Thunderbolt Wind Farm

I wish to object against the proposed Thunderbolts Wind Farm development.
I am concerned about the effects of noise of human and animal life and the extent to which it may spread; the visual impacts of the project on the scenic hills of the area; the strong possibility that the wind farm will not be decommissioned by the operator at the end of its lifespan.
The noise of wind farms is a major concern for me. My husband is very sensitive to low frequency noise and had to abandon the idea of living or spending much time on his former rural property because the noise of a distant wind farm which would have otherwise remained unnoticed from his property. The 2014 NHRMC Review on Wind Farm noise summarised research which noted the audibility of wind farm noise 10km away from a wind farm. I think it is unfair to expect the locals to put up with such an acoustic intrusion.
With regards to animals, it is known than many species communicate using infrasound and/or perceive infrasound. This project will span tens of kilometres and send sound waves way beyond the immediate area. I do not believe that this possibility is being seriously considered in the Environmental Impact statement.
The more obvious, however, is noise. Farm animals will simply be fenced into paddocks surrounding the wind turbines and be subjected to noise with no ability to escape it. If wind turbine noise is annoying to humans, then what makes it compatible with farm animals? Is this not a form of cruelty towards animals?
The hills around the Kentucky and Bendemeer area are amongst the most scenic in the area. The wind turbines proposed will tower the hills and dwarf everything in their vicinity. I feel this project is visually incompatible with the area.
Lastly, there appears to be no concrete plan by the developer for the decommissioning of the wind turbines at the end of the wind farm’s life or a failed business venture. I think it will be rather unfair for the locals or the taxpayer to be footing the bill once private investors have skimmed the profits from the project over the years and then sold it on to shelf company in the last years of its operation.

It is of great concern that the ‘Threatened Species within the Subject Land' section of the Biodiversity Assessment Report does not include the Bogong Moth as a threatened species.
Bogong moths migrate through the Kentucky district a couple of times a year, and they have been present at Nandewar annually. Bogong Moths were declared Threatened by the Commonwealth Government in 2000. In December last year the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) added the Bogong Moth to the international red list of threatened and endangered species.
Bogong moths used to be in such abundance that First Nations people gathered from all over to meet on the migration path of the moth to feast on them. The number of moths has crashed, over 99% decline impacting other species such as the critically endangered pygmy possums.

The community consultation has been really poor
Last minute noise testing done by the community means they don’t have confidence in the proponents activities
Fauna and fora studies were all done in a drought
The community has a total lack of confidence in the process required to develop a responsible development
The community are not enthusiastic about foreign owned companies telling the locals how to live their lives

Thunderbolt Wind Farm SSD 10807896 EIS Exhibition
I wish to submit the following objections and some possible solutions to the development.
1. Only maximum possible sizes of the 32 Wind Turbine Generators (WTG) given
Therefore only once the WTG model is confirmed will any necessary controls identified in the assessment be implemented.
• Unknown actual sizing of the WTG means that sizing of the ancillary infrastructure including access tracks, road upgrades, underground and overhead electricity cabling, substation, switching station, operations and maintenance facility and grid connection to the existing 330 kV transmission line is also unknown.
• Therefore, this EIS is completely generic until this is decided, with unknown parameters any impacts are also unknown and at best guesswork as is suggested by the repeated wording ‘will likely require…’.

2. Biodiversity ad Environmental impact
Again, this EIS is completely generic until WTG are decided, with unknown parameters any impacts are also unknown and at best guesswork as is suggested by the repeated wording ‘will likely require…’.
The EIS states that Neoen have been actively consulted with local landholders in the locality about the potential to establish stewardship sites for the purpose of generating suitable ecosystem and habitat credits’.
• What accreditation processes are being used for these sites?
• Request the locality of sites all be within the surrounding areas and not outside the REZ.
• Request rehabilitation of cleared areas consisting of non-native species with natives
• Development should comply with the same guidelines in relation to land clearing and treatment of native animals that farmers would have to comply with.
• Engagements with local wildlife agencies must be undertaken to ensure that wildlife are cared for properly, tree shaking must have native wildlife carers to support the repatriation of animals.

3. Traffic and Transport
Truck and vehicle movements
• Any damage to the State or Council road assets (including but not limited to concrete medians, pavement, or safety barriers) as a result of the project and the associated heavy vehicles be required to be “made good” by the project.

4. Water
The submitted EIS is unclear on the likely source of external water supply required for road building, concrete batching and other construction activities. Water usage and what quality is required is unspecified.
• It is recommended a water balance report be undertaken to determine the likely impact of the development on water resources within the project area and on adjoining landholders.
• Further investigations/certainty regarding the sources of other external water is required.
• ‘Any Potable water demands for both the construction and operational phases of the Project will be supplied via water tanker and stored in on-site water tanks.’ Where will this water be from?
• ‘Any other water sourced from either surface water or groundwater sources to meet Project construction demands will be licenced and managed, as required, in accordance with the requirements of the Water Management Act 2000.’ Is there available groundwater or surface water? Water is of great concern to the area as was highlighted in the droughts over the last decade.
• I question the adequacy of hydrological impact assessment as the EIS states, ‘Changes to hydrology are considered unlikely’ and then discusses minimums of 4 tributary crossings, although over 50kms of gravel road are to be built and each of the 32 turbines requires tonnes of concrete and steel to support it. Underground electrical cabling will require earthworks as well. ‘Progressive erosion and soil control plans will be developed’ is not enough, more is needed to be done earlier.
• Where will the sediment dams that are to be tested going to be built?
• In other similar projects WaterNSW has suggested that ‘An operating condition be included to specifically manage and monitor surface water quality and hydrology during construction and protect water assets, including that quality of water flowing into any catchments does not cause any impacts.


5. Rehabilitation and decommissioning
2 years prior to closure is completely unacceptable, as with mines and large quarries, a bond should be in place with the State Government before construction begins.
• There is a high risk that the owner of the infrastructure when decommissioning is required will not have sufficient resources to proceed safely and effectively. This cost will then be passed on to the landowner, the Local Council or the State Government.

6. Aviation Lighting Impacts
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) cannot mandate but has thus far advised the State Planning Departments in all Australian States that wind turbines projects should include lighting on perimeter WTG and other lighting at intervals.
• WTG flashing lights are known globally to be a problem and can often be seen for over 40kms at night.
• Suggest the use of radar activated collision warning light system which switch on when an airplane is within a radius of 4km flying below 700m.

7. Exclusive Electricity Plan
As has been offered by ENGIE to the residents in the Hills of Gold area, an exclusive electricity plan should be made available to the residents within the area.
• Under this exclusive electricity plan, Neoen would cover the wholesale cost component of all electricity used by residents within the Kentucky, Bendemeer and Balala area, enabling them to further benefit from the proximity of the Project by saving on their energy bills

8. Waste Management
The EIS does not consider this issue in detail, only proposing the development of a waste management and a decommissioning plan. ‘The SEARs require the EIS to quantify and classify the likely waste streams to be generated during construction and operation, and describe the measures to be implemented to manage, reuse, recycle and safely dispose of this waste.’
• Neoen could commission and resource a suitable recycling plant within Uralla Shire developed to the satisfaction of the Local Council and the EPA that could then manage the recyclable waste stream from this project and others including both WTG and solar panels. An ongoing business to benefit the community and to ensure the best possible outcome of this energy manufacturing.
• Additional details need to be provided regarding disposal of the non-recyclable components developed to the satisfaction of the Local Council and the EPA.

My objections include, but are not limited to those attached; given that adequate time to read, digest and respond to all points was not given.

The community consultation process has been appalling. The CCC committee have offered NO transparency. The proponent has not been transparent with the visual and noise impacts to the community, to the extent that the community has undertaken further noise testing at their own expense. Flora and fauna studies were undertaken during a drought and severe bushfires, therefore these studies are not reflective of usual populations and the koala community which should be protected and listed as an endangered species. Lastly foreign owned and multi national absentee participants should not be allowed to dictate the terms of "how" a community should be living.

I wish to place an objection to the proposed Thunderbolt Wind Farm. I have outlined my reasons in the attachment.

Dear DPIE
This project has demonstrably failed in approach to Development and in its compliance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and its alignment with the relevant SSD Guidelines.

I wanted to summarise my objections on some key points these being as follows;
+ The EIS remains a flowed process to assess the suitability or otherwise of this project -it remains totally ineffective to try to assess this project at the end of a tick the box procedure - it is clear that site selection was poorly executed
+ A fundamental floor inherent in this developers approach to RE is the total disregard of securing social licence through meaning community engagement -its wispy thin 'drop in' session approach smacks of lack of genuineness.
+ Scientifically its floored in terms of its respect for biodiversity
+ The project induces an increased risk of fire - through the inability to provide aerial support from helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.
+ The Proponent has shown no regard for the obvious cumulative impact from the plethora of proposed wind farm developments in the immediate area. The EIS narrative and Scoping Summary is flawed for the following reasons ;
1. The EIS deliberately attempts to mislead/misrepresent as to what should be a more relevant 'study area' for cumulative assessment . The whole of the New England is not an appropriate area as identified in Appendix 20 . The EIS should have more sensitively selected either 70Klm radius ex Walcha or 50Klm radius the ex -the village of Kentucky
2. The EIS shows scant regard for the DPIE Cumulative Impact Assessment Guidelines July 2021. In this regard
- 2.1 There is no reference to appropriate baseline -establishing the existing environmental conditions together with an assessment of 'other relevant future' projects
- 2.2 There is no reference through a wider interpretation of 'other relevant projects' to 'other major greenfield develops which are scheduled for the study area.For example other pre-Sear projects Ruby Hills and Bendemeer Energy Hub , Salisbury Wind, Hill Of Gold

The Cumulative Impact is significant.
For these and other relevant reasons the Project should not proceed to a consent phase.

Thankyou and Available to elaborate is necessary

I am objecting to this project as I feel this is the wrong area for a project of this size and magnitude. There are many people living in this area and I feel that with the wind turbines, it’s going to put these peoples lives at risk in case of fires as the helicopters won’t go near them to put out the fires and with all these solar panels which are meant to be going in, surely there is room further out west that doesn’t take away perfect grazing land. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I dislike renewable energy, I just think it hasn’t been thought about enough. Surely it can go west of the dividing range , especially considering the sun shines a lot more as we have a lot of cloud cover in the New England. The biggest issue really at the end of the day is the decommissioning of these structures. Is it going to be the people who build them or is it going to be the land holder, which probably won’t be the person who decided to put them there in the first place.

I am totally against this project because I believe that it will totally destroy the Rural lifestyle of all the residents, and our Native Animals will be put further into danger of distinction.
The company’s that are doing this don’t take community’s opinion into account at all, and I believe there are better place’s for these monstrosities.
I am all for renewable energy but not the way they are doing it.

How barbaric! Thunderbolt Wind Farm developers Neoen have documented in their EIS Biodiversity Assessment Report how they will clear koalas from the industrial wind turbine site in Kentucky.
They should not receive approval for clearing trees in known koala habitat. Nor should koalas be shaken from trees using heavy machinery, or if they are still there, trees should not be cut down with koalas still in residence.
Barbaric practices like this should not be allowed and are completely out of step with community expectations. Wind energy is touted as being "green", however, removing koala habitat and potentially killing koalas is certainly not environmentally friendly.
How is this even possible with the implementation of the NSW Koala Strategy? Private landholders and farmers in the Armidale Regional and Uralla local government areas will have access to funding which supports koala habitat restoration and enhancement, but wind turbine developers can just come along and remove and kill koalas and their habitat? What sort of double standard is this?
It makes the $193.3 million NSW Koala Strategy a complete joke. Particularly when this district - including Kentucky - has been identified as one of 10 climate resilient koala stronghold locations identified in the strategy, which will receive extensive engagement, funding and support.
Move the wind turbines somewhere else and protect the koalas.

See letter, 1 page, attachment.

I submit my objection to the Thunderbolt 1 Project on the basis that:-
1) The fauna and flora surveys are predominately conducted at an inappropriate time.
I travel the route Ben Lomond to Bendemeer fortnightly on the New England Highway which transects the areas of bushland in the locality of the Thunderbolt I project proposal.
As a grazier, I pay particular note of the variations in the vegetation and the bushland along the route. I feel well qualified to make a comment on the timeliness of the surveys submitted in the EIS in that the bushland has really only made a substantial recovery in the spring of 2021 following significant rain after extraordinary times of extended drought.
In the spring of 2021, I observed a beginning of the recovery of the countryside and significantly of the native vegetation, both mature trees and bushy scrubland and ground living flora. I understand that following a recovery of the food and shelter sources, then will follow the populations of fauna. The gradual return of fauna will enable them to begin to breed and in time, have the capacity to recover their population densities experienced prior to serious years of drought.
To have conducted the fauna surveys prior to the summer through autumn of 2022 is to exclude the recovering populations of fauna. Statistics presented in the report cannot possibly have captured a true picture of the normal populations of fauna, especially the threatened and endangered & including the koala. These populations are enjoying their first decent season and may have been able to breed, an observation that could be made now, in the autumn of 2022 – certainly missed in a submission made at this time.
2)
I note that the cumulative impact is assessed in term of a list of projects included in and outside of the NE REZ. The list is neither comprehensive, nor does it adequately address the issues of cumulative impact in the immediate area. The report does not acknowledge the open field of proponents contesting limited access to the transmission lines or the intensity of proposals under examination. The report ignores the true cumulative impact on roads usage, road infrastructure cumulative impact, the intensity of impact on residents purely by numbers of “prospectors” casing potential sites and access.
3)
The quality and frequency of genuine engagement for the community on the proposal had never been led by the proponent. The depth and cohesiveness of this community has led the community information sharing despite the obstructions afforded by the proponent.

I hereby submit my objection to the proposal based on these grounds.
Yours sincerely,
Beth White

The attached are the independent review of the Thunderbolt Wind Farm EIS noise report that our submission made yesterday promised to attach. The HusonPaper2 document is the published paper that is mentioned in the letter.
This report discusses omissions and errors in the Thunderbolt Wind Farm EIS Noise Report and concludes that the project as presented is non-compliant and should not be approved by NSW Government.

See attachment.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re Thunderbolt Wind Farm SSD-18087896

Objection


Landscape, visual and shadow flicker

Kentucky is a closely settled ‘soldier’s settlement’ district a short distance to the east of the proposal. The district supports orcharding, farm stays, a distillery and restaurant, and larger grazing enterprises. The village has a shop, a church, a public school and many surrounding lifestyle blocks.

The landscape and visual amenity of the district will be forever negatively changed as a result of this development.

Many residences will be severely impacted by shadow flicker from the very large turbines in the late afternoon. Sunsets will never be possible without turbine interference.


Noise and vibration

Many local residences will be affected by noise and vibration from the development in both its construction stage and the operational stage. Many residents will find this intolerable compared to the quiet enjoyment of the landscape they currently enjoy.

Noise is known to travel for many km beyond the boundary of the wind farm in a tunnel like fashion, impacting residences many km’s away more than those that are closer.

Of particular concern is infrasound which travels over hundreds of kilometres.


Biodiversity

The proposal is located on Critically Endangered Ecological Community and has triggered the EPBC Act (1999).

I value the wildlife found across this landscape, which includes a range of endangered and threatened species.

I was horrified to hear that “Heavy machinery will shake habitat trees (as appropriate) to encourage fauna to move on”. It is not acceptable for farmers to treat wildlife or their livestock in this way. Why is it acceptable for a foreign owned wind farm developer to treat our wildlife in this way? It’s not. There is no social licence to conduct habitat removal like this.


Traffic and transport

This project will cause massive disruption along New England Highway.

Most locals use this route to conduct their business and travel to school, work or town.

The productivity of our district will be impacted negatively by the delays caused, the dust and disruption to traffic flows. The deterioration of all the road surfaces will cause further delays, increase costs to local government, potentially increasing rates paid by residents, and increased costs to residents’ vehicle maintenance as a result of pot holes caused by the increased heavy vehicle use.


Aboriginal cultural heritage

I believe the study of cultural heritage may have not properly involved enough of the appropriate members of the Anaiwan nation. The results of this study are questionable.


Aviation safety

The proposal is on the commercial flight path of the Armidale to Sydney flights and lights are likely to be required on the towers by CASA. These lights will impact many residences in the district.

The safety of aerial fire fighters will be put at risk given the project is in a high fire danger area and aerial support will be necessary to protect the New England Highway and Kentucky Village.

The Westpac Rescue Helicopter operates along this section of the New England Highway to rescue a large number of vehicle accident victims. Pilots, crews and patients will be placed at increased risk while operating in an area with many tall wind towers.


Telecommunications

Television reception is likely to be impacted for many residents of the Kentucky district, given many obtain their signal from the Narrabri towers.

Mobile phone reception is very important for Kentucky residents, as the copper wires and the telephone exchange are very old and unreliable. Telstra has refused to fix many ‘end of line’ phone services on this exchange, stating its too expensive to do so.
I believe that there is no guarantee that mobile phone reception will be unaffected by the operational wind farm. This will cause unacceptable negative impacts on residences, businesses and farms in our district.


Bushfire

The research into the ability to adequately conduct aerial fire-fighting in a bushfire prone area is totally inadequate.

Fires impacting the area are most likely to start to the west of the project area and travel eastwards with the prevailing winds in the direction of Kentucky village. However, the proposed project will be in the path of the fire, blocking aerial fire-fighting support.

As a consequence, many homes and farms will be at risk. The lives of many residents in the village of Kentucky will also be placed at risk.


Water and soils

Inadequate attention is paid in the EIS to how the proposal will impact ground water flows. Many local farms rely on ground water for both domestic and livestock use. Any changes to groundwater as a result of the huge foundations under the towers will be unacceptable.


Waste Management

What guarantees is the proponent making to ensure leaching of toxic materials from the concrete footings into the water table of the (clean) upper reaches of the Murray Darling Basin does not occur?


Air quality

Many residences will be significantly impacted by transport and concrete dust during the construction phase.


Economic impact

Our local councils are likely to be negatively affected by excess water usage, excess gravel usage, road repairs, garbage disposal, and increasing council rates.

Local producers will be negatively impacted for the reasons outlined above, impacting their bottom line and impacting the economy of our rural area.

Although there will be an increase in jobs during the construction phase, many of these will be ‘fly in fly out’, leaving our local economy depleted. These are jobs that should be provided to locals.


Social impact

Noise, dust, traffic congestion and once operational, shadow flicker will likely drive residents away from the area, and cause visitors to rethink their plans. This will further isolate this small regional district and reduce resilience across our region.

Many community members will eventually suffer mental and physical health impacts as a result of the various impacts of these towers.


Cumulative impact

The cumulative impacts of the 590+ towers proposed within a 70 km radius of Walcha will negatively impact many families and businesses in our district.

The beautiful New England region will be transformed into an industrial landscape, which is unacceptable.


Community consultation

Very poor community consultation – most of which has coincided with covid lockdowns, meaning residents and community members were unable or not confident to participate in their ‘drop in sessions’.

Thank you, but I do not wish to support this project. The local fauna in the area will be irreversibly displaced and the windfarm at this location could be an environmental disaster for the Koala habitat that has had to endure droughts in recent years and fires in the region.
No...it's unjust and inhumane to place a windfarm at this location.

Dear Sirs and Madams,
I object to this wind farm project on the following facts :
a) Bird strike kills
b) visually pollution
c) Noise pollution
d) economically not viable ( take out subsidy)

This project is absolutely disappointing for the land holders that have worked extremely hard owning their own properties,whom aren’t hoist ‘s of the turbines and will lose over 30% of their land value if this project proceeds to go ahead, I’m directing affected by this.

This project has devided a once close knit community,with hoist’s becoming greedy self-centred land holders only worrying about lining their own pockets and couldn’t give a care in the world whom this will affect financially in the long run!
An absolute eye opener of what so called neighbours will do mentally to other neighbours.

The mental stress of this whole wind turbines project I have seen first hand in the community is disappointing.

I’m not against renewable energy by any means, but I am against this project affecting my financial gain with property devaluation!!!

I believe this project should not go ahead due to the listed native animals that are known to be on this site.
Shaking these animals to remove them from their native homes is nothing less then disgusting and inhumane. The animals at this site are known to be extinct and have been spotted at site, shaking them from there homes and asking them to simply move on not only put their lives in damaged due to a very busy highway but also due to the heavy machinery at work some of these animals include Koala,Spotted Tailed Quoll, Tiger Quoll, White Throated Needletail, Squirrel Glider, Boorolong Frog, Bush Stone Curlew, Scarlett Robyn.
We need to protect our native fauna.