Mod 1 - Increase in turbine height and project refinement

I object to the development of the increased land clearing in the Coppabella hills. I am worried about the environment damage with the clearing of trees and the huge roads that will need to be built.
Also visually they will impact as I conduct "Women's Well-being Workshops' on our property and also the noise of the larger turbines.

I object to the increased vegetation clearing of the coppabella hills,due to the steepness of the country with erosion a major concern and also the clearing of so many trees

I am writing this submission in relation to the Modification Application for the Coppabella Windfarm( formerly the Yass Valley Windfarm) submitted by Goldwind.
I strongly object to the Modification Application for a variety of reasons and will endeavour to highlight the main points of concern.
Firstly this is not a modification, this is and should be treated as a whole new development application.

The increase in the turbine size raises numerous issues in itself.
-The obvious one being the visual effect on the landscape
-the increase in the hardstand area -which I might add the
Goldwind Development Project Manager could not state what
this would be at the first Community Consultation Committee
(CCC) meeting recently
-if a larger hardstand area is required then obviously more
concrete is needed, resulting in more water usage( another
unanswered question at the recent CCC Meeting was the
source of water during the construction phase)
-with the increase in potential output per turbine what effect
would this have on the number of turbines actually built in
regards to the capacity of the powerlines being connected to
- if less larger turbines were built than originally approved
would this then allow more turbines to be built in the future if
there was an upgrade of the power lines.
-also with less turbines the financial benefit (through the
Community Enhancement Fund) to the local communities
would be greatly reduced
-as it stands the towns closest to the development have no
guarantee of receiving any significant amount anyway

The increase in the area of vegetation clearing is appalling in a time when a lot of farmers(myself included) are planting thousands of trees for various enviromental reasons.
-the native vegetation on the Coppabella Hills is part of an
Endangered Ecological Community for a very good reason
-the increase in the loss of wildlife habitat as a result of
clearing more vegetation both living and dead(hollow bearing
trees) is a major concern

-the risk of erosion on the steep terrain is of significant
concern also

There are many more issues with this modification application but these are the main concerns.
This development has been hanging over our heads for nearly ten years now. As a business owner it makes it extremely difficult to make sound decisions regarding certain aspects of a business and the direction it takes with such a significant project hanging in the balance.

-

I object to DC SSD - 6698
Increasing the vegetation clearing limit in such a steep and challenging terrain would be hard to mitigate soil erosion
There should be no impact to the white box, yellow box, blakely's red gum community (box gum woodland), listed as an endangered ecological community under NSW and as a critically endangered ecological community. under the Commonwealth legislation.
Who cleans the mess up at the end of the short life of the turbine.
Where does the power come from when there is no wind? Is it worth the negative impact to the environment and community?

I object strongly to Coppabella Wind farms App No SSD6698 MOD1. Such radical modifications should require a complete new DA
I object to increasing the clearing limit
I object to the increase in blade length
I object to any modification to infrastructure

I believe the modification proposed for Yass Valley Wind Farm (SSD 6698 MOD 1) is significant and warrants a new Development Application. Over two and a half times increase in vegetation clearing in steep country should require closer scrutiny. As should the increase in tower height and blade length. The effect of these changes on the ecology, the neighbouring residents, and wider community are too significant to be approved without closer scrutiny.
I object to the proposed modification and ask NSW Government to call for a new DA.

My objection to this `Modification to the existing consent for Coppabella Wind Farm' expanded area of clearing of and Ecological Endangered Community (EEC) " White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Redbox grassy woodland" community (Modification under Section 96(2), seeking increase in vegetation clearing limit (S3 Cond 19) and that serious consideration is being given to the management of water supply for construction and erosion on a very fragile soil.

Harden Shire Remnant Vegetation Management Plan - 1997 identified that only 2.83% of medium to dense remnant vegetation remain within the shire, to increase the amount of land to be cleared in this EEC area without clearly outlining a plan of how set-aside ratios and offsets are to be managed should be unacceptable to NSW planning? No defined rehabilitation plans?

No serious consideration appears to have been given to where water is to be sourced for the construction of the towers, road building, dust suppression and supporting infrastructure. Please be aware of the Jugiong Creek Community Salinity Ranking project - June, 2009 it noted that the streams monitored in this area where regularly dry over the four years of monitoring, and we would request that no surface water be removed from the existing water course. As landholders on Jugiong Creek we have seen it pumped dry by roadworks programs in the past, the volume of water simply isn't there to support such a large project, water will have to be sourced elsewhere. A large number of landholders down-stream depend on this water system for stock and domestic water supply.

The riparian environment is very fragile due to low water levels and any reduction can only cause difficulties to the riparian populations and river health within the Jugiong Creek catchment and flow on into the Murrumbidgee River at Jugiong.

The soil is a fragile granite base, highly erodible; we would request that very stringent guidelines be put in place to ensure that gully and surface erosion is not the result of the road ways being constructed to bring the towers to the site. Will there be a clause that requires rehabilitation should serious erosion events un-expectly occur?

I hope you will give serious consideration to all the above issues when considering the terms and conditions for this development

My objection to this `Modification to the existing consent for Coppabella Wind Farm' expanded area of clearing of and Ecological Endangered Community (EEC) " White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Redbox grassy woodland" community (Modification under Section 96(2), seeking increase in vegetation clearing limit (S3 Cond 19) and that serious consideration is being given to the management of water supply for construction and erosion on a very fragile soil.

Harden Shire Remnant Vegetation Management Plan - 1997 identified that only 2.83% of medium to dense remnant vegetation remain within the shire, to increase the amount of land to be cleared in this EEC area without clearly outlining a plan of how set-aside ratios and offsets are to be managed should be unacceptable to NSW planning? No defined rehabilitation plans?

No serious consideration appears to have been given to where water is to be sourced for the construction of the towers, road building, dust suppression and supporting infrastructure. Please be aware of the Jugiong Creek Community Salinity Ranking project - June, 2009 noted that the streams monitored in this area where regularly dry over the four years of monitoring, and we would request that no surface water be removed from the existing water course. As landholders on Jugiong Creek we have seen it pumped dry by roadworks programs in the past, the volume of water simply isn't there to support such a large project, water will have to be sourced elsewhere. A large number of landholders down-stream depend on this water system for stock and domestic water supply.

The riparian environment is very fragile due to low water levels and any reduction can only cause difficulties to the riparian populations and river health within the Jugiong Creek catchment and flow on into the Murrumbidgee River at Jugiong.

The soil is a fragile granite base, highly erodible; we would request that very stringent guidelines be put in place to ensure that gully and surface erosion is not the result of the road ways being constructed to bring the towers to the site. Will there be a clause that requires rehabilitation should serious erosion events un-expectly occur?

I hope you will give serious consideration to all the above issues when considering the terms and conditions for this development

Dear Sirs
I wish to express my strong opposition to the above Yass Valley Wind Farm Mod 2 for the following reasons.
1. That these proposed "modifications" to this project are way over the top and should be submitted to the state again as a whole new development.
2. The massive destruction of the environment within this development, namely loss of precious and rare flora and fauna and the continued destruction caused by the ongoing erosion
3. That I am unconvinced by the promise made by this and other proponents to restore the damaged environment once the wind turbines have been decommissioned at the end of their working life. This would entail the planting, screening,watering and nurturing of native plants and grasses for the following 3 to 5 years. I just can't envisage that happening.
4. And as for the decommissioning of the defund towers, there is another very grey area especially as the State Government has no legislation in place to enforce it.
5. Road safety issues with the great increase use by heavy vehicles on narrow, winding roads designed to only carry local cars and light trucks, school buses, mail contractors, farm machinery and livestock.
6. Fire fighting issues where water bombers would be restricted in their access because of wind turbines being hidden by heavy smoke.
7. Possible health issues due to sublimable noise and stress due to the destruction of beautiful scenery and quiet peaceful lifestyles.
8. The bitter divisions within affected communities between "hosts" ( a majority of whom don't even reside on their properties )and other residents who value the friendship, help and support found in rural areas.
Finally it is my opinion that this and other proponents, who are mostly funded by overseas money, are only interested in stuffing as much tax payers money as they can in their oversize pockets and as quickly as they can before disappearing into the sunset. Thus leaving us poor sods not only paying far more for electricity but to also clean up their mess.

I have concerns for the wind farm on Coppabella ranges, the aesthetic effect will be negative as well as the potential health risks associated with wind farms. I have read many articles about the negative effects of wind farms on health and am concerned about future health problems arising. We live in a rural area where we enjoy the beautiful view and are removed from the health risks associated with city living. Adding this wind farm to our area has potential risks for our health and our grandchildren growing up in this environment. Until more research has been conducted this type of development needs to be on hold to ensure the correlation between these turbines and negative health can be disregarded entirely. We need to look at the comments made by others already living with turbines in their vicinity and see their complaints eg headache, anxiety, sleep disturbances, cognitive dysfunction, stress and decreased quality of life demonstrating affects on physical, mental and social well being. This development will also impact on the value of our property as potential buyers will steer away from areas that will have negative aesthetics and health risks. Much research has been undertaken in Canada demonstrating that wind turbines do affect health with the question being to what degree and I don't want to be the one to find out.

I have concerns for the wind farm on the Coppabella ranges. The aesthetic effect will be negative as well as the potential effects on human health.
There are many articles stating that further reasearch is needed into wether the wind farms have a negative long term effect on the health of people in the area. There has been many studies in Canada that state there is further research need to find of the full effects of the wind farms on the health of people and animals around them.
Further investigation into the impact of people living in the area of wind turbines needs to be conducted before this is seen as a sustainable source of energy.
This project will also have a major impact on the aesethics of the area. I live in the area and have my farm in the area and I believe that it will have a negative impact on such a beautiful area. One study revealed " I have met some of those affected. They tell me they mainly suffer from chronic sleep deprivation, but some also suffer from sinus pressure, tinnitus pains in the chest, headaches, nausea and vertigo". To me personally I am no scientist but this does not sound like sustainable energy.
I am against this project till there is proof that all the negative effects listed are shown to be false beyond a reasonable doubt.

Dear NSW State Planning Commission
YVWF MOD (SSD 6698MOD
I wish to add to my concerns and objections to the amendments to the above development.
I believe this proposed wind farm development was first approved in 2012. How come then is that the proponent Goldwind, who has done very little to proceed with the development for the past 5 years, can suddenly come up with not only many admendments plus the addition of several more towers. Just who is running the show? You, the State Government or Goldwind? It seems blatantly clear to me that Goldwind and other fellow proponents can do what they like and push both the governments and affected residents, (excluding hosts) around.
It seems lidicrious to me that the governments is willing to fork out large subsidies to such companies while allowing them to deatroy environments and people's lifestyle for a measly 2 to 4% supply of unreliable electricity which costs the community and businesses more! I can see what has happened in the United States where hundreds of wind towers are idle and falling down because when the governments put a stop to,the subsidies, the proponent companies simply walked away, happening here.
Surely you must see that solar farms and panels on every roof is the way to go instead of a very expensive and relatively useless 25 year band aid. Come On! Leapfrog wind turbines and jump into the future!
Sincerely
Rosemary Miller

I wish to object to the application for modification to the Yass wind farm based on: Increased clearing of Box-Gum-GrassyWoodland and potential erosion due to soil type and topography.

I wish to object to the submission for modification of the DA for the Yass Wind Farm based on inadequate mitigation of potential impacts on erosion and reduction of endangered Box-Gum-Woodland and habitat for foraging and nesting for hollow dependent species.

I object to this proposed modification on the grounds that it represents a relevant and substantial increase >35% in the size of the development and therefore should require a new application, in addition to which it does not proffer a proposed installation of infrastructure in order to provide guaranteed dispatchable base level of generation as is now considered a necessity for energy security. This modification application should be denied unconditionally.

I wish to object to the modification application to Yass Wind farm on the grounds that the principle of intergenerational equity has not been addresses and because the application involves increased height to turbines causing far reaching visual impact and detraction from a beautiful landscape, it involves destruction of vegetation over a larger area and does not adequately mitigatee agains the potential negative impact on soil erosion and maintenance of endangered biodiversity - Box Gum grassy woodland and hollow dependent species

I wish to object to the modification application to Yass Wind farm on the grounds that the principle of intergenerational equity has not been addresses and because the application involves increased height to turbines causing far reaching visual impact and detraction from a beautiful landscape, it involves destruction of vegetation over a larger area and does not adequately mitigatee agains the potential negative impact on soil erosion and maintenance of endangered biodiversity - Box Gum grassy woodland and hollow dependent species

This modification is too significant to not be put back out to the community for consultation.

For increased IWT height, where is the revised Fire Plan?

I stand by the concerns raised by the Yass Landscape Guardians.

I am writing to voice my objection to Yass Valley Wind Farm for the following reasons.
The project is creating divisions within our local community and between landholders. Opinions vary and whilst some people stand to gain financially from the project, others are faced with the real possibility of their own farms decreasing in value as a result of these wind farms.
It needs to be carefully considered that this beautiful part of our country side will be dramatically changed and will never be the same again and all for a small, questionable financial gain. The proposed 180.9 ha of native vegetation to be cleared, will only add further stress on the already over cleared remaining trees on these hills, as they rely on 'safety in numbers' to survive.
I believe the project is politically driven, with no obvious net financial gain and major negative impacts on our local environment and relationships within our community.
Your sincerely Brendan Corkhill (Manager Garyowen Pastoral)

I feel it is incredulous that this process can be allowed.

The umpire made its decision (Department of Planning and the PAC), Epuron did not appeal the decision; and yet Goldwinds can completely "re-write" the project simply because they have one foot in the door.

Can objectors apply for a "modification"? Do they have reciprocal rights?

Can we ask that the turbine numbers be reduced to 35 and the balance of the energy capacity must be provided by guaranteed 24/7 generation capacity?

This process Goldwind's total lack of respect for the planning process, the PAC decision, the rights of objectors and the impact on the local community.

This modification should simply thrown out of court, the addition clearing of the Critically Endangered Red Gum Yellow Box woodland is totally unacceptable.

The Department of Planning does not even know the cumulative approved land clearing of this Critically Endangered EEC it has "rubber stamped" on all wind energy projects across NSW.

This in Environmental vandalism and total environmental irresponsibility.