Hills of Gold Wind Farm.

I object to the proposal to install a wind farm at Nundle (Hills of Gold Wind Farm) because I believe that it is important that we preserve places of great beauty in Australia and that the area of Nundle is not the place to put an ugly windfarm. This windfarm will destroy the charm of this village and will become an eyesore to the community. I object strongly to this windfarm also to protect the bird life which is abundant around this town. Nundle is of great significance to the tourists who love to stop on road trips and see the natural beauty and serenity of the township. This will be taken away by the installation of these ugly and imposing turbines. I would like this town and the beauty and charm to be preserved at all costs. Thank you for reading my submission.
Kim Bergin

Nundle is a beautiful rural community and a windfarm will ruin the ambience of the area, it will be noisy, it will kill birds and it will make life noisy for the residents.

Project is not appropriate for this area .The environmental and social impacts will have devastating impacts on this wonderful natural area. Similarly the aesthetics of this project will be detrimental.

My objection relates to protection of this special country area and its environment

I am are strongly opposed to this project. I find it morally and environmentally objectionable. These wind turbines have a well recognised detrimental affect on local communities -- both at a personal health perspective, but also a disastrous adverse impact on the environment.
Even that so-called bastion of environmental protection Bob Brown has objected to a Winf Farm in his location in Tassie.
This Winds of Gold project is totally incompatible with the amenity of the people of Trundle and a blight on the natural beauty of this area.
The detrimental impact on the environment once these turbines have become obsolescent is also a disaster. There is very little recyling opportunity with these meg- structures.
Stop this Project.

Please leave Nundle alone. Any number of turbines on that range is too many and it's the wrong location for a wind farm.

I object to this wind farm for Nundle, it will destroy this beautiful area with these turbines as high as Sydney harbour bridge with continued humming from them it will drive anyone nuts.
This area must be preserved and protected for the future,puting this menus will destroy this town and make it a ghost town also there is large birds which these turbines will kill, once destroyed is never replaced so keep these environment destroyers out of Nundle.

Submission to NSW Government Planning, Industry and Environment in response to Hill of Gold (SSD-9679) Notice of Exhibition.

I submit this response both on behalf of myself and our Family Farming operations trading as CJ and MC Eagles.

In 2019 for the first time in history since white settlement (and we know this having family links through till that time), the Isis River dried up in front of our homestead “Alston”. This at the time we attributed, understandably to the extended drought at the time. But we have since learnt that for several years, the Project area for this Project, on private land, at the watershed of Perry’s Creek, has been clear-felled. What impact that clearing has had we don’t know. But it does seem coincidental that the River system would stop, for the first time since white settlement, whilst that watershed was being cleared.

Water is everything to our Farm and the Flora and Fauna of the Isis Valley. The extensive Karst system, in the valley limestone country, relies on underwater springs and aquifers to support the abundant micro Flora and Fauna within the caves. We have numerous caves on our properties, some of the largest in the entire Timor Cave system, one appropriately named the “Lake Cave”, this development puts these fragile systems at risk.

It is easy for us to see the impacts that the land clearing has already had on the macro Flora and Fauna, but much more difficult to see the impacts to the micro flora and fauna in the caving systems.

There is nothing in the Water EIS to allay or fears in this regard. It like much of the rest of the EIS is big on words, but low on real content.

Water & Hydrology

14 first order watercourses come for the hillsides that are within this Project area
This EIS is woefully inadequate in addressing the impacts derived from the clearing of land and removal of its natural vegetation on groundwater sources. Additionally, there is no assessment on the impact to the sub-ground water sources as a result of the same land clearing and resultant disruption to water absorption, along with possible intention of the sinking of deep bores.

The Methodology in the EIS for Water and Soils (Section 16.2 P 310) confirms that no person has set foot on the actual land that will be so affected, i.e. the Development Footprint – there was one site visit to the Transmission lines route. All information on soils, water and hydrology has come from a desktop. No one has inspected the springs and seen their contribution to the flow of Isis River and assessed for negative impacts. No consultation occurred with the Timor community to hear the concerns of residents about danger to our naturally occurring water sources.

The Isis river is fed in its upper catchment by the flows of the following first order water courses shown in Figure 16-4 – White’s Creek, Dead-Eye Creek, Perry’s Creek. Additionally, some Timor residents have spring fed water catchments fed by tributaries of the Pages Creek.

If the drought taught us anything it was the importance of water and the dire consequences when it is gone. This Project estimates a usage of 55 mega-litres of water over its 24 month construction. However, the negative impact on natural water sources, from massive land clearance, vegetation removal and disturbance, will be a long term impact if not permanent destruction of the hydrological workings of the ecosystem.

P 320 Mitigation Measures has as its first point to address potential impacts to soils and water, as follows:
“Preparation of a detailed Soil and Water Management Plan (SWMP) prior to construction commencing. The SWMP should be prepared by a suitably qualified person, such as a soil conservationist.”

What sort of a Project could be approved when the EIS itself proclaims it has not undertaken any sort of assessment by a suitably qualified expert on the impacts on the soil and water?

This Project seeks to clear the vegetation atop of the ridgeline of the Liverpool Range - part of the Great Dividing Range, the site of 14 first order watercourses, a ridgeline at the height 1400 metres elevation and with precipitous slopes and cliffs – with no scientific study on the potentialities of massive erosion and landslides, and disruption to the water courses!

As stated in the Crawney Pass National Park Management Plan, when the soil has had its vegetation removed and/or disrupted (which is the case for this Project on a scale of over 513 ha for the Development Footprint alone), there is a major threat of soil erosion which affects the water quality in the catchment.

We object to this Project on the basis that there have been no assessments or independent scientific studies, included in the EIS to ensure that the hydrology and first order water courses are unaffected.


Soils and Water Consultation under SEARs

There is a gross inadequacy within this EIS to assess and provide accurate information about the impact of this Project on water and hydrology.

I note in Appendix O on the Soils and Water Assessment, P 4 – 5, Table 1-1 of the SEARs cites the Consultation Requirements as;

“During the preparation of the EIS, consultation is required with relevant local, State and Commonwealth Government authorities, services providers, community groups and affected landowners (as relevant to this Soils and Water Assessment)”

Table 1-2 lists the depth and breadth of the Agency Consultation which is shameful.

The so-called consultation with Water NSW, Local Land Services, NSW Division of Resources and Geoscience and the Environment Protection Authority consisted of 1 proforma email all on the same day of 20/07/2020 to which there was “No response received” as the outcome.

The NSW Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) scored the same 1 proforma email on the same date of 20/07/2020 and 1 “telecommunication response”, whatever that means, on 20/08/2020. The outcome was registered as the same “No response received”.

This shows an appalling disregard of the intent of the SEARs requirement for consultation.

The Proponent must have been aware that the EIS had not conducted any proper assessment for soils, water and hydrology and then omitted to conduct any meaningful consultation with relevant agencies.

There is no listed consultation on the Soils and Water Assessment with any community groups and affected landowners. Consistent with all other aspects of the requirements for Consultation, the Timor community, which depends on the flow of 3 of the first order water courses into the Isis river, was not consulted.

We object to this Project based on the lack of any proper of meaningful consultation as required by SEARs on the assessment of soils and water.


Karst Systems

The EIS does not present any assessment or study of the impact of this Project on the identified karst and related hydrological karst systems. The karst systems have a high potential for damage through erosion and silting from road clearing and construction from this Project.

I refer you to a Submission by individual, Jodie Rutledge, of Bolwarra Heights NSW, who is a member and published author of the Newcastle & Hunter Valley Speleological Society, who states particular concerns about the western access road from the Crawney- Nundle road adjacent to the Crawney Karst and caves systems:

“…caves are located in the perennial creek north of Limestone Oaky Creek and have two gullies feeding into this creek-line that are directly affected by the road construction”.

The Submission by Ms. Rutledge has provided photographs from the EIS circling the area affected as well as a contour map of the caves (by Wilcox and Pinnock 1990).

Further, she states that “Seven caves are currently known to exist here in this drainage gully. The caves contain many features of significant geoheritage value, such as speleothems (flowstones, stalactites and stalagmites), vast tree roots have grown into the caves providing habitat for cave adapted faunas, roosting havens for bats, and fossil bone material which is yet to be studied scientifically.”

There is an absolute negation of any assessments of the karst and caves environments and their associated role in the specialised echo systems. Apart from the above mentioned caves at Crawney Pass this Project’s study area and surrounds contains caves at Timor, Glenrock Station, Barry Station and an unknown number of disused mine audits which bats use, rock cracks and fissures as well as further caves.

Without a detailed and scientific assessment of the hydrology and soils, the karst and cave systems are at an acceptable risk of erosion and water damage through silting, thus detrimentally affecting the bat species. Under Section 9.3.4 P 150-151 the following bat species have been identified as threatened species within this development footprint – the large-eared pied bat; little pied bat; eastern coastal free-tailed bat, little bent-wing bat, large bent-wing bat, greater broad-nosed bat and the eastern cave bat.

We object to this Project based on the lack of any assessment or recognition of the important karst environment present in the Project area and the unacceptable risk of erosion and silting to the cave systems which protect seven endangered bat species.


This Project should be rejected or at least delayed until an independent and more thorough analysis of the Water and Soil impacts is undertaken.

I object to the Hills of Gold Wind Farm. (please see attached PDF doc)

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
RE: HILLS OF GOLD WIND FARM APPLICATION NO.SSD 9679
· Please find attached my PDF submission in response to the above mentioned development application
· I hereby declare that I object to the Hills of Gold Wind Farm proposal ID no.SSD 9679
· I would like my personal details withheld
· I have not made any reportable political donations in the previous 2 years

I am not not ordinarily opposed to wind farms, but believe this the Hills of Gold Wind Farm has been proposed in the wrong spot.

The location of the project is unsuitable due to the visual impact on the area as well as the damage to the environment needed to construct the wind farm.
This as well as the ongoing destruction of bird life will significantly reduce tourism to the area.

The costs to the local environment outweigh the supposed benefits.
Wind farms are responsible for killing many wild birds.
During preparation and construction of the wind farm, the living environment of wild/native animals will be destroyed along with the animals themselves.
The character of Nundle and nearby tourist destinations would be completely changed for the worse by the foreign and dominating look of these huge wind turbines.
In general wind turbines are inefficient because of their dependence on the wind variations.
I object strongly to this project.

I strongly urge the authorities not to allow this development to proceed as I agree with the arguments against such a project; it will adversely affect this land and the quality of life for the people who live in the Hills of Gold.

Having been to the Nundle area I strongly object to the proposal to erect these turbines in this area . Increasingly these turbines are blighting the natural landscape
and beauty of country areas. People escape cities and other dense population areas to view and explore natural environments and not to be greeted by a landscapes
marred by a windfarm. The Government need to legislate to quarantine areas of natural beauty from this type of destruction, build the damn things in the
desert or some other remote environmentally marginal area. The problems associated with wind turbines are well documented and should be carefully considered in the assessment . I suspect the profit to be gained by a few will be to the detriment of many if this project goes ahead.

I fully support this proposal- I believe it will have enormous positive social, economic, employment and environmental effects and benefits for our immediate area and community as well as the greater region and NSW as a whole.

I am an Upper Hunter resident who will be adversely impacted by this windfarm. I will have the trucks carrying the turbine pieces driving past my farm. It is a narrow country road with many twists and turns. The road will need major upgrading and/or road closures for these trucks to be able to use it. It will severely impact my quality of life and that of the other residents who live along these roads.

A very beautiful, historic area will be destroyed by these turbines. The environmental damage will be impossible to rectify. The ridgeline where the turbines are proposed to go is composed primarily of Class 8 soils and are in the catchment area for Chaffey Dam which supplies Tamworth and surrounding areas. Tamworth already has water supply and quality issues. The silting caused by erosion and land slips due to disturbance of the Class 8 soils during erection and maintenance of the turbines will destroy Chaffey Dam and the Peel River. The hillsides of Xantheria (grass trees) which take hundreds of years to grow will die from the diesel pollution and erosion.

The negative impact to tourism in the area will be felt by many in and around Nundle. Many people rely on tourism in country towns. Contrary to 'green' beliefs environmental tourism is a furphy. City people come to Nundle to enjoy the history and the typically country events that Nundle hosts. They do not want to see pristine bushland ridgelines destroyed by turbines and erosion.

Turbines are not 'green renewables'. Are you aware that there is approximately 4 tonnes of copper, obtained by mining, as stated by BHP, in each turbine. There is also all the fossil fuels used to make and transport these turbines. At the end of their relatively short useful life, most of the turbine is not recyclable. They do not save what it costs to make them, environmentally.

It is the green city dwellers who want renewables. Put the turbines on the harbour headlands where the wind constantly blows, or out at sea as they have in the North Sea off England. The voltage drop will be much less as well.

Please do not pander to the minority. Think of the majority and the health of our nation.

Thank you
Cheryl Hutchinson

It is a step in the right direction for our Australian energy nexus.

I feel that this project is an intrusion on the peaceful countryside and is against the wishes of some of the farmers. The majority of the Nundle and Hanging Rock communities have signed petitions opposing the proposed Hills of Gold Wind Farm and do not want to destroy the environment in order to "save the environment". I feel very strongly that some of the farmers are desperate that this project should not go head and no-one should have this imposed on them.

I object to the project because wind turbines are a visual blight on the environment, they cause noise and vibration issues which effect the health and wellbeing of persons in surrounding areas, they are a menace to bird and animal life, their working life is relatively short (say 20 years if that), components such as blades cannot be recycled and will end up in landfill, and their manufacture, as with solar panels, supports the Chinese economy - not ours. When this wind farm reaches the end of its relatively short life and is abandoned, the visual blight will remain. This will occur when Governments and activists finally realise that renewables will never cut it as an alternative energy source, that climate change is a gigantic hoax, and the only way we can really progress forward with our economy and provide cheap, plentiful and reliable electricity is to build new baseload thermal power stations fired by coal or gas. Or better still Australia should be going nuclear sooner rather than later.
Nundle is a beautiful, peaceful rural community with a long history of farming and agriculture. It should be left as it is, a visual reminder of the pioneer days of our country. The last thing the district needs is a wind farm.