Jupiter Wind Farm

Approximately four years ago I left the clatter & cluster of Sydney to enjoy a better quality of life in the country. For a short term residing in Wamboin, I currently rent at Warri. I am educated to a tertiary level, and hold a professional position with a large local employer. My intention has been to purchase a small property and settle in the Mulloon, Mount Fairy, Boro area. The looming spread of the power industry into these areas has forced me to consider other options, likely away from the region altogether.
You will note I use the term power industry, avoiding the bucolic evocations of wind farm and wind mills. Electricity generation is an industry. A heavy industry. The machines and structures required are enormous. I have had many occasions to visit the generating areas around Lake George. I have been up close and personal with these machines. They stand enormous and overbearing, constantly in motion, chugging away incessantly, standard mechanisms of heavy industry. Any suggestion these monstrous generators are anything other than industrial constructions is an outright nonsense, and sheer propaganda.
The area from Mulloon through to Tarago is home to a thriving community. Hundreds of lifestyle blocks are scattered throughout. It is a very common practice for the old farmers of the district to carve off a few unproductive paddocks, to gain some easy money from them, to sell them off as lifestyle blocks, and hobby farms. And the practice continues, evidenced by the Bobbaduck Creek development. The practice has, and perhaps inadvertently, grown a community over many years. A community that thrives, and continues to grow. Mullon/Tarago is a rare location, ideal for those in search of the rural life without suffering the problems of remoteness. The area is an easy commute to Canberra, and Goulburn. And just an hour to the coast. It is perfectly situated for those who prefer a life among natural treasures. Wildlife is abundant, livestock happy & healthy. It is populated with professionals, tradespeople, artists, artisans, business people, public servants, alternative lifestylers, emergency services and police workers, doctors, nurses, teachers, retirees, children. The area is home to a broad, accepting and vibrant community. Unfortunately, the same easy money theory of the farmers whose actions helped create this community has landed it in the midst of a proposal to construct an electricity generation industry. The two cannot co-exist.
Members of the community living from Mulloon to Tarago are a vital asset to the towns of Braidwood and Bungendore. They own and staff shops, motels, cafes, bakeries, restaurants, galleries. These are the businesses which bring people to the towns, which make people stop in these towns, which make people spend in these towns. Can Bungendore afford to lose a few shops after the advent of heavy industry sends these people elsewhere? Braidwood's art & artisan culture can afford to be lopped to accommodate some turbines that can be more appropriately situated? How about the activities of benefit to the community? The Rural Fire Service volunteers. The members of the SES. Contributors to the Chambers of Commerce of both Bungendore & Braidwood. The pony club committees. The showground committees. The Country Women's Association. The Lions clubs. The Apex clubs. The Rotary clubs. The churches, of every persuasion. The charity workers. The sporting club volunteers, the coaches, the trainers, the caterers, the drivers. And the tradespeople. The electricians, plumbers, mechanics, good old fashioned handy folk. A great many of these live within the Mulloon/Tarago community. They care about where they live. They care about the people they share their environment with. They are invaluable to Bungendore and Braidwood. How many wish to live among power generators? How many holes will be shot through these precious community assets? Has there been a socio-economic impact study? The generators will bring jobs? A handful of labourers, and a few engineers dropped in from Sydney or overseas, short term, for the duration of the construction project. A small maintenance crew thereafter. I say small because people, after all, represent a cost. This is not worth the loss of a community.
Has EPYC followed the Culmone's bus along the Goulburn Road or the Kings Highway? Has EPYC seen the dozens of children waiting to go to school? Has EPYC spoken with the parents waiting beside them? Has EPYC asked if they mind the placement of heavy industry just over the hill? Just over that hill, there, along the line of that cricket pitch the children made. Has EPYC been absolutely open and clear with these people? Has EPYC demonstrated the precise impact on their community & environment? Has EPYC asked if they want to live amid electricity generators? Has EPYC conducted community consultation beyond the bare minimum? Beyond a whitewash? Does EPYC know the community? Has EPYC asked them if they consider their home terra nullius? Of course not. The terra nullius argument requires a refusal to acknowledge the breadth and depth and meaning of existing people and existing culture. This is what EPYC have done. Look at their EIS montages. Look at their consultations. Broad empty spaces. Where are the people? Where are the children? Where are the homes? Terra nullius.
The power generators are proposed to be stabbed into the heart of a vibrant community. The voice of this community has not been listened to. The very existence of this community has not been acknowledged. The situation of this community is ideal and idyllic. A healthy community cannot spring up anywhere, particularly in rural areas. Industry does not require the idyllic to thrive. The power generation industry does not have to tear great holes in two nearby towns, in two communities, and utterly destroy a third. People will leave the Mulloon/Tarago community. I know. I speak to them. I had a wish to be one of them, until this ill-conceived, profit driven folly of a proposal was thrown against the wall. The proposed placement of these generators represents an utter lack of consideration of the nature and needs of a large, populated rural area and community. This would not happen on the outskirts of Campbelltown. This would not happen on the outskirts of Tuggeranong. This would not happen on the outskirts of Gungahlin. This would not happen in Wamboin. The Mulloon/Tarago community is not less than any of these. It is not the place for heavy industry. It is not the place for turbines to generate electricity.

This proposal is opposed because of the unacceptable additional visual impact [and therefore social and financial] impct it will have.
Already, four kilometers to the west we see a wind farm; and we have an easement through our property which affects out use of it; this being for the major high voltage transmission line.. This liyerally disects this property.The only presently unblighted view is to the east, which is where Jupiter wants to place its monsterous towers.

it may be arqued that the Capital farm is four km away, Jupiter will be six; but this is an unacceptable intrusiopn on the amenity of this property and its environment.

To whom it may concern,

My family and I own a property on Mulloon Rd which is within the 2 KM zone for the Mulloon/Manar end of this windfarm proposal. I would like to lodge our strongest objections to this proposal based on a number of key factors which EPYC has deliberately and deceptively glossed over in its proposal and prospectus. Our key objection is around loss of amenity and loss of property value which is invariably associated with these types of projects, not to mention all the other negatives that come with them. I didn't go out there and spend significant amounts of money and effort developing my property only to have it devalued and ruined by some off shore company who doesn't care about the locals and won't contribute anything meaningful to the local economy in the short or long term. I have sat down with representatives from EPYC and told them then and will again tell them that I do not and will never condone this project in this location. It is totally inappropriate for this area and arrogantly negates the objections, and rights of over 300 families and businesses that will be impacted by this project. The montages that they presented to try and demonstrate the impact on my property were an insult to my intelligence. To add insult to injury, they claimed that the pine trees I have on my property would mitigate the visual impact - so I have to provide my own mitigation for their eyesore? What about when I walk out into my paddocks or drive out the road?

While I have not thoroughly reviewed all components of the EIS I have taken some interest in the Bushfire Risk Assessment proposed by the proponents. I've deliberately left my Business Address and Title in this email so that you can see I have some expertise in this area and over 30 years' experience in operational fire management, not just simply regurgitating old planning materials and guidelines to try and make the risk look benign.

A number of the claims they have made caught my attention and have been markedly underrated in terms of bushfire risk. The major bushfire that occurred in the Tarago area on 18 January 2017 is a classic example of these points. This fire is credited to have started from a bird striking powerlines and igniting grassy fuel - which was in an easement under the powerlines, supposedly maintained (probably only cleared of trees) but non the less took off and burnt out over 2000ha in around 4 hours. These power lines are only there because of the wind farm infrastructure to the west of where the fire started. The fire affected many properties, burnt down one home and other infrastructure, destroyed livestock and crops and impacted many people. While the overall bushfire risk across the area is generally moderate, on the wrong day and under adverse weather conditions it doesn't matter what the bushfire hazard class is, it will burn and burn fast. The ignition risk is elevated primarily because of more people in the landscape and the more infrastructure that causes them to be there.

The other fact with this fire is that aircraft played a significant role in enabling fire fighters to control the fire and finally gain the upper hand. Numerous helicopters were involved and even the VLAT - Very Large Air Tanker - was deployed on a number of retardant drops. If there were wind towers in the area, they would have been unable to assist the fire fight. It would burn off their sites before anything could be done about it and it would be the neighbours who would suffer. They also make mention of 30,000 lts of water being supplied for firefighting - what a joke!! , this is miniscule compared to what is required on such fires. The VLAT drops 40,000 lts in one drop!!

Finally, I would like to add my voice around the threat these things will cause to endangered wildlife in our area in particular. They claim that they majority of the area is cleared landscape with only remnant patches of woodland or forest remaining. This may be the case for the actual site locations of the towers but takes no account for the neighbouring forested sites which are refuges for migratory and resident birds in the area. They have to fly in and out to get to these areas of forest. It is recognised that the area is regularly frequented by Glossy Black Cockatoos. These regularly visit my pine trees and obliterate the pine cones. The assessment does not mention the 2-3 resident Wedge Tail eagles that regularly fly across these ranges, and I have also seen Gang Gang Cockatoos in the Mulloon Creek easement. All of these birds are surely prone to strike from these monstrosities.

I am familiar with the adage "OK so long as it's not in my back yard". There are over 300 backyards impacted by this proposal and only a few greedy residents that are not against the proposal. I did mention to EPYC that Forestry has large tracts of land across NSW, particularly in the Tumut and Bathurst Regions where such a proposal would not impact on residents and people in the way this proposal does. I'm sure that Forestry could facilitate wind farms in and around their plantations areas, they are elevated and have the wind, and are generally near major power infra structure and our organisation would love the revenue generated from site rental - it's even mentioned in our strategic planning!!

This proposal needs to be stopped in its tracks for the sake of all of the residents in the Tarago/Mulloon areas and tell them to go and look elsewhere, we don't want them!!

I am a supporter of renewable energies of which windfarms are an important component. As a landholder I consider that in addition to benefiting reduction in carbon emissions they enable the land to continue to be farmed. The dual use of the land is efficient approach that has minimal impact on the environment and contributes to the financial stability of local landholders. It is a win win situation all round.

Jupiter wind farm will provide employment in a region where employment opportunities are scarce. It will help sustain the operations of numerous landholders and in turn bring much needed income into the area. Based on experience with the benefits being brought by the waste management project at Tarago the direct support given to the local community will also be a significant benefit.

I am aware of the significant opposition to the windfarm that exists, and am concerned by the level of misinformation that has been circulated to generate fear in our community. I believe that this fear will subside once the project is operating.

The proposed Jupiter Wind Farm has my full support. Australia needs to move as quickly as possible to replace coal fired power with cleaner renewable energies. Wind Farms play an important role in achieving that goal and the region in which the Jupiter Wind Farm is situated is one of the windiest places in NSW. It is ideally suited for a Wind Farm.

From a local point of view the proposed Wind Farm will provide much needed financial support for local land holders, while enabling them to continue their farming activities. In turn the benefits will flow through to the community as local farmers have more money to spend in the area. Initially there will be significant employment that will also bring prosperity to the local area and in the longer term some ongoing permanent employment. There will also be other benefits to the community from support provided by the Wind Farm proponents to local community activities.

I am concerned about the enormous amount of false and misleading information about the Wind Farm that is being circulated within the community. This is generating unnecessary fear in the general community. I trust that the Department and the proponents of the project will continue to work to allay these fears.

* Visual Impact (88 turbine of 173m each is a bit much!), seriously impact me personally
* Destruction of an historical rural area that I personally reside in.
* Noise Impacts and the health implications of this
* Endangered fauna such as the Eastern Bat Wing Bat
* The existing Capital Wind Farm turbines are more than enough renewable energy infrastructure for any one community to have to host.
I am a resident and voter and strongly object to the windfarms in this area

My partner and i meet with the EPYC team in 2012 and we have always found the EPYC team to be highly professional, honest and above reproach. The team answered all our questions and concerns. We have researched wind farms and considered all the anti-wind frame literature left in letterbox. We support Jupiter wind farm as it will be an efficient power source and require less land than a solar farm and is less intrusive. Agriculture and grazing can continue in the turbine area. Most people like us, if a turbine were to be installed on our property would most assuredly use most of the additional income to improve pastures and sustainability.
The Jupiter wind farm will help meet Australia's growing demand for electricity whilst reducing greenhouse gas emissions. it will also help us to preserve our scarce resources of water. There is no evidence for any harmful effects of wind turbines, but vast amount of evidence on the harmful health effects of coal mining.
The construction will provide stimulation for the local economy, providing jobs and work for local contractors .
I really hope this project receives the full approval of the
Department of Planning and Environment.

P.S. I've elected to have my personal details withheld due to abusive phone calls

The turbines proposed are big industrial structures in a rural residential area. We choose to live here for its natural and noise free environment. We have paid a good and fair price to live in this environment and will not be subjected to a company who wishes to steal that from us in more ways than one. These, supposedly green energy turbines are archaic and outdated and not efficient means of energy production. Please use informed and current technology to make such an impactful environmental decision that will affect such a wide community. We will be severely affected by noise, and further bush fires. The fires which destroyed so much of our beautiful land are just the beginning of wind farm destruction. Our lives are directly affected, the governments money is directly affected and our future is directly affected by these choices. Stop the noise once and for all and let us all live in a peaceful land.

If there is still life on Earth in 200 years, visitors to our area will look at the rusting, drooping , monster turbines straggling across the horizon . They will wonder if there was a failed invasion from Mars or whether Earth was ruled by madmen.
Governments have made no enforceable laws to ensure turbine demolition when the turbines' feeble power generation becomes obsolete. At a current estimated cost of $350,000 per turbine, demolition should be covered by a bond built into the licence fee. Without a demolition guarantee, my area could have up to seven parallel North to South lines of turbines on the ridgetops- forever. This will guarantee that around one million acres will be a "no fly" zone when the next, inevitable, bushfire hits the Tablelands. This will ensure no aerial water bombing support for over 30,000 homes and huge numbers of livestock and native fauna. Senior bureaucrats in the Rural Fire Service toe the Government line -which is all about Canberra and Sydney. They say that the ground tanker crews will go in without aerial support. The ground crews ( unpaid volunteers) wisely say that they won't. This leaves a mass evacuation the only sane course of action.
The Department of Planning's latest "Framework" (91 pages of vagueness) states that the "Proponent" should remove the turbines when they are no longer feeding the grid. The 1998 "Proponent" of Crookwell 1 was Mr. Bob Carr and his Cabinet. In 2018 their very inefficient wind power station reaches its stated 20 year lifespan and we look forward to greeting Mr.Carr and his team with their demolition gear.
Meanwhile, pamphlets explaining the latest chapter of the 12 year long proposed and amended Crookwell 11, and a new Crookwell 111 wind power stations arrived in our mailboxes. Both listed a $2,500 annual contribution by the developer to the Community for each operating turbine. This is an insult to our intelligence. It is "Peanuts to peasants".
Each turbine will give its owner, the developer, an annual income of over $1.5 million--money paid in various ways by Australians. The multi -national developer will give us back 0.15% and take 99.85% back to Spain. This isn't the way to Australian Budget Repair? It is economic suicide.
Upper Lachlan Shire is being desecrated by the largest concentration of wind turbines in NSW. The Shire must be compensated. Pru Goward is our State MP. She was Minister for Planning and did nothing to help us. Angus Taylor is our Federal Member, He has opposed windfarms on economic grounds. Now is their chance to deliver to their electorate.
Our Council, Pru Goward and Angus Taylor must set in train a 5% annual tax (instead of the 0.15% gift) on the income from each turbine in the Shire-to be paid to the Shire.
On current and planned wind power stations in the Shire this will give an annual income to our Shire of over $20 million. This will help redress our unfair burden and will enable meaningful improvements. Our Shire Council budget is only around $20 million and we have far more unsealed roads than most shires.
It is time for our Governments to stand up to foreign developers on behalf of Australians.

I have an objection to the Jupitar Wind Farm Project planned for the Tarago area. I firmly believe that with the number of turbines and the size of each wind turbine will be such an eyesore that the entire fabric of the community will be affected. People move to our area to enjoy the rural lifestyle, not to live next door to, or around an industrial plant site. If this project goes ahead, it will be to the detriment of the entire Tarago community. No new people will want to move into the area. This then leads to lower property prices, population of the area will stay static or decrease which then will have a direct impact on the Tarago School, service centre and pub. It will divide the community between those that support the project and those that are opposed to the project. This is not a response to "not in my backyard syndrome "it is simply saying that this is a great idea in the wrong place. Rural residential areas are not the place to install industrial plant. I am not directly affected by these pieces of industrial plant but feel strongly enough to make a submission, I can only imagine what all the residents that will be directly affected by noise, drop in property values, extra commercial traffic on the roads and having to look at these things from sun up to sun down must feel like. Please do not take a dumb, ill-conceived idea of putting an industrial plant of the size purposed in Tarago and make it worse by approving it.

Jupiter Wind Farm will prvoide the most significant benefits to the lives of many, the host landowners and the community as a whole.
As a host the income received would be invested in our farm, for instance, we would be able to employ a full time farm hand and improve our land.
The money we spend locally increases employment opportunities for others so our local towns would benefit from Jupiter Wind Farm.
And clean electricity has to happen.

I object to the visual impact, the likelihood my property will be devalued plus the noise generated by the turbines. And with the recent bushfire at my doorstep I am afraid that aircraft will be hindered by the height of the turbines while trying to put out fires.

This submission is an objection to the proposed Jupiter Wind Farm due to noise and disturbance.
This proposal is completely out of character for the area.
The area in question is made up of small rural residential land holdings, clustered together along minor roads which form small communities.
In the 1980's local councils were encouraged to allow lifestyle blocks within easy commuting distance to work. Provisos were put in place that would not allow major infrastructure to be built shadowing these small communities.
The area in question is so quiet that it is possible to hear nothing. I bought my property some 22 years ago, that now adjoins the main area of construction, my intention was to retire to the serenity and quiet of the area, but if this goes ahead I will have industrial noise associated with the wind farm and hence will not be able to live and enjoy the block as I intended. I will not be able to sell the property for its proper market valve and so am left with a property that I can no longer consider to be an asset.
The only alternative will be to seek compensation for the loss of intended purpose and ask that the proponent acquires the property.

This submission is in the form of an objection to the proposed Jupiter Wind farm on the grounds of environmental impacts.
In 2006 the proposed Kalbilli wind farm was rejected on environmental flora and fauna reasons and is adjacent to the current proposed Jupiter wind farm.
Public accessibility to the rejected proposal has suspiciously been removed from public record, however I have records and details from that proposal and find it hard to believe that there is any difference to the environment from one side of the road to the other.
I believe that the Department of Planning has been mislead with incorrect information supplied by the wind farm proponent and insist that more accurate investigations into the ecology of the area is conducted.

This submission is in the form of an objection to the proposed Jupiter Wind Farm.
The proponent EPYC has had a number of years to compile and undertake studies for the information it has submitted in its EIS and the period given for the concerned public to read and understand and then complete a submission is significantly inadequate for anyone to effectively respond.
The number of days that the ecological surveys were carried out on is also inadequate. This information is lacking as it does not indicate the times of day that testing was carried out, it does not indicate the weather and if sightings were affected by this.
Due to the lack of data supplied by ERM no valid conclusions can be made. It appears that the testing was only carried out on hosting properties and not adjoining non hosting properties which do contain sensitive flora and fauna. Some adjoining non hosting land holders are concerned and afraid to talk up and let people like OEH know the types of sensitive flora and fauna that inhabit their properties, worried about reprisal from hosting landholders.
In 2006, the proposed expansion to Capital Wind Farm at Mount Fairy/Kalbilli was rejected due to sensitive vegetation and fauna in the area. It is hard to comprehend that ERM has disregarded this rejection by the department when Kalbilli borders the proposed Jupiter Wind Farm project area.
OEH knows that this is a unique area of biodiversity and contains sensitive vegetation and animal species. OEH have stated that they do not have the funding to carry out intensive surveys and rely on information supplied by such people as ERM. OEH has stated that they can only use the data that they receive.
Obviously, ERM's figures and data or lack thereof is misleading and designed to push the proposal through.
If extensive surveys and up to date data records were carried out it would prove that this unique area is NOT suitable for an intensive wind farm development, and to simply use OEH's philosophy of telling proponents which areas they should AVOID, MITIGATE and OFFSET, is simply not good enough when sensitive environments are at stake.

This submission is in the form of an objection due to the fact that this is an inappropriate location for an industrial wind farm.
The placement of wind turbines in this locality is not in keeping with the landscape character of the area. The main property type in this area is of a rural residential type bounding proposed host properties. The number of people residing in and around the proposed project area is of "THE HIGHEST NUMBER" as stated by the Department of Planning and should therefore be rejected on this basis alone.
Why has the proponent not considered another area and has not included any alternate sites for the proposed project???
This area is an inappropriate location and should never have been considered in the first instance.
Living at Mount Fairy, some 5 kms from Capital Wind Farm, we are already impacted upon by noise and infra-sound. This area is of a very quiet and tranquil disposition, however at times due to the wind speed and direction we are impacted on by the industrial noises and infra-sound by the turbines, as our house is at hub height. We have lived here for some 26 years and to now be subjected to noise that "meets the industrial approvals", does not mean that this should be acceptable in a designated rural area.
We also own a property along the Lower Boro Road, down the end of the proposed "Sub-station Lane", which directly adjoins a host property and which will be impacted upon on all sided by noise and visual impacts.
We have unrestricted views of the horizon and if this project is granted we will no longer be able to enjoy the quiet and tranquility that we are accustomed. We enjoy the star lit night skies and count the satellites as they pass by, if the proposed wind farm is approved we will be put into a city-scape with turbines being lit at night to meet CASA approvals.
The photo montages in the EIS are not a fair and reasonable assessment of the visual impacts that would be endured by the majority of non associated properties in and around the proposed project area.
An individual's perception of the views in their immediate area are not always what landscape consultants interpret.
The unique landscape characteristics of the region are why the residents chose to live here. They did not chose to live next to an industrial wind farm.
If the Department of Planning rejects this proposed wind farm, the NSW Government will still be able to meet its renewable targets as there are a large number of wind farms already approved in NSW that have still not been constructed.

This is a beautiful rural areA
To fill it with 88 wind turbines would
Be an ugly slur on the countryside.

Noise Issues

As I understand the requirements of the background noise monitoring program as outlined in the SA 2009 wind farm guide lines is that it is to be carried out by a person or company appropriately qualified to do so.

In EPYC's EIS under "Wind Farm Noise Impact Assessment" Executive Summery it is stated:

" As part of this work, Garrad Hassan Pacific Pty Ltd, now trading as DNV GL, has been asked by the
Customer to carry out an impact assessment of the operational noise associated with the Project, which
also includes the results of a background noise monitoring campaign carried out by the Customer. "

And again:

"Based on the specified Project requirements [1], background noise measurements have been carried out
by the Customer,"


So the background noise monitoring program was carried out by EPYC, this involved placing of sound monitoring equipment and data collection of which DNV GL has based their background noise assessment on.
I personally know of one property, according to the owner, who told me that EPYC placed the noise monitoring equipment.
On this particular property the equipment was placed about 10 meters from a hot water system which has a heat pump attached and operates numerous times a day, up to 45 minutes at a time, this will obviously increase the background noise levels for this property.
There are other instances which can be seen in placement photo's of sound equipment being placed close to trees and bushes which inherently increases background noise.

Under these circumstances the integrity of the data can not be relied on and the entire background noise monitoring program needs to be scrapped and appropriately qualified acoustician's need to be employed to carry out the required monitoring program from placement of equipment to analysis and final report.

Mark Tomlinson

We travel to Braidwood regularly to spend time with our friends in the beautiful countryside. We leave the clamour of the city behind to enjoy the unique sights and sounds of the Australian landscape and would be horrified and saddened to be confronted by the sights and sounds of an army of wind turbines. The erection of these monstrous turbines would only destroy what we all love about the Australian bush. This is not the place to build wind turbines, they should not be allowed here.

Sounds amazing. Great job! Fully in support