRC (on which it bases its disregard of human health impacts - Rapid Review 2010) has instigated a further wider ranging investigation of the negative impacts of wind turbines. This revised NMHRC statement is due in May 2013.
The developer's attitude of ignoring the evidence that wind turbines have an adverse effect on the health of those who live and work near them is comparable to the sentiments expressed in the past by advocates of the tobacco and asbestos industries.
Victoria has legislated against turbines being constructed within 2 km of residences and the Draft NSW Wind Farm Planning Guidelines provide similar restrictions. Scientific research suggests that negative health impacts can occur beyond 2kms from a turbine and therefore the Crookwell 3 wind turbine development poses serious health risks to a number of local residents. Despite all of this, the developer, CDPL, is proposing to construct turbines within 2kms of residences and many more within 3kms.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

With reference to the concerns of the local community, the EA lists the major criticisms of the developer and the developer's response and approach in section 23.5 Key Issues Identified Table 27. As far as the Crookwell District Landscape Guardians is concerned the noted list of concerns is incomplete and the listed approach in many categories is totally inadequate.
The concern regarding misleading photomontages has NOT been overcome as the same process is in evidence as was the case for the Crookwell 2 modification photomontages.

I am providing as Appendix 2 to this submission, notes referring to a meeting of community members with a representative of CDPL written by one attendee and approved by many others. In this document is evidence of the CDPL representative's inability to adequately provide information and his unwillingness to deal professionally with community members.

As the Chairperson of the largest community group in this area, and a group which deals with community concern with environmental and rural amenity issues, I would have thought it essential that CDPL sought out a meeting with myself or other representatives of the Crookwell District Landscape Guardians Inc. THEY HAVE MADE NO SUCH APPROACHES.

The Supplementary Director -General's Requirements for Crookwell 3 Windfarm (16/8/2011) states:
1. a comprehensive, detailed and genuine community consultation and engagement process must be undertaken. This process must ensure that the community is both informed of the proposal and is actively engaged in issues of concem to them, and is given ample opportunity to provide its views on the proposal. Sufficient information must be provided to the community so that it has a good understanding of what is being proposed and of the impacts. There should be a particular focus on those non wind farm associated community members who live in proximity to the site;
2. the Environmental Assessment must clearly document and provide details and evidence of the consultation process and who was consulted with;
3. all issues raised during the consultation process must be clearly identified and tabulated in the Environmental Assessment; and
4. the Environmental Assessment must state how the identífied issues have been addressed, and how they have informed the proposal as presented in the Environmental Assessment. ln particular, the Environmental Assessment must state how the community's issues have been responded to.

I submit that the developer has not fulfilled these requirements and that the developer should NOT be in a position to have this application assessed by the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure. Indeed, the Director General's Supplementary Requirements indicate that until it had been ascertained that requirements 1 - 4 had been adequately fulfilled, the EA should NOT have been released for public exhibition.
The Supplementary Director -General's Requirements for Crookwell 3 Windfarm (16/8/2011) states:
I wish to emphasise that the Department will review compliance with these, and other, requirements during its adequacy review of the Environmental Assessment. lf it does not adequately respond to these requirements it will not be accepted as adequate for public exhibition.

Simply taking the developers word that compliance had occurred is NOT sufficient to assure compliance!

The Crookwell District Landscape Guardians Inc. opposes the approval of the Crookwell 3Windfarm Application No. MP 10_0034 on the grounds of :

Fire impacts
Visual impacts
Devaluation impacts
Telecommunications impacts
Cumulative effect impacts
Health impacts
Inadequate community consultation processes




Jennifer Price-Jones

Chairperson Crookwell District Landscape Guardians Inc.


Postal : PO Box 146 Crookwell 2583
Email : [email protected]
Phone : 02 48 443120













Appendix 1 : Letter Re land Devaluation
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:39 AM
Subject: RE: Wind farm affect on land values

Dear Bryan,

I have been a Licensed Estate Agent for 30 years, specialising in the sale of Rural property, essentially all over Australia, with an emphasis on Victoria and the Riverina. I have held senior Management positions with the largest Rural real estate Companies in Australia. In recent years the growth of activity and the actuality of wind towers throughout the Victorian rural landscape has been significant.

Challicum Hills, Coddrington, and Mt Mitchell have all emerged as large scale wind farms, located on the tops of the low hill country, interrupting the landscape for many kilometres.

Of significant importance, is the negative effect on the value of adjoining lands where wind towers have been erected. Visually, the towers are seen by the majority of the market as repulsive. Audibly, the towers effect the stillness a property enjoys, in particular the resonating tones in the night, invading serenity of the adjoining lands.

A proliferation of wind towers adjacent to a property has the same effect as high voltage power lines, rubbish tips, piggeries, hatcheries, and sewage treatment plants, in that , if buyers are given a choice, they choose not to be near any of these impediments to value.

The ultimate effect is that the number of buyers willing to endure these structures is significantly less than if the structures were not there. This logically has a detrimental effect on the final price of the adjoining lands.

Experts assess the loss of value to be in excess of 30% and sometimes up to half.

My personal experience is that when an enquiry (potential buyer) becomes aware of the presence of wind towers, or the possibility of wind towers in the immediate district of a property advertised for sale, the "fall out" of buyers is major. Very few go on to inspect the property, and even fewer consider s purchase. On the remote chance they wish to purchase, they seek a significant reduction in the price.

There is absolutely no doubt, that the value of lands adjacent t wind towers falls significantly in value. The ambience of a rural property is important, and oftentimes, the sole reason why a purchaser selects a particular area or district. The imposition of wind towers, destroys this ambience forever.

Shane McIntyre
National Sales Manager
Elders Rural Services Australia Limited

Appendix 2
Note Re Community Meeting
Claiming that the removal of obstacles in the electricity market which had delayed the commencement of Crookwell 2 and Crookwell 3, now made them viable, Union Fenosa on 10 July advertised in the Crookwell Gazette a community meeting to be held on Friday 13 July to invite questions.

Initially, the meeting was to be strictly one on one with requests for the inclusion of other interested parties denied. Fifteen minute slots were allocated by appointment.

In the event, the attendance of so many concerned citizens on the day meant that the earlier format had to be abandoned and a general meeting was held.

The convenor was Mr Thomas Mitchell, a Union Fenosa representative.

The meeting commenced at 3.15 pm.

From the outset it became clear that Mr Mitchell would be uncooperative and was not interested in engaging with the group. The meeting was poorly chaired and unstructured, made the more so by Mr Mitchell's evasive behaviour and his method of diverting from one concerned resident's question to another to avoid answering questions.

When confronted with a photo montage supplied to a resident, depicting a scene where 90 metre towers were all but invisible, Mr Mitchell suggested that it may not have been the photo provided to the Department of Planning.

When asked by an affected resident to be given the results of sound tests conducted on his property 4 years ago, Mr Mitchell refused.

When asked for clarity by a resident who had waited 8 years for a resolution on the wind farm, to build a dwelling on an approved subdivision, Mr Mitchell offered no clarity or comfort.

Mr Mitchell repeatedly dismissed connections between human health and wind farm noise even when presented with evidence from eminent researchers. He later acknowledged that a study by the Canadian government into health effects " Was a good thing, because it would bring certainty", suggesting the question is open. This raised discussion on the deferment of the projects until the health studies are complete, but Mr Mitchell maintained the company line which rejects health effects. He was told by the meeting that he and the company were on notice that punitive damages would be sought in the event that health issues arise from the developments, as they surely would.

Mr Mitchell said Australia's noise guidelines are the world's toughest, but seemed unaware of jurisdictions in Europe which were more strict.

When asked for the paid up capital of Union Fenosa Australia, Mr Mitchell declined to give it on the basis it was only requested to provide information on how much the company could be sued for. When pressed, he later agreed to provide it.

Mr Mitchell was asked what would be the closest distance between a turbine and a dwelling under the proposals. He declined to answer. He subsequently agreed to take the question on notice.

In summary Mr Mitchell appeared completely disingenuous throughout. He seemed uninformed and to know less than his audience. Several times he sought to tell residents what they already knew. He frequently obfuscated. Where possible he conveniently hid behind state and local governments. When it was pointed out to him that Union Fenosa had ignored the Upper Lachlan 2 kilometre set-back requirements for wind turbines he made no comment.

When the meeting sought better ways to communicate with the company, Mr Mitchell was disinterested.

After nearly three hours, Mr Mitchell concluded by saying he had expected the meeting to be more about job applications even though there was nothing in the advertisement or personal contacts with him which would have alerted residents that this was the purpose. The meeting was a sham, but presumably it ticked a box.

The meeting terminated at 5.40 pm.

Those who attended the meeting had their prejudices confirmed that they are dealing with a company that is secretive and unprincipled, which seeks to play hosts against neighbours and, agnostic town residents against effected farmers.

SUBMISSION TO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & INFRASTRUCTURE
CROOKWELL 3 Application No. MP 10_0034


2 February 2013
Humphrey Price-Jones

Personally of :
"Glan Aber"
17 Glan Aber Rd, Crookwell 2583

Postal : PO Box 146 Crookwell 2583
Email : [email protected]
Phone : (02) 48 443120




Major Projects Assessment
Department of Planning & Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Attention: Anna Timbrell




PREAMBLE
I have lived in the Crookwell area for over 40 years and for 35 years owned and worked a beef cattle property in Kialla. I am an ornithologist, (specializing in birds of prey) internationally recognised wildlife artist, author and have also won major prizes for traditional landscape painting.

Over the last 11 years I have spent many hundreds of hours researching industrial wind turbine developments. (I am the President of the NSW Landscape Guardians Inc and Spokesperson for the Crookwell District Landscape Guardians Inc.) I have also observed the devastating effects that inappropriately sited wind turbine developments have had on, and are having on, families living in proximity to wind farms. Such developments have had a horrendous impact on rural communities, destroying their once cohesive nature.

In a number of meetings with officers of the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (henceforth DoP&I) I have been made aware of the unconcealed bias that has been unashamedly revealed in support of wind turbine developers.

Myself and others have spent many hours researching and writing submissions in response to fundamentally flawed EISs / EAs only to have the contents of these submissions ignored. When it has been proved that information presented in these EISs / EAs is incorrect or misleading, I have been told by differing officers of the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure that the said information MUST be correct because "... the developer said so".

Claims made by developers as to the benefits of industrial wind turbines are as disingenuous as they are numerous but, despite the evidence refuting these claims, the DoP&I ignores it. One can only wonder why.


VISUAL IMPACT
Photomontages presented in the document are deliberately designed to give a totally false impression of the impact the turbines will have on the landscape.
Wind turbines do not become part of a rural landscape or even features of a rural landscape - they completely dominate it.

Volume 1 pg 85 contains this paragraph :
"As a result it is not considered that the wind farm proposal would have an unreasonable impact on the rural character of the landscape."

The suggestion that 30 turbines over 130m tall built on ridgelines on the very top of the Great Dividing Range would not have an unreasonable impact on the rural landscape is patently ridiculous.
Industrial wind turbine developments are greater in extent than any other industrial constructions erected in NSW, some having a "view shed" of thousands of square kilometres. This is predominately due to the height of modern turbines and their location on high ridgelines. The generation of electricity is not agriculture.

In this development application some turbines will be placed within 2kms of non host residences and very close to boundary fences of non host properties. To suggest that industrial structures as high as 45 storey skyscrapers will not have an "unreasonable" impact on non host residents is further evidence of the ludicrous nature of statements made by developers which in the past have been accepted by the DoP&I.

I submit that statements in this EA such as the one above are indicative of the entire section dealing with visual impact and landscape values.
The visual value of a landscape is not the only feature which affects those who live in it - the landscape has a cultural, social, historic, emotional and economic value for these residents. The EA does not take the impact of these values into account when assessing the effect of this massive, industrial development on local residents.
People in this area of the Southern Tablelands are well aware of the impact that giant industrial structures (wind turbines) have had on their landscape.


KEY STATISTICS
The key statistics of the proposed Crookwell 3 turbine development do not stand scrutiny.
There is NO empirical evidence to prove that this development will supply 33,225 households - a population of 86,385 and will reduce CO2 emissions equivalent to the removal of 48,188 cars from the road.
Recent studies in Victoria and others in Germany indicate that wind turbine developments have a MINOR IF ANY effect in reducing CO2emissions. The existing Crookwell 1 turbines are operating at approx. 11% of their stated capacity and frequently stand idle, becalmed due to lack of wind. This, despite the fact that they have been erected at higher altitude than most of the turbines planned for Crookwell 3.

COMMUNITY ATTITUDES
The local survey quoted in the EA, conducted in 2008, is out of date. If a similar survey were held today the results would be drastically different. This is evidenced by a 2012 survey of community attitudes to wind turbine development conducted in the nearby area of Collector which showed overwhelming opposition to wind turbine development.
The community of the Upper Lachlan Shire is now far better informed and realise that property values in the vicinity of wind turbines are greatly reduced, that people can be forced off their land and out of their homes as the result of noise and health impacts - example : Waubra Victoria, Waterloo South Australia and many others.
Locally people's health has been adversely affected in the vicinity of the Cullerin development and the Capital development. This has been well documented and brought to the attention of the DoP&I.
Union Fenosa - Crookwell Development Pty Ltd has been provided with abundant evidence of the opposition that local residents have toward the Crookwell 3 development. For it to suggest otherwise and quote out of date statistics is yet another example of its disingenuous practices.

The community consultation process conducted by CDPL was at best hopelessly inadequate and at its worst a complete sham, demonstrating an indifference to the local population and an outstanding ignorance of some aspects of the intended project and its impact on the local area.

The NSW Landscape Guardians and the Crookwell District Landscape Guardians were NOT approached by the developer and consequently their input was not sought. This is indicative of the lack of genuine community consultation on behalf of the developer.

As Spokesperson of the Crookwell District Landscape Guardians Inc. (and a local resident) I represent a large number of local residents who are concerned about the environmental / amenity impacts of the Crookwell 3 wind turbine development. I applied for membership of the Crookwell 3 windfarm Community Consultative Committee as a community member / stakeholder. This application was refused despite the fact that 2 potential positions are still available on the committee. It would appear that developer's behaviour in this matter is in contravention to the intention of the Draft NSW Planning Guidelines Windfarms.

The EA states that community consultation involved :
gathering feedback from the community and stakeholders about their concerns and interests, which can subsequently be addressed in the approvals process.

I provide as Appendix 1 notes taken by a community member at one such "consultation" meeting (and confirmed by other attendees) which outlines the inappropriate response of CDPL representative when community members tried to express their concerns and ask pertinent questions.

FAUNA
In the Ecological Assessment produced by Anderson Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd. It is admitted that :
"In relation to raptors and owls these groups have potential to be impacted. Raptors such as the Whistling Kite and Wedge-tailed Eagle have potential to be impacted as they spend much of their time on the wing in thermals at similar heights to the rotor blades."

But discounts any serious impact on the grounds that :
"These groups (raptors and owls) have excellent sight and can detect the smallest of movements at ranges of up to 500 metres as they forage on small to large
native ground and arboreal mammals and birds (pers. obs). The likelihood of these species not detecting such a large movement as a turbine blade is extremely low and potential losses to these groups is unlikely to be significant. Low pressure air at the blade tips would be unlikely to impact these groups due to their high levels of sensory perception in relation to site and air pressure awareness as they utilise thermals."

This is patently untrue as any raptor specialist would know. Please note my preamble which notes my ornithological history - of 45 years studying Australian bird species. Raptors are disproportionately represented in avian turbine deaths - for example Wedge-tailed Eagle deaths at Woolnorth, Tasmania, Golden Eagle deaths at wind farms in Scotland and the USA, White-tailed Sea Eagle deaths in Scandinavia and Griffin Vulture deaths at wind turbine developments in Spain. Large raptor species are particularly vulnerable due to their very low replacement rates, therefore a relatively small number of fatalities can dramatically affect local and regional populations.

The proposed site is generally poor in biodiversity, however studying the site in virtual isolation is invalid as it is bordered by rich habitat.
The Ecological Assessment produced by Anderson Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd. States :
"Pejar Dam, Lake Pejar and Lake Edward do not provide high quality
potential habitat for waterbird and migratory bird species due to their structural characteristics in not providing good nesting habitat. As such the risk of collisions to waterbirds and migratory species is unlikely to be significant. Indeed no significant flocks of waterbirds were seen during the surveys undertaken."

To suggest that 2 bodies of water , Lake Edward and Pejar Dam are not important waterbird habitat is incorrect. Prior to the recent drought, Pejar Dam was frequently populated by many hundreds of water fowl consisting of a large number of species, some of which are classified as vulnerable or endangered.
Lake Edward is a shallow, ephemeral lake providing important habitat for Painted Snipe and some migratory species eg Latham's Snipe. The majority of water fowl traveling between the 2 bodies of water very frequently fly at blade sweep height and frequently at night.

It is my considered opinion that the siting of the proposed wind turbines would cause considerable threat to birdlife and represent a hazard to raptor species (Australian Kestrels, Brown Falcons, Peregrine Falcons, Little Falcons and Wedge-tailed and Little Eagles) which frequently hunt at a height which makes them vulnerable to wind turbines.

I enclose a list of species associated with Lake Edward and Pejar Dam along with pertinent comments.


WATERBIRDS

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMENT

Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus Several pairs breed Pejar Dam
Little Grebe Podiceps ruficollis Breeds farm dams in area - very common Pejar
Dam
Hoary-headed Grebe Podiceps poliocephalus Frequently large rafts Pejar Dam
Dusky Moorhen Gallinula tenebrosa Common
Eurasian Coot Fulica atra Huge rafts Pejar Dam
Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo Common
Little Black Cormorant Phalacrocorax sulcirostris Frequent large flocks Pejar Dam
Little Pied Cormorant Phalacrocorax melanoleucos Common
Darter Anhinga rufa Frequent visitor Pejar Dam
Australian Pelican Pelecanus conspicillatus Frequent groups Pejar Dam
Pacific Heron Ardea pacifica Nomadic Pejar Dam / Lake Edward
White-faced Heron Ardea novaehollandiae Common
Great Egret Egretta alba Common visitor Pejar Dam / Lake Edward
Intermediate Egret Egretta intermedia Infrequent visitor
Australasian Bittern Botauius poiciloptilus Observed once
Sacred Ibis Threskiornis molucca Very common nomad
Straw-necked Ibis Threskiornis spinicollis Very common nomad
Royal Spoonbill Platalea regia Occasional visitor
Yellow-billed Spoonbill Platalea flavipes Fairly common visitor
Plumed Whistling- Duck Dendrocygna eytoni Occasional visitor Pejar Dam
Black Swan Cygnus atratus Breeding Pejar Dam
Australian Shell Duck Tadorna tadornoides Sometimes farm dams, Pejar Dam, Lake Edward
Wood Duck Chenonetta jubata Very common
Pink-eared Duck Malacorhynchus membranaceus Visits Lake Edward / Pejar Dam
Grey Teal Anas gubberifrons Breeding , frequently very large numbers Pejar /
Lake Edward
Chestnut Teal Anas castanea Occasionally large numbers
Black Duck Anas superciliosa Common resident
Australian Shoveler Anas rhynchotis Lake Edward, occasionally Pejar Dam
Hardhead Aythya australis Frequently large numbers Pejar Dam, frequently
common farm dams
Musk Duck Biziura lobata Pejar Dam has sometimes supported the largest
congregations I have observed on one water body
Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybrida Groups of between 25 and 100 occasionally
observed Pejar Dam
Silver Gull Larus navaehollandiae Frequent visitor
Black-fronted Dotterel Charadrius melanops Pejar Dam
Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles Common resident
Black-winged Stilt Himantopus leucocephalus Visitor Lake Edward/Pejar Dam
Latham's Snipe Gallinago hardwickii Summer visitor
White-bellied Sea Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster Occasional visitor, observed diving at Coot - Pejar
Dam




Whistling Kite Milvus sphenurus Patrols shoreline of Pejar Dam






RAPTORS

Not mentioned in EIS is that the area is relatively rich in raptors. The proposed site is extensively cleared of native timber but is frequented by a number of birds of prey including the following.


COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMENT

Black Shouldered Kite Elanus notatus Common nomadic
Whistling Kite Milvus sphenurus Frequently observed
Brown Goshawk Accipiter fasciatus Common - nests in remnants of native bushland
Grey Goshawk Accipiter novaehollandiae Very infrequent
Collared Sparrowhawk Accipiter cirrhocephalus Rare - some sightings
Little Eagle Hieraaetus morphnoides Frequently observed
Spotted Harrier Circus assimilis Occasional visitor
Marsh Harrier Circus approximans Hunt over proposed site, mainly spring and
autumn
Wedge-tailed Eagle Aquila audax Frequently hunt over proposed site
Brown Falcon Falco berigora Common Australian Kestrel Falco cenchroides Common
Little Falcon Falco longipennis Observed hunting over proposed site
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Occasionally observed
Black Falcon Falco subniger Several sightings over a number of years
(Lake Edward)




EMPLOYMENT
Wind turbine development does not create jobs it destroys jobs. Independent studies in Spain reached the conclusion that for every wind energy job 2.2 jobs were lost in the broader economy. A more recent study in Scotland found that each wind energy job cost the broader economy in excess of 3.5 jobs. Each 2 megawatt turbine will cost Australian taxpayers approx. $800,000 per annum in government payments.
There will not be an investment of approx. $90million to $100 million in the local economy as stated by the developer.

This development will have an adverse impact on the Upper Lachlan Shire's economy. This shire has proved to be increasingly attractive to people wishing to enjoy a rural lifestyle. The proliferation of wind turbine development in the area will deter such new residents and devalue the properties of residents in proximity to the proposed Crookwell 3 development. Further industrialization of the area by construction of huge wind turbines and associated infrastructure will be deter tourists who wish to escape their ever increasing industrial lifestyle and visit the Upper Lachlan Shire to enjoy its rural ambiance of historical villages and spectacular scenery.

HEALTH
The EA states that there are no negative health impacts related to wind turbines and uses the NMHRC RAPID REVIEW (2010) as the basis of this position. The developer conveniently ignores the fact that the NMHRC also stated at this time in its Release of NHMRC Public Statement: Wind Turbines and Health 2010 :
 "relevant authorities should take a precautionary approach; and
 people who believe they are experiencing any health problems should consult their GP promptly."
Even more importantly, the NMHRC acknowledged that the RAPID REVIEW was simply a review of papers and articles on the topic of wind turbines and human health and that further investigation was necessary.
Scientific literature on the possible health impact of wind farms is to be reviewed by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) in order to revise its public stance and identify areas needing further research.
The revised NHMRC statement is due in May 2013.

A list of recognised scientific reports on this matter is found as Appendix 2


CONCLUDING REMARKS
The experience that some of our members have had with Union Fenosa Wind Australia Pty Ltd representatives would lead any reasonable person to wonder about its competence and how it could be entrusted with a development of this scale.
It has taken a considerable amount of time and effort in order to trawl through the Crookwell 3 Windfarm Environmental Assessment document - much of which is misleading and displays a degree of ineptitude.

It is my firmly held belief that such documents should be the subject of a Review of Competence by some independent body. The fact that the Department of Planning can put an inadequate document such as this on public display and ask for people like our members to comment is extremely frustrating.
This frustration is exacerbated by the fact that many of our members consider that the Department of Planning, having accepted this document for public display, will take little notice of submissions no matter how considered and well presented they may be.
I respectfully request that the Department of Planning reject this project application after having given due consideration to the inadequacies of the EA and the adverse effects that this proposed development would have on :
landscape
fauna
residents' rural amenity
residents' working conditions
residents' health and
residents' property values
the area's cultural heritage
the area's future prosperity


Humphrey Price-Jones
Spokesperson Crookwell District Landscape Guardians Inc.
President NSW Landscape Guardians Inc.





APPENDIX 1
FILE NOTE OF UNION FENOSA COMMUNITY MEETING FRIDAY 13 JULY 2012 CROOKWELL HOTEL.

Claiming that the removal of obstacles in the electricity market which had delayed the commencement of Crookwell 2 and Crookwell 3, now made them viable, Union Fenosa on 10 July advertised in the Crookwell Gazette a community meeting to be held on Friday 13 July to invite questions.

Initially, the meeting was to be strictly one on one with requests for the inclusion of other interested parties denied. Fifteen minute slots were allocated by appointment.

In the event, the attendance of so many concerned citizens on the day meant that the earlier format had to be abandoned and a general meeting was held.

The convenor was Mr Thomas Mitchell, a Union Fenosa representative.

The meeting commenced at 3.15 pm.

From the outset it became clear that Mr Mitchell would be uncooperative and was not interested in engaging with the group. The meeting was poorly chaired and unstructured, made the more so by Mr Mitchell's evasive behaviour and his method of diverting from one concerned resident's question to another to avoid answering questions.

When confronted with a photo montage supplied to a resident, depicting a scene where 90 metre towers were all but invisible, Mr Mitchell suggested that it may not have been the photo provided to the Department of Planning.

When asked by an affected resident to be given the results of sound tests conducted on his property 4 years ago, Mr Mitchell refused.

When asked for clarity by a resident who had waited 8 years for a resolution on the wind farm, to build a dwelling on an approved subdivision, Mr Mitchell offered no clarity or comfort.

Mr Mitchell repeatedly dismissed connections between human health and wind farm noise even when presented with evidence from eminent researchers. He later acknowledged that a study by the Canadian government into health effects " Was a good thing, because it would bring certainty", suggesting the question is open. This raised discussion on the deferment of the projects until the health studies are complete, but Mr Mitchell maintained the company line which rejects health effects. He was told by the meeting that he and the company were on notice that punitive damages would be sought in the event that health issues arise from the developments, as they surely would.

Mr Mitchell said Australia's noise guidelines are the world's toughest, but seemed unaware of jurisdictions in Europe which were more strict.

When asked for the paid up capital of Union Fenosa Australia, Mr Mitchell declined to give it on the basis it was only requested to provide information on how much the company could be sued for. When pressed, he later agreed to provide it.

Mr Mitchell was asked what would be the closest distance between a turbine and a dwelling under the proposals. He declined to answer. He subsequently agreed to take the question on notice.

In summary Mr Mitchell appeared completely disingenuous throughout. He seemed uninformed and to know less than his audience. Several times he sought to tell residents what they already knew. He frequently obfuscated. Where possible he conveniently hid behind state and local governments. When it was pointed out to him that Union Fenosa had ignored the Upper Lachlan 2 kilometre set-back requirements for wind turbines he made no comment.

When the meeting sought better ways to communicate with the company, Mr Mitchell was disinterested.

After nearly three hours, Mr Mitchell concluded by saying he had expected the meeting to be more about job applications even though there was nothing in the advertisement or personal contacts with him which would have alerted residents that this was the purpose. The meeting was a sham, but presumably it ticked a box.

The meeting terminated at 5.40 pm.

Those who attended the meeting had their prejudices confirmed that they are dealing with a company that is secretive and unprincipled, which seeks to play hosts against neighbours and, agnostic town residents against effected farmers.









APPENDIX 2

HEALTH REFERENCES
Compiled By David Brooks
Vice President NSW Landscape Guardians Inc.
Chair Parkesbourne/Mummel Landscape Guardians Inc.

(i) Salt, A. N., and Hullar, T. E., 2010. Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds,
infrasound, and wind turbines. Hearing Research, 268 (1-2): 12-21
Professor Alec Salt and Assistant Professor Timothy Hullar are medical researchers in the
Department of Otolaryngology, School of Medicine, Washington University, St Louis,
Missouri, USA. In this paper Salt and Hullar show that infrasound from wind turbines (or
any other source) can impact on the human hearing system, even though it is inaudible.
Inaudible infrasound stimulates the Outer Hair Cells in the cochlea. A-weighted
measurements are inadequate to register the levels of such infrasound. They conclude: "The
concept that an infrasonic sound that cannot be heard can have no influence on inner ear
physiology is incorrect."

(ii) Salt, A. N., and Kaltenbach, J. A., 2011. Infrasound from Wind Turbines Could Affect
Humans. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 31: 296-302
James A. Kaltenbach is a medical researcher at the Lerner Research Institute/Head and Neck
Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. In this paper Salt and Kaltenbach develop the thesis that
inaudible wind turbine infrasound could impact upon the human hearing system. Inaudible
infrasound stimulates the Outer Hair Cells in the cochlea at 60 dBG. Moreover, they point
out: "Responses to infrasound reach the brain through pathways that do not involve
conscious hearing but instead may produce sensations of fullness, pressure, or tinnitus, or
have no sensation. Activation of subconscious pathways by infrasound could disturb sleep."
(Abstract) They state: "We can conclude that based on well-documented knowledge of the
physiology of the ear and its connections to the brain, it is scientifically possible that
infrasound from wind turbines could affect people living nearby." (p. 301)

(iii) Bronzaft, A. L., 2011. The Noise from Wind Turbines: Potential Adverse Impacts on
Children's Well-Being. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 31: 291-295
Arline L. Bronzaft, Ph.D. is Professor Emerita at the City University, New York, and a
consultant in environmental psychology. In this paper she rehearses the research findings that
"many studies have demonstrated that intrusive noises such as those from passing road
traffic, nearby rail systems, and overhead aircraft can adversely affect children's
cardiovascular system, memory, language development, and learning acquisition." On the
basis of this research into the adverse health effects of transportation noise she argues the
need for research into the potential adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines on
children's health, and on the health of their parents. (Abstract)

(iv)Phillips, C. V., 2011. Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence about the Health
Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents. Bulletin of Science,
Technology & Society 31: 303-315
Carl V. Phillips is an epidemiologist, currently Director of the epiphi Consulting Group, and
Director and Chief Scientist of the laboratory TobaccoHarmReduction.org., and formerly
Associate Professor in the Department of Public Health Sciences at the University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta. In this paper Dr Phillips states firmly: "There is overwhelming evidence
that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disordertype
diseases, at a nontrivial rate." He argues: "The bulk of the evidence takes the form of
thousands of adverse event reports. There is also a small amount of systematically gathered
data. The adverse event reports provide compelling evidence of the seriousness of the
problems and of causation in this case because of their volume, the ease of observing
exposure and outcome incidence, and case-crossover data." He rebuts the claims of wind
energy supporters that this evidence does not "count", that the outcomes are not "real"
diseases, etc. He concludes: "The attempts to deny the evidence cannot be seen as honest
scientific disagreement and represent either gross incompetence or intentional bias."
(Abstract)

(v) McMurtry, R. Y., 2011. Toward a Case Definition of Adverse Health Effects in the
Environs of Industrial Wind Turbines: Facilitating a Clinical Diagnosis. Bulletin of
Science, Technology & Society 31: 316-320
Robert Y. McMurtry, M.D., F.R.C.S.(C), F.A.C.S. is Orthopedic Consultant at St Joseph's
Health Centre, London, Ontario, Professor of Surgery at the University of Western Ontario,
Member of the Health Council of Canada, and Member of the Canadian Index of Wellbeing
Research Group. In this paper he comments: "Internationally, there are reports of adverse
health effects (AHE) in the environs of industrial wind turbines .... The symptoms being
reported are consistent internationally and are characterized by crossover findings or a
predictable appearance of signs and symptoms present with exposure to IWT [industrial wind
turbines] sound energy and amelioration when the exposure ceases. There is also a revealed
preference of victims to seek restoration away from their homes." McMurtry proposes a case
definition "that identifies the sine qua non diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of adverse health
effects in the environs of industrial wind turbines." (Abstract)

(vi)Shepherd, D., McBride, D., Welch, D., Dirks, K. N., and Hill, E. M., 2011. Evaluating
the Impact of Wind Turbine Noise on Health-related Quality of Life. Noise Health
13: 333-339
Daniel Shepherd is a researcher in the Department of Psychology, School of Public Health,
Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. David McBride is a researcher
in the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New
Zealand. David Welch and Kim N. Dirks are researchers in the School of Population Health,
University of Auckland. In this paper Shepherd, McBride, Welch, Dirks and Hill report a
"cross-sectional study comparing the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of individuals
residing in the proximity of a wind farm to those residing in a demographically matched area
sufficiently displaced from wind turbines." They find: "Statistically significant differences
were noted in some HRQOL domain scores, with residents living within 2 km of a turbine
installation reporting lower overall quality of life, physical quality of life, and environmental
quality of life. Those exposed to turbine noise also reported significantly lower sleep quality,
and rated their environment as less restful." They conclude: "Our data suggest that wind farm
noise can negatively impact facets of HRQOL." (Abstract)

(vii) Rand, R. W., Ambrose, S. E., and Krogh, C. M. E., 2011. Occupational Health and
Industrial Wind Turbines: A Case Study. Published online before print August 22,
2011, doi: 10.1177/0270467611417849, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society,
August 22, 2011

(viii) Shepherd, D., and Billington, R., 2011. Mitigating the Acoustic Impacts of Modern
Technologies: Acoustic, Health, and Psychosocial Factors Informing Wind Farm
Placement. Published online before print August 22, 2011, doi:
10.1177/0270467611417841, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, August 22,
2011

(ix)Havas, M., and Collig, D., 2011. Wind Turbines Make Waves: Why Some Residents
Near Wind Turbines Become Ill. Published online before print September 30, 2011,
doi: 10.1177/0270467611417852, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society,
September 30, 2011

(x) Pedersen, E., and Persson Waye, K, 2004. Perception and Annoyance due to Wind
Turbine Noise: a Dose-response Relationship. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 116 (6): 3460-70
Pedersen and Persson Waye are Scandanavian acousticians who have published much on
wind turbine noise in the last decade. The above paper is now well-known, and much
cited because it shows that wind turbine noise is more annoying than transportation noise
(aircraft, railways, road traffic). N.B. It is in relation to transportation noise that most
studies of noise-induced sleep disturbance have been carried out since the end of the
1960s (see Griefahn and Basner, 2011). This study also shows that 16% of surveyed
respondents who lived where calculated outdoor turbine noise exceeded 35 dBA (LAeq)
reported disturbed sleep.

(xi)Pedersen, E. And Persson Waye, K., 2007. Wind Turbine Noise, Annoyance and Selfreported
Health and Well-being in different living environments. Occupational and
Environmental Medicine 64(7): 480-486
In this paper Pedersen and Persson Waye report that the risk of perceiving wind turbine
noise, and the risk of being annoyed by it both increase with increasing sound pressure
levels. Also a rural area increased the risk of perception and annoyance in comparison with a
suburban area. And in a rural area complex ground (hilly or rocky terrain) increased the risk
compared with flat ground. They conclude: "There is a need to take the unique environment
into account when planning a new wind farm so that adverse health effects are avoided."
(Abstract)
(xii) Pedersen, E. And Larsman, P., 2008. The impact of visual factors on noise annoyance
among people living in the vicinity of wind turbines. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 28: 379-389
This paper has been much cited by supporters of the wind energy industry, because it finds a
strong correlation between attitude to the visual appearance of wind turbines and the risk of
noise annoyance. However, those supporters of the wind energy industry who cite it do not
reveal that the authors state explicitly: "The proposed model was based on theoretical
assumptions about causality and on the assumption that attitude towards the source
influences noise annoyance. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that the causality is
directed the opposite way so that annoyance causes a negative attitude towards the source.
Being annoyed by wind turbine noise in the home environment could initiate a negative
attitude towards wind turbines. There may also be a feedback loop between these variables."
(italics added) What Pedersen and Larsman are admitting here is that their research
establishes only a correlation, and proves nothing about the direction of causality.

(xiii) Pedersen, E., 2010. Health aspects associated with wind turbine noise - Results from
three field studies. Noise Control Engineering Journal 59(1): 47-53
From studies made in relation to three sets of wind turbine noise data Pedersen establishes an
association between wind turbine noise and both annoyance and sleep disturbance.
Annoyance was associated with A-weighted sound pressure levels. Sleep disturbance was
more common in rural areas than in suburban areas. She recommends adequate setback
distances, and calls for further research.

(xiv) Pedersen, E., and Persson Waye, K., 2008. Wind turbines - low level noise sources
interfering with restoration? Environmental Research Letters 3 (January-March 2008)
015002 doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/3/1/015002 [published online]
Pedersen and Persson Waye state: "It is hypothesized that low and moderate stressors such as
wind turbine noise could have an impact on health. The risk seems to be higher if restoration
is, or is perceived to be, impaired and also for certain groups of individuals." (Abstract)
Inevitably, they call for further research.


Refereed conference papers
(i) Salt, A. N., and Lichtenhan, J. T., 2011. Responses of the Inner Ear to Infrasound. Fourth
International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Rome, Italy, 12-14 April 2011
Jeffery Lichtenhan is a medical researcher at the Eaton-Peabody Laboratory, Massachusetts
Eye & Ear Infirmary, Boston, MA, and at the Department of Otology & Laryngology,
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. In this paper Salt and Lichtenhan develop Salt's work
on infrasound by showing, amongst other things, how an inaudible infrasonic signal can
cause an audible signal of higher frequency to amplitude-modulate within the human nervous
system. This is a kind of amplitude modulation that is biological, and internal to the human
nervous system, and thus quite distinct from the external acoustic amplitude modulation that
occurs as a result of the peculiar methods of sound generation at the rotor of a wind turbine.
They write: "These findings are relevant to the perception of the "amplitude modulation" of
sounds, and represent a biological form of modulation by low frequency sounds that cannot
be measured with a sound level meter." (italics added) They conclude: "The complexity of
the ear's response to infrasound leads us to the conclusion that there are many aspects that
need to be better understood before the influence of wind turbine noise on the ear can be
dismissed as insignificant." (Abstract)

(ii) Alves-Pereira, M., and Castelo Branco, N. A. A., 2007. In-home wind turbine noise is
conducive to vibroacoustic disease. Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine
Noise, Lyon, France, September 20-21, 2007
Alves-Pereira and Castelo Branco are Portugese medical researchers who have been studying
the effects of infrasound and low frequency noise (ILFN) since 1980. In this study they
compare two cases of ILFN impact. In the first case, documented instances of vibroacoustic
disease (VAD) were ascribed to ILFN generated by a port grain terminal. In the second case
higher levels of ILFN were found in a home neighbouring a wind farm. They observe: "ILFN
levels contaminating the home of Case 2 are sufficient to cause VAD." They conclude:
"ILFN generated by WT [wind turbine] blades can lead to severe health problems,
specifically, VAD." (Abstract)

(iii) Alves-Pereira, M., and Castelo Branco, N. A. A., Public Health and Noise Exposure: the
Importance of Low Frequency Noise. INTER-NOISE 2007, 28-31 August 2007,
Istanbul, Turkey
This paper presents the same material as in (ii) above
.
(iv) Griefahn, B., and Basner, M., 2011. Disturbances of sleep by noise. Paper Number 107,
Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2011, 2-4 November 2011, Gold Coast, Australia

(v) Thorne, R., and Shepherd, D., 2011. Wind turbine noise: why accurate prediction and
measurement matter. Paper Number 73, Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2011, 2-4
November 2011, Gold Coast, Australia
Robert Thorne is principal of the environmental consultancy Noise Measurement Services
Pty Ltd. He holds a PhD in health science from Massey University, New Zealand. Daniel
Shepherd is Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Health, and Head of Postgraduate Studies in the
School of Public Health and Psychosocial Studies, Auckland University of Technology. This
paper discusses methodological issues connected with the measurement and prediction of
wind turbine noise, from the standpoint of public health.


Other refereed studies
(i) Pierpont, N., 2009. Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment, KSelected
Books, Santa Fe, NM

Contrary to the claims of the wind energy industry and its supporters, this book is refereed.
The referees are named in the book, and their reviews are printed in the book (pp. 287-292).
There can be no doubt of the distinction of the referees. They are:
*Jerome S. Haller, MD, Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics (retired 2008),
Albany Medical College, Albany, New York
*Joel F. Lehrer, MD, Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, Clinical
Professor of Otolaryngology, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey.
*Ralph V. Katz, DMD, MPH, PhD, Fellow of the American College of
Epidemiology, Professor and Chair, Department of Epidemiology & Health
Promotion, New York University College of Dentistry, New York
*Henry S. Horn, PhD, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and
Associate of the Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton University,
Princeton, New Jersey
This is not the place to quote the whole of their reviews, but the following passage from
Professor Horn's review is representative:
Dr Pierpont has gathered a strong series of case studies of deleterious effects on the
health and well being of many people living near large wind turbines. Furthermore, she
has reviewed medical studies that support a plausible physiological mechanism directly
linking low frequency noise and vibration, like that produced by wind turbines, which
may not in itself be reported as irritating, to potentially debilitating effects on the inner
ear and other sensory systems associated with balance and sense of position. Thus the
effects are likely to have a physiological component, rather than being exclusively
psychological. (p. 291)

(ii) Rapley, B., & Bakker, H. (eds), 2010. Sound, Noise, Flicker and the Human Perception
of Wind Farm Activity, Atkinson & Rapley Consulting Ltd (Palmerston North, New
Zealand), in association with Noise Measurement Services Pty Ltd (NMS) (Brisbane,
Australia)
This volume of essays on wind turbine impacts, including health impacts, is refereed. On the
title page the "Head of Peer Review" is stated to be John Podd, BSc, PhD.

(iii) Shepherd, D., 2010. Wind Turbine Noise and Health in the New Zealand Context, pp.
15-68 of Rapley and Bakker (eds), 2010

(iv) Thorne, Bob, 2010. Hearing and Personal Response to Sound, pp. 69-78 of Rapley and
Bakker (eds), 2010

(v) Thorne, Bob, 2010. Health, Wellbeing, Annoyance and Amenity, pp. 93-101 of Rapley
and Bakker (eds), 2010

(vi) Thorne, Bob, 2010. Synopsis of Assessing Intrusive Noise and Low Amplitude Sound,
pp. 111-125 of Rapley and Bakker (eds), 2010

(vii) Thorne, Bob, 2010. Wind Farms: The Potential for Annoyance, pp. 127-133 of
Rapley and Bakker (eds), 2010
In this study Thorne remarks: "Considering my own research I conclude that a proposed
wind farm will have a significant adverse effect on approximately 10% of the exposed
population and a moderate adverse effect on approximately 20% of the exposed population.
The adverse effects to some will be sleep disturbance and stress. To others it will be
annoyance. The exposures are an adverse effect that is more than minor." (p. 132)
He also concludes: "Considering my own research, I conclude that a wind farm development
has a high potential to cause adverse amenity, annoyance, sleep disturbance or health effects
that are more than minor to residents within 3500 metres of the proposed wind farm."
"The effects may not extend to all persons within the locale and may extend approximately
3500 metres depending on wind farm design, weather conditions, ground conditions and
topography." (p. 133)

(viii) van den Berg, GP, Pedersen, E, Bouma, J, and Bakker, R (2008). Project
WINDFARMperception. Visual and acoustic impact of wind turbine farms on
residents. Final Report, June 3, 2008. 63 pp. Summary at
www.windaction.org/documents/16255 . Entire report at
https://dspace.hh.se/dspace/bitstream/2082/2176/1/WFp-final.pdf
This survey was commissioned by the European Union. Amongst other things, it found that
turbine noise was more annoying at night, and that interrupted sleep and difficulty in
returning to sleep increased with (calculated) noise level.


Other items of relevant acoustic research
(i) Thorne, R, Rapley, B, and Heilig, J (2010). Waubra Wind Farm Noise Impact
Assessment for Mr & Mrs Dean. Report No 1537, Rev 1, July 2010
In this study Thorne and his colleagues report on the noise impacts of the Waubra Wind
Farm in Victoria, the Te Rere Hau Wind Farm in New Zealand, and the West Wind Wind
Farm in New Zealand, in the context of the noise and health complaints reported by
neighbours.
(ii) Ambrose, S. E., and Rand, R. W., The Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency
Noise Study: Adverse Health Effects Produced by Large Industrial Wind Turbines
Confirmed, December 14, 2011
In this study the US noise engineers Stephen Ambrose and Robert Rand report on their
investigations at a wind farm in Falmouth, Massachusetts. They found, amongst other things,
that the wind turbine infrasound was correlated with observed adverse health effects, while
the dBA and dBC measured audible sound did not correlate. The infrasound levels were
above Professor Salt's threshold of 60 dBG.

(iii) Cooper, S., Peer review of acoustic assessment, Flyers Creek Wind Farm,
41.4963.R1A:ZSC, 15 December 2011
This review of the noise assessment for the Flyers Creek Wind Farm proposal includes a
noise assessment of the Capital Wind Farm in NSW, in the light of the noise and health
complaints made by neighbours. The report finds that the Capital Wind Farm generates
sound at levels above what was originally predicted, that the wind farm is not complying
with its conditions of consent, and that infrasonic levels reach the threshold of 60 dBG, as
discussed by Salt.

(iv) Møller, H., and Pedersen, C. S., Low frequency noise from large wind turbines, Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America 129 (6), June 2011, pp. 3727-3744
In this study of low frequency noise and infrasound from wind turbines Møller and Pedersen
find that "the spectrum of wind turbine noise moves down in frequency with increasing
turbine size." Although they do not mention Salt's research, they refer in the course of their
discussion to instances of wind turbine infrasound at levels well above Salt's threshold of 60 dBG.

This application is an insult to our intelligence. In 1998 Crookwell 1 was erected as a trial. I tis 2kms from our home , we lost our TV and have had serious health problems and livestock weight gain loss through EMF. It has been an economic disaster but no audit has been done.
In 2003 Crookwell 11 was announced.. Ten years on with three changes of ownership, 16 demoutbales classed as structural progress have been reduced to 1 demountable and there is no sign of a turbine. Adjacent land has become unsaleable. .
Now the developer has the effrontery to apply for Crookwwell 111!
This will drop land values and owners will push for rate reductions of 32% under the precedent established by South Gippsland Council this month.
The supervision of Crookwell 11 has beena disgrace and I will be taking the matter further.

We object to the proposal, mainly on the grounds of what we consider is a violation of our visual amenities.

Please find the Clean Energy Council submission attached.

Kind regards,
Alicia

10_0034, Project Application Crookwell 3 wind farm - submission of objection to project as attached

Please see attachment

Please find attached Upper Lachlan Shire Council's submission to the Crookwell 3 Wind Farm proposal.