2.5.1 Construction and commissioning

Manildra Solar Farm Environmental Assessment

4 November 2010 36

2.5 PROPOSAL PHASES

2.5.1 Construction and commissioning

Before project approval has been received, it is not possible to define the timeline for the construction of the project. It would be expected that from the time project approval is received, it would take a number of months to finalise the additional agreements required before construction could commence. This includes finalising the grid connection agreement and ordering long lead‐time items such as transformers. An indicative proposed timeline is outlined in Table 2‐7.

Table 2‐7: Indicative project timeline

Stage Approximate timeframe Duration

Construction April 2012 8 months approx

Commissioning May 2012 ‐

Operation May 2012 30 to 50 years

Decommissioning 2042 TBD

The construction phase of the solar farm would then occur over an 8 month period and would include such activities as:

• Transportation of people, materials and equipment to each precinct

• Civil works for access track construction and trenching for cables

• Installation of PV array

• Construction of onsite power reticulation lines and cables

• Augmentation of substation

• Construction of temporary offices and facilities

• Temporary storage

• Restoration and revegetation of disturbed onsite areas on completion of construction works

This proposal may be constructed in a phased or staged approach, with separate groups of infrastructure considered discrete work packages and commenced at different times.

In general, construction would commence with the upgrading of roads and all other site civil works, including fencing of the site, preparation of hardstand areas and laying of cables. This would be followed by construction of the site facilities compound, installation of the PV array mounting structures and panels, inverters and kiosk transformers.

The PV array would be constructed using vibrated piling to drive the pylons into the ground or installed on precast concrete footings. The module mounting structure would be attached to the upright pylons, and the panels fixed to the mounting structure using the pre‐drilled mounting holes in the panel frame. The proposed concrete footings are shown in Figure 2‐12.


4 November 2010 37

Figure 2‐12: Module mounting structure with concrete footing

Concrete trucks would be used to supply concrete required for inverter, kiosk transformer and substation transformer bases and to construct the slab for the operations and maintenance building. Concrete batching plants would not be used during the project. The concrete footings for PV arrays would be pre‐cast.

The necessary substation augmentation and grid connection works would be carried out in parallel.

The commissioning phase would include pre‐commissioning checks on all high‐voltage equipment prior to connection to the TransGrid transmission system. Once the solar farm electrical connections have been commissioned and energised, each array block is then separately connected and put into service.

On completion of construction, disturbed areas would be revegetated and all waste materials removed and disposed of appropriately.

2.5.2 Construction hours

Construction activities associated with the project that would generate noise audible at nearby residences would be undertaken during the hours of:

Monday – Friday 7am – 6pm

Saturday 8am – 1pm

Sunday and public holidays Not proposed

These working hours have been proposed to allow reasonable efficiencies of effort to achieve maximum productivity to minimise the overall construction duration. However, some work (e.g. delivery of substation transformer) may occur overnight due to logistical reasons.


4 November 2010 38

2.5.3 Operation

The solar farm would operate for a period of 30 to 50 years. A site manager would be employed and security staff would be present at night, and possibly 24 hours a day. Other security provisions would include security lighting and potentially cameras and motion sensors as well as fencing and warning signs to prevent unauthorised access.

While the solar farm operates with minimum personnel, the PV array and other equipment would require regular maintenance. It is possible that some equipment may require unscheduled repair or replacement.

After the expected 25 to 30 year lifetime of the PV panels, the solar panels and other components of the solar farm may be refurbished or replaced to improve the performance or decommissioned and removed from the site.

Routine maintenance

To ensure the solar farm operates in a safe and reliable manner, it would require regular inspection and maintenance on an ‘as needs’ basis. This would generally be carried out using standard light vehicles and maintenance crews would attend the site as required.

A supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system would monitor the solar farm and identify any electrical faults, which could then be addressed by isolating and shutting down the relevant array block.

Weed control would be undertaken as required using a spray unit mounted on a quad bike. Groundcover vegetation around the panel rows would be either slashed or grazed by sheep to maintain a safe height below the panels.

While it is not envisaged that panels would need to be regularly washed, event‐based panel washing may be undertaken after incidents such as dust storms. Washing would be undertaken using water only without detergent. Water would be sourced from Cabonne Council and most likely applied using a portable pressure washer or water truck. Up to 100,000 litres of water may be required per month during operation for panel washing.

Major repairs

It is possible that major unexpected equipment failures could take place during the life of the solar farm. While the PV array and electricity connections are designed for a 20 ‐ 30 year life, failures can occur due to a number of factors including lightning strike (offsite on the transmission line) and damage to key components (such as PV panels and transformers). Failure can also occur on other equipment including that located in substations.

Most repairs can be carried out in a similar manner to routine maintenance, although transport of large or heavy infrastructure such as replacement inverters or kiosk transformers would require heavy vehicles.


4 November 2010 39

Site monitoring program

A post‐construction monitoring program would be established to determine any additional impacts resulting from the operation of the wind farm. The Operational Environmental Management Plan would contain specific monitoring programs required and would assess key issues such as biodiversity and visitation numbers.

The operation of the solar farm would require minimal personnel onsite (approximately one staff member). Security is likely to show a presence onsite and security lighting may be required. Maintenance crews would attend the site as required. Water may be required to periodically wash the solar panels. A SCADA system would be used to monitors the solar farm, enabling the rapid shutdown of the affected part of the system if a problem is detected.

2.5.4 Decommissioning

The proposal includes a commitment to decommissioning at the end of the project life. The lifetime of the project is expected to be between 30 and 50 years.

All above ground infrastructure would be removed from the site and recycled or otherwise disposed of at approved facilities. Footings and pylons and underground cabling may be left in place. All areas of soil disturbed during decommissioning, including tracks, would be rehabilitated in consultation with the land owner, using appropriate species. Access tracks that the land owner wishes to retain may be left in place.

Decommissioning would involve similar road access arrangements to construction, and would require access for transport vehicles to dismantle and remove infrastructure. The decommissioning period is likely to be significantly shorter and with significantly less truck movements than the construction phase.


4 November 2010 40

2.6 JUSTIFICATION

This section provides a strategic overview of the need for the project in regards to the requirement for additional electricity supply in NSW and the need for more renewable energy projects. It also outlines Government policy objectives and targets for renewable energy and greenhouse gas reductions.

The Manildra Solar Farm would:

• Help secure reliable energy in a market where demand will soon exceed supply

• Assist in the reduction of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions contributing to climate change

• Help meet Federal and State policy objectives.

2.6.1 Energy context

The National Electricity Market

The National Electricity Market (NEM) is an all‐inclusive market which facilitates the supply of electricity to retailers and consumers in Queensland, New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania (AEMO 2010a). The NEM is a public‐private partnership (PPP) where energy generated by various enterprises is aggregated into a pool made available to consumers. The NEM currently supplies over eight million end‐use consumers which commands more than $10 billion of electricity to be traded annually (AEMO 2010a).

Electricity demand in NSW

In NSW, energy demand is growing. TransGrid’s 2010 Annual Planning Report indicates that growth in electricity demand will soon exceed supply during peak times. AEMO (2010b) indicates that New South Wales has a 2010/2011 summer aggregate scheduled and semi‐scheduled generation capacity of 15,950 MW, however forecasts show demand will surpass this amount in the next 5 years. Consequently, the State will need to build additional electricity generators to meet this demand, as well as to evade power outages and blackouts.

The AEMO Electricity Statement of Opportunities 2010 report analyses the supply and demand of electricity for each region of the National Electricity Market. The NSW average annual growth rate of energy consumption and maximum demand (based on a medium economic growth forecast) over the next 10 years is 2.6%. The summer supply‐demand outlook graph (Figure 2‐13) shows that additional capacity will be required to meet this forecast demand.

As depicted in the graph there is currently enough installed or planned energy infrastructure to meet the reliable capacity up until the summer of 2016/2017, from which a minimum additional capacity of 27 MW will be required (again based on a medium economic growth forecast). The amount of additional capacity required increases in subsequent years. Under low and high growth scenarios in NSW, AEMO (2010c) identifies the points at which installed capacity falls below that required for reliable supply, or “Low Reserve Capacity” (LRC point), and their applicable reserve deficits as follows:

• Low Growth – LRC point is reached in 2017/2018 with a reserve deficit of 91 MW.

• High Growth – LRC point in reached in 2016/2017 with a reserve deficit of 285 MW.


4 November 2010 41

Figure 2‐13: NSW Summer Outlook under medium economic growth forecast (Source: AEMO 2010c)

Role of renewable energy

Climate change

There is scientific evidence that the Earth’s climate is changing. Observations have shown global increases in air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice and rising sea levels (IPCC 2008). It has further been observed that many of the world’s natural systems are already being affected by the change of regional climates, in particular temperature increases (IPCC 2008). Other indicators include altered rainfall patterns and more frequent or intense weather patterns such as heatwaves, drought, and storms (DCCEE 2010a). In Australia, this change in the climate is anticipated to have an impact on water supply and quality, ecosystems and conservation, agriculture and forestry, fisheries, settlements and industry and human health. Australian trade and commodity prices may also be impacted on by the global impacts of climate change (DCCEE 2010a).

The drivers for climate change have been identified as being from both natural and anthropogenic forces, however a main contributor is the release of green house gases into the atmosphere (IPCC 2008).

GHG emissions world‐wide

The International Panel for climate change (IPCC) has acknowledged that it is very likely that human GHG emissions have directly influenced global temperatures to increase, as well as lead to other climate impacts. As GHG emissions stay in the atmosphere for decades, a predicted warming of around 0.2°C per decade is already expected regardless of future emission levels (IPCC 2008). However, if GHG emissions continue to be emitted at their current rate then further and more extreme changes to the global climate system will be experienced (IPCC 2008). Therefore, a reduction in GHG emissions is able


4 November 2010 42

to reduce the rate and magnitude of climate change. The IPCC recognises that GHG mitigation efforts over the next 20‐30 years will be crucial to stabilising the amount of change (IPCC 2008).

The GHG contributing most significantly to climate change is Carbon dioxide (CO2). Between 1970 and 2004 the amount of CO2 being emitted from human‐based activities increased by 80% and the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is now higher than ever measured (IPCC, 2008). This large increase is predominantly due to the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, for energy generation. Therefore the IPCC (2008) recommends a vital step to reducing CO2 emissions is by employing renewable energy technologies.

GHG emissions in Australia and NSW

Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency reports (2010b) show that emissions from the stationary energy sector, which include those from electricity generation and the manufacturing, construction and commercial sectors, is the largest and fastest growing area in terms of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. Between 1990 and 2008, emissions from electricity generation increased by 74.8 Mt CO2‐e, an average of 3.2% per year (DCCEE 2010b). In the December 2009 quarter, 202 Mt CO2‐e, or almost 38% of total greenhouse gas emissions, were produced during the generation of electricity (DCCEE 2010b).

In 2008, 38% of the total GHG emissions in NSW were from the generation of electricity and heat. Between 1990 and 2006 emissions from electricity and heat generation grew by 43% to a total amount of 63.2 MtCO2‐e (DCCEE 2010c). This made up 11% of the total GHG emissions in Australia.

The total number of GHG emissions avoided as a result of the proposal would be 0.075MtCO2‐e per annum. This represents 0.12% of the 2006 emissions. Cumulative reductions in GHG emissions from the construction of other solar farms in NSW including Nyngan, Moree and Bungendore would result in avoiding a total of 0.62% of the 2006 emissions.

The need for renewable energy technology

As discussed above, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2008) recommends employing renewable energy as a vital step to reducing CO2 emissions. Renewable energy technologies produce zero (e.g. solar PV) or low GHG emissions during generation, and can displace the emissions that would otherwise be produced by fossil fuel based electricity generation. Even taking into account the ‘lifecycle emissions’ of renewable energy technologies (that is, the emissions produced during construction, production, generation and decommissioning), coal produces at least 10 times the lifecycle emissions of renewables (Wright and Hearps 2010). For example, it is estimated that Solar PV produces in the order of 19‐59 gCO2e/kWh compared to rates for Coal, with carbon capture and storage, of 255‐441 gCO2e/kWh (Wright and Hearps 2010).

An indicator used to determine the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per kWh of electricity supplied to the NSW grid in a particular year is the NSW Annual Pool Value (GGAS 2008). Table 2‐8 shows that the Annual Pool Value is calculated by dividing the total energy supplied to the NSW grid by the total NSW emissions in that year.

To account for one‐off highs or lows that may be experienced in a particular year the Pool Coefficient is determined. This value is calculated by averaging the five Annual Pool Values from previous years, with a lag of two years (GGAS 2010). So the NSW Pool Coefficient for 2010 is the average of the Annual Pool Values from 2004 to 2008.


4 November 2010 43

Table 2‐8: NSW Annual Pool Values and Pool Coefficients (2003‐2010) (Source: GGAS 2010)

Year Total NSW emissions (tco2‐e)

Total NSW sent out generation (MWH)

Annual pool value tco2‐ e/MWH

Pool coefficient tco2‐ e/MWH

2003 63,431,793 66,800,866 0.950 0.897

2004 65,979,036 67,276,401 0.981 0.906

2005 65,896,606 69,341,455 0.950 0.913

2006 70,010,515 72,222,646 0.969 0.929

2007 69,810,669 71,015,242 0.983 0.941

2008 71,394,801 72,646,917 0.983 0.954

2009 TBA TBA TBA 0.967

2010 TBA TBA TBA 0.973

Figure 2‐14: Historical NSW Pool Value and Pool Coefficient (1999‐2009) (Source: GGAS 2010)

The 2010 Pool Coefficient value indicates that presently for every megawatt‐hour of electricity supplied to the NSW electricity pool, 973 kg of greenhouse gases are emitted. At this point in time, approximately 90% of electricity in NSW is generated by fossil fuel power stations, primarily coal fired. Therefore it can be assumed that for every megawatt‐hour of electricity generated at a coal power station 973kg of green house gases are emitted.

The Annual Pool Value is calculated using the total sent out electricity from all technologies, including that from renewable energy. It is expected that the more electricity supplied to the pool from renewable sources, reducing the amount required from coal power stations, the lower the Annual Pool Value and the lower the Pool Coefficient.


4 November 2010 44

Employing low emission, renewable energy technologies to produce electricity instead of fossil fuel based technology will reduce GHG emissions and lead to a reduction in the rate and magnitude of climate change.

Renewable energy targets

The Australian Government’s Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) scheme was established in 2001 to expand the renewable energy market and increase the amount being utilised in Australia's electricity supply. The MRET targeted the generation of an additional 9,500 GWh of extra renewable electricity per year by 2010 (PoA, 2010).

In 2007, the NSW State Government introduced legislation called the Renewable Energy (NSW) Bill as part of their Greenhouse Policy to encourage additional generation of renewable energy. The NSW Renewable Energy Target (NRET) requires 10% of electricity to be sourced from renewable energy by 2010 and 15% by 2020 (DEUS 2006). The NRET is consistent with the Commonwealth MRET.

The Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme is an expansion of the MRET and has been established to encourage additional generation of electricity from renewable energy sources to meet the Government’s commitment to achieving a 20% share of renewables in Australia’s electricity supply in 2020 (ORER 2010). The RET legislation:

• places a legal liability on wholesale purchasers of electricity to proportionally contribute to an additional 45,000 gigawatt hours (GWh) of renewable energy per year by 2020.

• sets the framework for both the supply and demand of renewable energy certificates (RECs) via a REC market.

This means a total of 45,000 GWh of electricity will need to be sourced from renewables, requiring an additional 8,000 ‐ 10,000 MW of new renewable energy generators to be built across Australia in the next decade. The RET also assures that national greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to meet Federal Government targets.

Energy reliability

In the State Plan, the Government has identified energy reliability as a priority for supporting business and jobs while recognising providing a secure and efficient energy supply will be done in a carbon constrained future (NSW Government 2010). One of the Government’s priorities is therefore to develop a clean energy future. To ensure this, along with the issue of controlling GHG emissions, the Government aims to increase the State’s energy efficiency while at the same time increasing the proportion of the State’s consumed electricity is generated from renewable sources (NSW Government 2010). Stable and reliable renewable energy projects in NSW are required to help meet these aims and a new Clean Energy Strategy will include working to secure a large solar power plant for NSW under the Commonwealth’s Solar Flagships program (NSW Government 2010).

Photovoltaic solar farms are able to provide a regular and secure source of renewable energy. While solar radiation is intermittent because of daily and seasonal variations, the correlation between solar radiation and daytime peak electricity demand means that solar energy has the potential to provide electricity during peak demand times (GA and ABARE 2010). Solar PV farms are therefore able to form an important contribution to meeting future electricity demand.


4 November 2010 45

2.6.2 Proposal benefits

The Manildra Solar Farm would be clean, renewable and sustainable and would emit zero greenhouse gases during operation (Infigen Energy 2010b). Based on a proposed operating capacity of 50MW, the Manildra PV Solar Farm would generate enough renewable energy to power up to 10,000 homes and would be the equivalent of removing approximately 15,000 cars from Australian roads each year (Infigen Energy 2010b). The project would avoid carbon emissions of 75,000 t/CO2 p/a.

Building a solar farm of this scale near Manildra would be a major boost to the Australian solar energy industry. It would provide local employment opportunities both throughout the construction phase and once the site becomes operational, and would also help to develop local and regional capabilities in solar photovoltaic plant construction.

The solar farm would contribute to Australia’s Renewable Energy Target (RET) of sourcing 20% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

The Manildra Solar Farm would:

1. Provide reliable energy in a market where demand would soon exceed supply.

2. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.

3. Assist in meeting Federal and State policy objectives to enhance the contribution made by renewable energy sources to meeting demand.

4. Contribute to the development of the utility scale renewable energy industry in NSW.

5. Assist in the experience and learning required in local industry to further develop utility scale solar in Australia.

6. Provide a local and regional economic stimulus through jobs and training.

Manild

4 November 2010 46

3 LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

3.1 NEW SOUTH WALES

3.1.1 Legislation

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and its supporting Regulation, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation), provide the framework for development assessment and approval within NSW. Assessment provisions are provided in Part 3A, Part 4 and Part 5 the EP&A Act.

Major and critical infrastructure

In accordance with Part 3A of the EP&A Act the proposed solar farm development is considered to be Major Infrastructure. Clause 75B (1) of the EP&A Act, states that: [Part 3A] applies to the carrying out of development that is declared under this section to be a project to which this Part applies:

(a) by a State environmental planning policy, or

(b) by order of the Minister published in the Gazette (including by an order that amends such a policy).

Part 3A projects declared in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 (Major Development SEPP) include development for the purposes of solar electricity with a capital investment value greater than $30 million. The proposed Manildra solar farm would have a capital investment in excess of $30 million and is therefore considered to be Major Infrastructure under Part 3A of the EP&A Act.

The proposal would also be considered ‘critical infrastructure’ in accordance with Clause 75C of the EP&A Act. In 2009 the Minister declared renewable energy projects with a peak generating capacity of 30 megawatts (MW) or more to be ‘critical infrastructure’, providing increased certainty for industry and the community. The declaration was published in the NSW Government gazette on 27 November 2009, which identified such development as essential to the State for economic reasons, social and environmental reasons.

Part 3A approval process

The proposal is a Major Infrastructure which would be assessed under Part 3A of the EP&A Act. The project has a capital investment of more than $30 million and was confirmed to be a project to which Part 3A of the EP&A Act applies by the Director‐General of the Department of Planning on 5 July 2010, refer to Appendix A.

Part 3A integrates the assessment and approval regime for all Major Infrastructure that require the approval of the Minister for Planning, previously dealt with by Parts 4 and 5 of the Act. Projects approved under Part 3A of the EP&A Act do not require authorisations under the:

• Coastal Protection Act 1979 (Part 3 concurrence)

• Fisheries Management Act 1994 (Sections 201, 205 or 219, stop work orders)

• Heritage Act 1977 (Part 4 or Section 139, orders under Division 8 of Part 6)

• National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (Section 87, consent under Section 90, interim protection and stop work orders)

Manild

4 November 2010 47

• Native Vegetation Act 2003 (Section 12)

• Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948 (Part 3A)

• Rural Fires Act 1997 (Section 100B)

• Water Management Act 2000 (Sections 89, 90, 91)

• Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (interim protection and stop work orders)

• Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (environment protection notices)

• Local Government Act 1993 (orders under Section 124)

Director ‐General’s Requirements

Under Clause 111 (1) of the EP&A Act, Determining Authorities are to consider ‘to the fullest extent possible all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment by reason of that activity’. The Director‐General’s Requirements (DGRs) that outline the form and content of the Environmental Assessment are attached to this document (Appendix B). Table 3‐1 summarises the requirements and where they are addressed in this report. The DGRs were issued by the DoP on 1st September 2010.

Table 3‐1: Director General’s Requirements and where each item is addressed in this Environmental Assessment.

Director‐General Requirements Chapter addressed

General Requirements

• Executive summary Executive Summary

• Detailed project description including site plan, construction, operation and decommissioning details, project component details, timelines, supporting maps and resourcing requirements

2

• Relevant statutory provisions including consistency of the project with the objectives of the EP&A Act

3

• Assessment of key issues (as outlined below) during construction, operation and decommissioning

6

• Draft Statement of Commitments 8.1

• Conclusion justifying the project 9

• Certification by the authors of the EA 11

Key Assessment Requirements

• Strategic justification 2.6

• Visual impacts 6.2

Manild

4 November 2010 48

Director‐General Requirements Chapter addressed

• Noise impacts 6.4

• Flora and fauna 6.1

• Indigenous heritage 6.3

• Traffic and transport 7.1

• Hazards/risks 7.9 and 7.10

• Water supply, water quality, waterways and flooding 7.4

• General environmental risk analysis 5

Consultation requirements

• Consultation program must be undertaken to include stakeholder involvement, outline details of consultation undertaken and issues raised during consultation and how these have been addressed.

4

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) is administered by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW). There is a broad allocation of responsibilities under the POEO Act between the EPA, local councils and other public authorities. Projects approved under Part 3A of the EP&A Act do not generally require authorisations under this Act. Matters relevant to this Act have been taken into consideration in the preparation of this EA.

Until recently, general electricity works with the capacity to generate more than 30 megawatts of power required a licence under this Act. Recent amendments to this Act describe “general electricity works” as:

the generation of electricity by means of electricity plant that, wherever situated, is based on, or uses, any energy source other than wind power or solar power.

Therefore, the proposed development of the Manildra Solar Farm does not require a licence under the POEO Act.

Crown Lands Act 1989

The proposal site passes through a crown road as defined by the Crown Lands Act 1989. The road is located in the north eastern corner of the proposal site as indicated in Figure 3‐1. There is also adjacent Crown Land to the southwest of the site. This land would not be used as an access point for the site during any project phase. The proponent would need to apply for a licence to access the crown road reserve for the purpose of laying cables and/or intersecting tracks. Alternatively, the proponent may sponsor a landowner’s application to close and purchase the crown road in accordance with Division 6 of the Crown Lands Act 1989 or, redesign the layout to avoid the road, as advised by the Land and Property Management Authority (LPMA).


4 November 2010 49

Figure 3‐1: Crown Land within and adjacent to the proposal site which includes a crown road in the north‐eastern corner.


4 November 2010 50

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection

NSW State Environmental Planning Policy 44 – Koala Habitat Protection aims to identify areas of potential and core Koala habitat. These are described as follows:

• Potential Koala Habitat: areas of native vegetation where the trees listed in Schedule 2 of SEPP 44 constitute at least 15% of the total number of trees in the upper or lower strata of the tree component; and

• Core Koala Habitat: an area of land with a resident population of Koalas, evidenced by attributes such as breeding females, and recent and historical records of a population.

Using these definitions the site would be considered potential Koala habitat as no resident population is present and White Box is the dominant tree species (listed in Schedule 2 of SEPP 44) and constitutes >15% of the total number of trees on site.

As the proposal site is considered potential Koala habitat and that Koala records exist in the forested areas within the district, an Assessment of Significance was carried out for Koalas and is included in Appendix E. No significant impact is anticipated.

3.1.2 Polices

Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD)

Ecologically sustainable development (ESD) involves the effective integration of social, economic and environmental considerations in decision‐making processes. In 1992, the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments endorsed the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. In NSW, the concept has been incorporated in legislation such as the EP&A Act and Regulation.

For the purposes of the EP&A Act and other NSW legislation, the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (1992) and the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 outline the following principles which can be used to achieve ESD.

(a) The precautionary principle: that if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by:

(i) Careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment.

(ii) An assessment of the risk‐weighted consequences of various options.

(b) Inter‐generational equity: that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment are maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations.

(c) Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity: that conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration.


4 November 2010 51

(d) Improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms: that environmental factors should be included in the valuation of assets and services, such as:

(i) Polluter pays: that is, those who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of containment, avoidance or abatement.

(ii) The users of goods and services should pay prices based on the full life cycle of costs of providing goods and services, including the use of natural resources and assets and the ultimate disposal of any waste.

(iii) Environmental goals, having been established, should be pursued in the most cost effective way, by establishing incentive structures, including market mechanisms, which enable those best placed to maximise benefits or minimise costs to develop their own solutions and responses to environmental problems.

The precautionary principle has been adopted in the assessment of impact; all potential impacts have been considered and mitigated where a risk is present. Where uncertainty exists, measures have been suggested to address the uncertainty.

The majority of potential impacts of the proposal are likely to be localised and would not diminish the options regarding land and resource uses and nature conservation available to future generations. Parameters such as the site’s soil, hydrology and native vegetation have been valued in terms of their broader contribution to the catchment and catchment processes.

The impacts of the proposal on biodiversity, including EPBC listed species, have been assessed in detail in the attached Biodiversity Assessments (summarised in Section 6.1).

The aims, structure and content of this EA have incorporated these ESD principles. The Draft Statement of Commitments in Section 8.1 provides an auditable environmental management commitment to these parameters. Based on the social and environmental benefits accruing from the proposal at a local and broader level, and the assessed impacts on the environment and their ability to be managed, it is considered that the development would be ecologically sustainable within the context of the above ESD definitions.

Lachlan Catchment Action Plan 2006

This plan was produced by the Lachlan Catchment Management Authority (2006) to provide strategic direction for natural resource management activities in the catchment over 10 years. The action plan includes Mandagery and Manildra Creeks which form part of the Lachlan Catchment. The plan identifies four key themes: biodiversity and native vegetation, water and aquatic ecosystems, land management and people and community. It sets out management targets and measures ecological improvements, the effectiveness of funding disbursements and partnerships and identifies areas for further work and improvement.

The proposal would not exacerbate any of the resource management issues identified in the plan, or conflict with the objectives and strategies contained in the Lachlan Catchment Action Plan. The impacts of the proposal on biodiversity, water, community and land assets have been assessed in chapters 6 and 7 of the EA.


4 November 2010 52

3.1.3 Guidelines

A range of State Government guidelines have been used in undertaking the environmental assessment for this project. Specific guidelines are referenced in relevant sections of the EA, covering threatened species assessment (DEC 2004a, DEC 2004b, DEC/DPI 2005, DECC 2007, DECC 2008a and DPI 2008) and erosion and sedimentation control (Landcom 2004, DWE 2008a, b, c, DLWC 1994 and DECC 2008b).

The proposal was also assessed for compliance with water resources policies, including the ANZECC National Water Quality Management Strategy, the NSW State Groundwater Policy Framework and its component Groundwater Quality Protection Policy and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Policy.

The Community Consultation Plan complies with the State Government guidelines for community consultation (DoP 2007b, DEC 2004b).

3.2 COMMONWEALTH

3.2.1 Acts and regulations

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

This Act provides for a Commonwealth assessment and approvals system for:

i) Actions that have a significant impact on ‘matters of national environmental significance’

ii) Actions that (indirectly or directly) have a significant environmental impact on Commonwealth land

iii) Actions carried out by the Commonwealth Government

A proposal requires the approval of the Environment Minister if an action is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance or is listed as a matter of national significance, which includes:

i) world heritage properties

ii) wetlands of international importance (Ramsar wetlands)

iii) Commonwealth listed threatened species and ecological communities

iv) Commonwealth listed migratory species

v) nuclear action

vi) commonwealth marine areas

vii) commonwealth land

The Act aims to ensure the conservation and recovery of flora and fauna species and communities at a state and national level. The requirements of EPBC Act under Part 13 ‐ Species and communities, are that the Minister must establish a list of threatened species, threatened communities and key threatening processes. The list must contain threatened species and communities as contained in Schedules 1 and 2 of the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992. Listed species are divided into the following categories: Extinct, extinct in the wild, critically endangered, vulnerable and conservation dependent. Threatened communities are divided into the following categories: Critically endangered


4 November 2010 53

and endangered. Key threatening processes are contained in Schedule 3 of the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992.

A search for matters of national environmental significance based on the proposal site and a 25 kilometre buffer was undertaken using the Commonwealth Government’s Environmental Reporting Tool (ERT). This tool covers World Heritage properties, National Heritage places, significant wetlands, migratory species, nationally listed threatened species and communities and other matters protected by the EPBC Act. The report generated by the ERT is provided in full and discussed within the Biodiversity Assessment, provided in Appendix E. A summary of the results of the Environmental Reporting Tool is provided in Table 3‐2 below.

Table 3‐2: Summary of the results of the Environmental Reporting Tool for the Manildra solar farm site – records within 2 km

Protected Matter Number of matters identified

Threatened Species 8

Migratory Species 11

Listed Marine Species 9

Whales and other cetaceans 0

Invasive Species 13

Threatened Ecological Communities 2

World Heritage Properties 0

Australian Heritage Sites 0

Ramsar Wetlands 0

Nationally Important Wetlands 0

NPI Reporting Facilities 0

NPI Airsheds 0

NPI Catchments 1

Protected Areas 0


4 November 2010 54

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2000 No. 181

Bilateral agreements

In accordance with subsection 45(4) of the EPBC Act and Division 16.1 of the EPBC Regulations 2000, the Commonwealth of Australia entered into a bilateral agreement with New South Wales. One of the aims of the agreement is to minimise duplication of environmental impact assessment processes, ensuring a co‐ordinated approach for actions requiring approval from both the Commonwealth and the state. Should the proposal be considered a ‘controlled action’ under the EPBC Act the referral would be assessed by the NSW Department of Planning, funded by the federal agency.

Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000

The objects of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 (RE Act) are:

a. To encourage the additional generation of electricity from renewable sources; and b. To reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector; and c. To ensure that renewable energy sources are ecologically sustainable.

This is done through the issuing of certificates for the generation of electricity using eligible renewable energy sources and requiring certain purchasers (called liable entities) to surrender a specified number of certificates for the electricity that they acquire during a year.

The Australian Government’s Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme sets the framework for both the supply and demand of renewable energy certificates (RECs) via a REC market. Section 17 of the Act defines renewable energy sources eligible under the RET. The list of eligible renewable energy sources includes solar energy.

3.3 LOCAL

3.3.1 Local Government instruments and policies

Cabonne Local Environment Plan 1991

The proposed Manildra Solar Farm is located in the Cabonne Local Government Area (LGA) and is located on land zoned 1(a) (General Rural) under the Cabonne Local Environmental Plan 1991 (LEP).

The LEP adopts the definition of ‘generating works’ in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Model Provisions 1980 (Model Provisions), which would encompass the proposal; ‘a building or place used for the purpose of making or generating gas, electricity or other forms of energy’.

The objectives and permissibility of the solar farm proposal in the above mentioned zone under the LEP is outlined below.

Generating works are permitted with development consent in Zone 1(a) General Rural. The solar farm proposal is not, therefore, prohibited in Zone 1(a) under the LEP, but would require development consent.


4 November 2010 55

Development Control Plans

Development Control Plan No. 5 – General Rural Zones (DCP5)

DCP5 sets out controls that apply to development in zone 1(a) General Rural in the Manildra LGA. Development controls relate to subdivisions and building requirements, however they are not relevant to the solar farm development.

Draft Blayney, Cabonne and Orange City Sub Regional and Industrial Land Use Strategy

The draft Blayney, Cabonne and Orange City Sub Regional and Industrial Land Use Strategy (the Strategy) has been prepared by the Blayney, Cabonne and Orange City councils to guide future land use planning over 30 years. The Strategy contains objectives and actions related to agriculture, industry, residential and rural subdivision, the natural and scenic environment and heritage and culture within the three LGAs. These have been taken into consideration when writing this EA.

Cabonne Villages Strategy

The Cabonne Villages Strategy aims to guide decision making in the villages within Cabonne Shire. It relates to land zones 2(v) (Village Zone) and 1(c) (Rural Small Holdings). The proposal site is not situated within either of these zones.


4 November 2010 56

4 CONSULTATION

4.1 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION PLAN

An overarching Consultation Plan has been prepared by Kathy Jones and Associates (KJA) covering all of the solar farm projects currently being progressed by Infigen Energy and more detailed sub‐plans have been developed for specific project sites, including the Manildra solar farm. The Consultation Plan is attached in Appendix D and includes stakeholder (community and government) consultation. The consultation process complies with the State Government guidelines for major project community consultation (Department of Planning 2007a).

Stakeholders including community members and government agencies, their interests in the project and the relevant consultation strategy are indicated in Table 4‐1.


4 November 2010 57

Table 4‐1 Stakeholders consulted under the Community Consultation Plan

Stakeholder Concern or Interest Management Strategy

Federal, State and Local Government

Federal and State Member Access to information

Community concerns

Initial project briefing as required

Project and construction updates

Project website

Local Shire Council Access to information

Community concerns and interest

Impacts to council assets

Consultation during EA process

Initial project briefing as required

Project and construction updates

Project website

Government Agencies

NSW Department of the Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW)

Access to information

Pollution control including noise, water, air, land and waste

Community impacts and disruption

Consultation during the EA process

Construction Management Plan

Environmental Management Plan

Heritage Management Plan

Project and Construction updates

Enquiries and Complaints Management

Community information hotline (infoline) contact

Project website

NSW Department of Planning Access to information

Construction impacts

Operational impacts


Community access to information

Project briefing/ meeting



Infoline contact

Project email

Project website


4 November 2010 58


NSW Department of Aboriginal Affairs Access to information

Heritage

Employment opportunities




Infoline contact

Project email

Project website

NSW Department of Industry and Investment (Primary Industries and Agriculture)


Pasture protection


Operational impacts

Weed/noxious plant control

Pest control



Infoline contact

Project email

Project website

Aviation and transport

Civil Aviation Authority (Private pilots and crop dusting companies)

Regional Airlines

Royal Flying Doctor

Country Rail Network

Major road freight companies


Project awareness

Construction site awareness

Increased traffic on local roads and over local level crossings


Infoline contact

Project email

Project website

Emergency Services

Police

Ambulance

Rural Fire Services

State Emergency Services


Road and traffic impacts

Changes to property access

Project briefings and ongoing consultation

Traffic management plans

Delivery and/or construction hours/activities

Project and Construction updates


4 November 2010 59


Infoline contact

Project website

Local, Community and Interest Groups

Landowners/tenants adjacent to construction site

Landowners/tenants adjacent to construction staff facilities/office


Impacts on property values

Damage to boundary fencing, stock grids, gates

Damage to trees/shrubbery

Noise/pollution during construction

Personal consultation

Project and Construction updates (notifications)

Information sessions and feedback forms

Enquiry and complaints management

Infoline contact

Project email

Project website

Local Community Access to information


Economic benefits

Local business support

Local resource provision


Advertising and media releases

Information sessions and feedback forms


Infoline contact

Project email

Project website

Interest Groups

Agricultural Associations

Agricultural Show Societies

Progress/Business Associations

Tourism Associations

Aboriginal Land Councils

Innovation

Community/Regional benefits

Impacts/risk to historical icons

Asset protection


Environmental impacts

Briefings /meetings (as required)


Advertising and media releases

Infoline contact Enquiry and complaints management

Project email

Project website


4 November 2010 60


Local Heritage Groups

Agricultural Field Days (e.g. Australian National Field Days Assoc.)

Shires Association

Heritage Groups

Historical Societies

Local area promotion

Schools and kindergartens Education opportunities about renewable energy

Project participation activities

Briefing/information sessions (at schools – post construction)


Infoline number

Project email

Project website

design and painting activity for SPVFP project promotion (optional)

Media

WIN TV Corporation

Prime Television

Capital Television

Local and regional newspapers

The Land newspaper

Regional Radio Stations

ABC TV and radio

Community benefits

Road and traffic impacts

Environmental impacts



Tourism promotion


Media releases


Infoline contact


Project website

Project email


4 November 2010 61

4.2 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

The Consultation Plan provides for specific activities at different stages of the project as well as specific strategies targeting different stakeholder groups, as detailed below.

4.2.1 Environmental assessment stage

During the public exhibition of the Environmental Assessment (EA), public community information sessions will be advertised, so attendees can meet members of the project team and obtain a greater level of detail about the project, its benefits and potential impacts.

Stakeholders would be advised of the EA exhibition and offered project briefings at their offices. Stakeholders would also be provided with all project contact information and invited to make submissions or provide feedback.

Project Community Consultation Manager

A dedicated Project Community Consultation Manager (PCCM) would be responsible for organising, advertising and managing all community consultation activities at the EA and construction phases of the project. PCCM duties would include planning and managing stakeholder briefings/meetings and community consultation activities, liaising with project personnel, developing media releases and media kit and responding to enquiries and complaints. An Environmental Assessment Team would work closely with the PCCM during the EA stage to provide all necessary information for the delivery of clear, concise and easy to understand information about the project to stakeholders and the community.

Communication and consultation tools

The following communications and consultation tools would be used during the EA stage.

• information sessions

• stakeholder briefings/meetings

• advertising

• website and other web based tools

• fact sheets

• display boards

• EA exhibition venues

4.2.2 Construction phase

Community consultation and stakeholder engagement would continue during the construction phase of the project, with activities and events scheduled to align with project milestones. The PCCM may continue in this role as a follow on from the EA stage of the project.

Communication and consultation tools

During the construction phase of the project, community consultation would focus more on engaging the community, providing information about key construction activities, handling enquiries and


4 November 2010 62

complaints, encouraging project championing and celebrating project milestones. The following tools would be used:

• information sessions

• stakeholder meetings

• emails

• advertising

• project branding

• construction site fencing

• photography

• community notifications

• website

• fact sheets

• site inspections/visitors

4.2.3 Complaints handling and reporting

A complaints management procedure is detailed in the Community Consultation Plan.

4.2.4 Community and stakeholder consultation action calendar

An indicative and example calendar to implement the Community Consultation Plan is indicated below. Implementation of the plan commences with project introduction information sessions to be scheduled on determination of preferred sites.

July 2010 ‐ undertake initial site assessments

‐ stakeholder analysis

‐ broad base project introduction to gauge community reaction (information session, fact sheets, contact number, project email)

‐ develop communications materials

Sept 2010 ‐ prepare Environment Assessment for each site

‐ coordinate key stakeholder meetings, where relevant

Oct 2010 ‐ Environmental Assessment exhibition period

‐ announce and promote exhibition period

Nov 2010 ‐ Environment Assessment community feedback

‐ response to submissions

Media release upon Project Determination by the Minister.


4 November 2010 63

4.3 CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN TO DATE

4.3.1 Open house

The open house session was held on 3rd August 2010 at the Manildra Town Hall, Kiewa Street, Manildra. It was advertised in the Central Western Daily on the 15th July 2010.

The event ran from 12:00‐8:00pm. Representatives from Infigen including Stephen Donnelly, Chris McGrath and Luke Thrum and representatives from Suntech, the project technology partner and Tenix Alliance, the project construction partner were present to discuss the proposal specifics, general questions about solar farms and solar farm developments and any specific concerns or questions raised by the community. A brochure about the proposal was distributed as well as feedback forms.

Twenty people entered their details on the Community Open Day Register. All comments provided were positive and supportive of the project. One comment referred to concerns about glare and consideration of fire hazards.

Feedback forms and open house follow‐up

The community feedback forms allowed the community an opportunity to comment on the proposed solar farm through answering a number of questions. Four feedback forms were received following the open house. The feedback forms mainly focussed around the positives of increasing tourism and people traffic in the township, including offers of services from accommodation, food and service providers. The issues of most concern were limited to that of glare for nearby properties and fire protection and suppression. It is considered that the low level of feedback forms was reflective of the low level of concern expressed by the community at the open day.

Face‐to‐face consultation

To help the community better understand the potential issues associated with the proposal, the proponent directly contacted landowners neighbouring the proposal site. Where requested, the proponent provided the most up‐to‐date information possible on various different aspects of the project and provided supplementary material to answer general solar farming questions.

Brochure

The proponent prepared a fact sheet brochure to introduce the solar farm proposal and inform the community and interested parties about proposed details. The brochure was distributed at the open house information session and was placed on Infigen Energy’s website.

Media articles

An advertisement in relation to the open house information session was placed in the Central Western Daily (refer Appendix D). Articles outlining the Manildra solar farm proposal have appeared in local newspapers, including the Central Western Daily (15 July 2010).

Website and email contacts

Infigen Energy maintains a Solar Flagships Program page on its website (http://www.infigenenergy.com/solar‐flagships‐program.aspx), which includes:


4 November 2010 64

• A brief summary of each solar farm proposal, with downloadable pdf fact sheets.

• Community consultation arrangements for each site (Community Information Days).

• Contact details for Infigen Energy with an invitation to comment on the proposals via the website, email, fax, telephone or mail.

Infigen has received one email and two letters from members of the local community:

• Two letters were received from local businesses (9 and 10 August 2010) offering services including earthmoving services and accommodation.

• One email was received (14 August 2010) asking when the project would start and how many solar panels there would be and included support for the project.

Another page on the website outlines the support provided by Infigen to local community groups and events (http://www.infigenenergy.com/about‐us/community.aspx).

4.3.2 Government consultation

Initial meetings

The proponent met with the consent authority, the NSW Department of Planning, formally on 15 June 2010, introducing the proposal and seeking advice on the assessment process. The proponent sought a determination from the Director General that the proposal would be assessed as a Major Project under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. On 5 July 2010, the proponent was issued with a letter from the Department of Planning confirming that the proposal would be assessed as a Major Project under Part 3A of the EP&A Act.

Preparation of Director‐General’s Requirements

During preparation of the Director General’s Requirements, various government agencies were consulted by the Department of Planning. Those listed below provided written responses in relation to the proposal:

• Central West Catchment Management Authority

• Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water

• Department of Industry and Investment

• Land and Property Management Authority

• NSW Rural Fire Service

• NSW Office of Water

These responses were provided to Infigen and have been addressed within the preparation of this Environmental Assessment.


4 November 2010 65

5 RISK ASSESSMENT: SCOPING OF KEY ISSUES

5.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS

The potential environmental impacts of PV solar farms depend on the size and nature of the project and are frequently site specific (Gekas et al. 2002). Gekas et al. (2002) summarised the potential environmental impacts of PV solar farms in general terms, including:

• Environmental benefits ‐ significant noise or chemical pollutants emission reductions and an increase in soil humidity and plant growing conditions in dry areas

• Social impacts – direct local benefits (access to electricity, employment)

• Land use ‐ depend on specific factors such as the area, land characteristics, visual or environmental sensitivity of surroundings. Solar farms can ‘reserve’ soils for future uses

• Visual impact ‐ visual intrusion is highly dependent on frame design and the surroundings

• Pollution and occupational health ‐ soil and groundwater pollution due to poorly stored materials, abnormal plant operations, damaged panels or fire, posing small human health risks

• Air pollution ‐ minor emissions associated with infrastructure transport

• Depletion of natural sources and energy consumption ‐ panel production is energy intensive.

Mitigation of environmental impacts can be achieved by avoiding ecologically sensitive areas or archaeological sites, site restoration to alleviate visual impacts and good work practices and protective clothing to avoid occupational accidents (Gekas et al. 2002).The impact assessment in this report covers all of these issues, guided by a comprehensive scoping and risk assessment process to identify key issues and risks.

5.2 SCOPING OF KEY ISSUES

Identification of key environmental issues was undertaken for the Preliminary Environmental Assessment (PEA) provided to the Department of Planning on 28 July 2010. The key issues identified were; Community, Visual, Archaeology and Biodiversity issues.

Since undertaking the PEA and the field surveys, the key issues have been revised through an environmental risk assessment (Table 5‐3), taking into account the specific characteristics of the proposal site and the impacts associated with the proposed development.

The risk assessment aims to quantify the environmental risks associated with the construction, decommissioning and operation of the proposed solar farm. Environmental risks can be considered in terms of the degree of potential impact, the sensitivity of the environment and the likelihood that an impact would occur.

A risk rating between one and five has been applied to identified issues, where one is a lower risk and five is the highest. The range of risk ratings are shown in Table 5‐1.


4 November 2010 66

Table 5‐1: Risk rating of environmental aspects.

Nature of impact Sensitivity of receiving

environment Likelihood

1 ‐ Negligible 1 ‐ Low 1 – Rare/never

2 ‐ Minor 2 – Low to moderate 2 – Unlikely

3 ‐ Moderate 3 ‐ Moderate 3 – Possible

4 ‐ Major 4 ‐ High 4 – Likely

5 ‐ Catastrophic 5 – Very high 5 – Highly likely/definitely

The overall risk rating is determined by multiplying the individual risk ratings of:

Impact x Sensitivity x Likelihood

The level of risk is considered to be high moderate or low in accordance with Table 5‐2.

Table 5‐2: Overall risk rating classes

Overall risk rating Level of risk

41 + High

21‐40 Moderate

1 ‐ 20 Low


4 November 2010 67

Table 5‐3: Risk analysis of environmental issues

RELEVANT CHAPTER

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE

NATURE OF IMPACT

SENSITIVITY OF RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE

RISK RATING

6.1 Biodiversity 3 3 4 36

6.2 Visual amenity 2 3 5 30

6.3 Aboriginal heritage 3 2 5 30

6.4 Noise 2 4 5 40

7.7 Socioeconomic and Community

2 4 3 18

7.6 Waste Management and reuse

2 2 5 20

7.1 Traffic and access 2 2 3 12

7.3 Soils and landforms 2 4 2 16

7.2 Historic heritage 2 3 1 6

7.4 Hydrology and water quality

1 1 4 4

7.5 Air quality and climate 1 4 4 16

7.8 Land use and mineral resource impacts

2 1 2 4

7.9 Health and safety 1 2 1 2

7.10 Fire and bushfire issues and risks

3 2 1 6

7.11 Cumulative impacts 2 2 3 12

Environmental issues with moderate to high risk levels (yellow to red) have been given greater attention in terms of investigation and mitigation of impacts, most of which have had specialist studies undertaken. These are considered key issues and are discussed in Section 6. Environmental issues with a low risk rating (green) are considered to be readily identifiable and manageable and therefore less of a priority. Desktop investigations have generally been undertaken for these issues, which are assessed in Section 6. A site visit was undertaken on 8 July 2010 to get a general overview of the existing environment and identify potential environmental impacts. Additional site visits were undertaken for specialist studies including biodiversity, heritage and visual amenity.


4 November 2010 68

6 KEY ISSUES

6.1 BIODIVERSITY

6.1.1 Existing environment

Approach

The Biodiversity Assessment was undertaken by nghenvironmental. It involved:

• A desktop review of research literature, online databases and other sources to determine regional and local biodiversity values and assist field survey planning and design

• Flora and fauna surveys and habitat assessments

• Analysis and assessment of data to establish conservation values and significance of impacts in relation to environmental legislation

• Development of measures to reduce the risks and identified impacts, focussing on avoidance and mitigation and offsets where impacts were unavoidable

Online database searches included the DECCW threatened species database and the Commonwealth EPBC Act Protected Matters search tool. The field flora survey was based on stratified sampling sites, general site inspection and targeted searches for threatened species in likely habitats. The fauna survey focused on habitat assessment with bird surveys and opportunistic records of sign and observations. Field surveys were limited by the winter timing of the fieldwork. Supplementary spring surveys have been included in the safeguards in Section 6.1.3, below.

Regional

The Proposal is located in the NSW South Western Slopes Bioregion, an extensive area of foothills and isolated ranges comprising the lower inland slopes of the Great Dividing Range extending from north of Cowra through southern NSW into western Victoria. The South Western Slopes Bioregion has been intensively cleared and cultivated; remaining native vegetation is fragmented. The proposal site is located close to the boundary of four catchment subregions:

• Central West CMA o Upper Slopes subregion o Orange subregion

• Lachlan CMA o Upper Slopes subregion o Orange subregion

These catchment subregions contain a large variety of landforms and vegetation types. Around 76% of the Lachlan CMA supports native vegetation cover although much of this is modified, while the majority of the Central West CMA has been cleared for agriculture.

Local

The proposal site is located in an area of largely cleared agricultural land which forms a matrix between several areas of remnant native vegetation. Nearby forest areas include:


4 November 2010 69

• Five kilometers to the west lies forest/woodland that is connected with Goobang National Park to the north and Mandagery and Black Yamma State Forests to the south and south west.

• Five kilometers to the north lie low rocky ranges supporting uncleared native vegetation connected to Killonbutta State Forest further to the north.

• Located seven kilometers to the east, three thin, parallel, wooded ridges extend over twenty kilometers from north to south.

Connectivity between the remnant forests is generally limited to farmland carrying low density cleared woodland and isolated paddock trees, with no clearly delineated corridors for fauna. Several waterways in the district provide more definitive fauna movement corridors through this matrix. Manildra Creek provides a movement corridor to the west and Mandagery Creek provides somewhat less continuous riparian tree coverage to the north and south of the proposal site.

Land at the proposal site is gently undulating with rocky patches throughout. Elevation ranges from 450 m to 490 m. The site is at a higher elevation than the majority of the Manildra township which lies roughly 1km to the south west. A small drainage line runs through a short section of the most western paddock. Mandagery Creek lies 1.5 km west of the site.

The proposal site is largely cleared of tree and shrub cover. The understorey is entirely exotic in cropped areas, and in grazed areas, is dominated by exotic grasses or native grasses with exotic forbs. Native species diversity is generally low. Native vegetation at the site is likely to be derived from Box‐Gum Woodland. Overstorey species are predominantly White Box and Yellow Box eucalypts. Most trees are mature although very few have formed hollows.

Results

Vegetation communities

The majority of the proposal site (excluding the far western paddock) was under cropping at the time of the survey, or was dominated by exotic grass species. These areas where no overstorey is present cannot be said to constitute a native vegetation community. However, scattered paddock trees were present in cropped and exotic pasture areas and, in comparison with more intact native vegetation within and adjoining the proposal site, it was possible to ascertain the vegetation community that these trees were derived from.

Remnant native vegetation within and adjoining the proposal site is representative of Box‐Gum Woodland communities including species such as White Box (Eucalyptus albens), Yellow Box (E. melliodora) and Blakely’s Red Gum (E. blakelyi). Native grassland occurs in the far west of the site and is likely to be derived from these communities.

Other vegetation present within the proposal site was restricted to isolated paddock trees comprising Kurrajong (Brachychiton populneus) and the introduced Pepper Tree (*Schinus areira).

In summary, three vegetation communities were identified:

• Derived native grassland

• Box‐Gum Woodland (native)

• Exotic (crop or pasture)


4 November 2010 70

Figure 6‐1 Cultivated paddocks make up approximately two thirds of the area to be occupied by the Proposed Manildra Solar Farm

Figure 6‐2 Exotic dominated pasture makes up the remainder of the land to be occupied by the Proposed Manildra Solar Farm

Habitat at the proposal site

Six major habitat types were identified on the proposal site:

• Cultivated paddocks

• Pasture

• White Box, Yellow Box, Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland stands (Box‐Gum Woodland)

• Rocky outcrops

• Isolated remnant trees

• Modified aquatic habitat

These habitats are described in Table 6‐1and habitat features are mapped on Figure 6‐8.

Figure 6‐3 Remnant White Box stand in cultivated paddock

Figure 6‐4 Rocky outcrop in the far west of the site (infrastructure layout has been designed to avoid the higher diversity native pasture in this area)


4 November 2010 71

Figure 6‐5 Shallow dam in the central south of the proposal site

Figure 6‐6 Isolated White Box tree on thin outcrop of rock within a cultivated paddock


4 November 2010 72

Figure 6‐7 Approximate distribution of vegetation communities at the Proposed Manildra Solar Farm site

Site boundary

Vegetation (type, condition)Box Gum Woodland (EEC TSC), PoorBox Gum Woodland Derived Grassland (EEC TSC), Poor to moderateCrop or exotic pasture

°

0 200 400100 Metres

@ A4 Reference: 1338 ‐ 6

1:15000

Coordinate System: GDA94 Zone 55

www.nghenvironmental.com.au


4 November 2010 73

Table 6‐1: Description of fauna habitat features at the proposal site

Habitat type Habitat quality

Location Habitat features Potential threatened species2

White Box, Yellow Box, Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland stands (degraded)

Low ‐moderate

Seven stands of three or more trees are found across the proposal site

Few hollows, foraging and shelter habitat, little fallen timber

Diamond Firetail, Superb Parrot, Turquoise Parrot, Flame Robin, Scarlet Robin

Isolated remnant trees, Kurrajong, Yellow Box, White Box

Low ‐Moderate

Scattered at a low density across the site Few hollows, limited foraging and shelter habitat

Superb Parrot

Rocky outcrops

Granitic and metamorphic

Low ‐Moderate

Two linear outcrops of presumably the same rock strata occur on the site running south east to north west in the western paddock and through the woodland stand adjacent to the substation in B1 and B3. In addition surface scatters of rock occur within the central/northern paddocks B4 and B5.

Surface rocks Pink‐tailed Worm Lizard

Little Whip Snake

Pasture (native or exotic) Low ‐ Moderate

Predominantly native pasture in the western paddock, exotic dominated paddocks in the central north (B5)and central east (B2)of the proposal site

Seed resources and invertebrate foraging area

Cover for reptiles (this feature is likely to change with drought or increased grazing)

Diamond Firetail, Superb Parrot, Turquoise Parrot, Flame Robin, Scarlet Robin, Little Whip Snake

Modified aquatic habitats (dams and ephemeral drainage lines)

Low Few aquatic habitats were found within proposal site. Shallow ephemeral dams were located in the western paddock and the central paddock B3, with a dry drainage line running south east to north west through the south eastern corner of the western paddock.

Limited breeding opportunities for amphibians, ephemeral water source for fauna

2 These are species that have been recorded in high quality examples of the habitat type, many have a very low probability of actually occurring on site


4 November 2010 74

Habitat type Habitat quality

Location Habitat features Potential threatened species2

Cultivated paddocks Low Paddocks B4, B6, B7 and B1. Source of grain for parrots, cultivation provides arthropod foraging for insectivores and generalists

Superb Parrot, Flame Robin, Scarlet Robin


4 November 2010 75

Figure 6‐8: Fauna habitat features at the proposal site

Þ!

Þ!

Ð

Þ!

Þ!

Þ!

Þ!Þ!

Þ!

!R

Þ!

Þ!

#

Þ!

Þ!

Þ! Þ!

Þ!

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

15

1413

12

11

10

Site boundary

Development envelope

Habitat feature

Dam

Þ! Hollow bearing stag

Þ! Hollow bearing tree

Þ! Hollow bearing trees

Ð Nest (Brown Falcon)

# Kangaroo grass

!R Rabbit warren

Rock outcrop

°

0 200 400100 Meters

@ A4 Reference: 1338‐4

1:15000




4 November 2010 76

Threatened species and communities

Preliminary evaluation results

One threatened community, three threatened flora species and 12 threatened fauna species have at least moderate potential to be present at the proposal site, and at least moderate potential to be impacted by the proposal. These threatened entities are listed in Table 6‐2.

Table 6‐2: Threatened ecological communities flora and fauna potentially impacted by the proposal

Common name Scientific name Status

FLORA

Austral Toadflax Thesium australe V TSC, V EPBC

Small Purple‐pea Swainsona recta E TSC, E EPBC

Silky Swainson‐pea Swainsona sericea V TSC

ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES

Box‐Gum Woodland EEC TSC

FAUNA

Brown Treecreeper Climacteris picumnus V TSC

Diamond Firetail Stagonopleura guttata V TSC

Flame Robin Petroica phoenicea V TSC

Scarlet Robin Petroica boodang V TSC

Superb Parrot Polytelis swainsonii V TSC, V EPBC

Turquoise Parrot Neophema pulchella V TSC

Greater Long‐eared Bat Nyctophilus timoriensis V TSC

Little Pied Bat Chalinlobus picatus V TSC

Yellow‐bellied Sheathtail‐bat Saccolaimus flaviventris V TSC

Koala Phascolarctos cinereus V TSC

Little Whip Snake Suta flagellum V TSC

Pink‐tailed Worm‐lizard Aprasia parapulchella V TSC

V TSC = listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the TSC Act 1995.

V EPBC = listed as Vulnerable under the Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999

E TSC = listed as Endangered under Schedule 1 of the TSC Act 1995

E EPBC = listed as Endangered under the Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999

EEC TSC = listed as an Endangered Ecological Community under Schedule 1 of the TSC Act 1995

Assessments of significance, pursuant to NSW and Commonwealth legislation, have been undertaken to characterise the significance of potential impacts. While not required under Part 3A of the EP&A Act, they provide a transparent and systematic characterisation of impact.


4 November 2010 77

The Assessments concluded that the proposal would not be likely to significantly impact threatened species and communities, subject to a supplementary survey in spring which is required to confirm the assumptions of this assessment and subject to the implementation of the safeguards included in the Biodiversity Assessment (included in full in this EA as Statements of Commitment).

Endangered Ecological Communities (EEC)

Box‐Gum Woodland – NSW Endangered Ecological Community (EEC)

The Box‐Gum Woodland, listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, includes intact and disturbed areas such as:

• Woodlands which include Yellow Box or Blakely’s Red Gum (with or without native understorey); and

• Grasslands and pastures dominated by native grasses that are derived from this community.

The woodland and native grassland at the site meets the above description. This community has the potential to be impacted by the Proposal. An Assessment of Significance pursuant to the TSC Act has been undertaken (refer to the Biodiversity Assessment). This assessment concluded that a significant impact to the local occurrence of the EEC is unlikely as the result of the Proposal.

Box‐Gum Woodland – Commonwealth Critically Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC)

The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) sets more stringent criteria for the recognition of the Box‐Gum Woodland Critically Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC) listed under that Act. Vegetation at the proposal site would not meet these criteria and the Commonwealth Box‐Gum Woodland CEEC is therefore not present at the site.

Threatened flora

No threatened species were recorded during the field survey.

Threatened fauna

Two threatened fauna species listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) were recorded during the survey (see Figure 6‐9):

• Flame Robins were recorded along the southern boundary of the western paddock in the vicinity of the regeneration seeding trial plots. Seven birds were seen foraging within the site and adjacent sown field.

• Two pairs of Superb Parrots were seen on site; one in the remnant Box‐Gum Woodland near the substation (between B1 and B3) and another (possibly the same pair) flying over the site from south to north.

Biodiversity constraints

A preliminary biodiversity constraints assessment based on the findings of the biodiversity survey was produced and provided to the Proponent early in the planning phase. Based on the biodiversity constraints identified in this report the development envelope was created with the aim of avoiding areas of high biodiversity values and therefore minimising impacts to biodiversity. High constraint features include derived grassland and rocky out crops in the western paddock and areas of hollow bearing Box‐Gum Woodland EEC remnants. Areas requiring additional survey work are also indicated on the constraints map Figure 6‐10.


4 November 2010 78

Figure 6‐9: Threatened fauna records at the Manildra Solar Farm site

!

!

!

Site boundary

Threatened fauna

! Flame Robin

! Superb Parrot

°

0 200 400100 Metres


1:15000




4 November 2010 79

Figure 6‐10: Key biodiversity constraints overlayed with the development envelope at the Manildra Solar Farm site

Site boundary

Development envelope

ConstraintLowFurther survey predicted lowFurther survey requiredModerateHigh

°

0 200 400100 Metres


1:15000




4 November 2010 80

6.1.2 Impact assessment

Construction and decommissioning

Loss of vegetation and habitats during construction

Estimates of the areas affected by each component of the proposal are indicated in Table 2‐5 of this EA and have been used to assess the impact of the proposal on biodiversity values.

Groundlayer vegetation

Groundlayer vegetation over an estimated area of around 12.45 hectares would be removed for the operating life of the solar farm. Most of this clearing would result from the establishment of the perimeter and internal access tracks. This figure is based on all tracks and roading requiring an 8m wide clearing zone and this is likely to be an over estimation of the actual clearing required.

These works would affect exotic dominated pasture and cultivated paddocks, all with generally minimal conservation value. Similar vegetation is locally abundant. The loss of this vegetation is not considered to be significant.

Canopy vegetation and hollow bearing trees

A total of approximately 55 mature trees would be removed to reduce shading of the PV arrays. This would include six hollow bearing trees (see section 5.3.2 of the Biodiversity Assessment for a list of hollow bearing trees found onsite, including those to be removed). The loss of these habitat resources is considered manageable with the implementation of safeguards.

Disturbance to fauna during construction

Habitat alienation may occur during the construction of infrastructure. Noise and vibration, increased human and vehicle activity and night work (if required) may not directly harm individual animals but it could affect feeding and breeding behaviours resulting in negative impacts on long term population viability. Adhering to timing restrictions, where possible, this impact is considered manageable.

Trenching works have the potential to injure or trap native fauna. Mitigation measures would be adopted to minimise the risk of biodiversity impacts.

Alteration to microclimate and erosion potential under the solar array

An estimated 100 hectares of cultivated land would be affected by the proposed solar farm. Vegetation and ground habitats would be affected by altered microclimate beneath the array, through reduced insolation and temperature and increased humidity. Wind speeds may also be reduced. Solar module washing, in addition to microclimatic changes, would contribute to an infrequent increase in soil moisture under the array during dry times.

Changes in rainfall distribution

The vertically projected area under the solar panels is estimated to be 30.6 hectares, or 30% of the total array site. There would be a concentration of rainfall runoff in a strip below the lower edge of the solar panel rows. This would increase rain splash intensity and soil erosion potential in this area during heavy rainfall events. The erosion risks should be manageable using adequate site preparation, and responsive pasture and stock management. A rain shadow below the solar panel rows would also be created. Soil in this area may be drier than surrounding soil, but this would be offset by reduced


4 November 2010 81

evapotranspiration losses due to shading and reduced air movement, variation in the angle of rainfall and lateral movement of soil water from adjacent rain‐exposed areas.

Shading and groundcover management under the array

The total area of permanent shading is estimated to be 30% of the area under the array (36 hectares). 70% (84 hectares) would be partially shaded depending on the season and time of day.

Shading by the PV arrays will have an impact on the microclimate of at least 120 ha of the development envelope. Reduced insolation may mean lower rates of plant growth and biological productivity. However, this may be offset by increased soil moisture and reduced evaporative demands due to increased humidity and/or reduced temperature resulting in enhanced plant growth (Prinder and Facelli 2004).

The grass species that dominate the modified pastures to be impacted by the proposal are C4 species with the potential to be significantly impacted by shading. In areas dominated by exotic species such as Stinking Lovegrass it is recommended that a new pasture of shade tolerant perennial species be sown and established prior to any infrastructure construction. In areas under cropping by Wheat this practice is also recommended as wheat is an annual species which will perish, leave bare ground and unlikely recolonise which may lead to erosion and weed invasion. This action will assist with weed control by locking up soil nitrogen and providing competition for soil moisture and will reduce the potential for erosion by providing a more stable ground cover.

Maintaining the groundcover under the array would be an important element of site management. Approaches could include the use of cell grazing by sheep or irrigation (pers comm. C. Waters, NSW Department of Primary Industry Research Scientist, A. Southwell, Charles Sturt University Lecturer). It is recommended that consultation be undertaken with a qualified agronomist to inform appropriate groundcover establishment and management under the PV arrays.

Fauna impacts

It is unclear what the impact to soil moisture, soil nitrogen and subsequent vegetation composition from factors such as reduced light and near ground wind levels would be following the installation of the PV arrays. The response of local fauna to these changes is equally hard to predict and would be largely influenced by the vegetation changes that occur. An altered microclimate under the PV arrays due to shading and associated vegetation changes has the potential to affect sensitive fauna eg ants and poikilothermic species such as reptiles. Basking opportunities may be reduced however the structure of the PV arrays may provide fauna with a degree of protection from predation, particularly from raptors. Increased soil moisture may create favourable shelter and foraging habitat for amphibians. As the PV arrays will be located in exotic dominated grazing and cropping paddocks there is little probability of threatened species being impacted by any microclimate and associated vegetation changes that may occur.

Granite outcrops are predominant geological features in agricultural landscapes in south‐eastern Australia, and some fauna species, particularly reptiles, are restricted to these habitats (Michael et al. 2010). Outcrop habitats can be negatively impacted by physical damage or shading. It is recommended that where possible the small rock outcrops at the site be excluded from the array, together with a minimum 2.5 metre buffer to avoid shading.


4 November 2010 82

Fauna habitat loss and collision hazards

Increased vehicle movements during construction may lead to collisions with native fauna. Vehicle movements should be restricted during dawn and dusk and speed limits should be enforced. It is unlikely that any threatened species would be put at risk by this potential impact.

The construction of a perimeter fence has the potential to impact native fauna by creating a barrier to movement and by providing a collision risk. Where security concerns permit, barbed wire should not be used in the fence construction as it is capable of entangling and killing a range of native fauna (van der Ree 1999). High chainlink fences are a hazard to fast flying parrot species (Pfennigwerth 2008) Superb Parrots were recorded on site and there is some potential for this species to be impacted. Installing coloured streamers, using shade cloth or using coloured wire are recommended as mitigation measures to increase the visibility of this type of fence to parrots (Pfennigwerth 2008). Fencing along Molong Manildra Road should be maintained so as macropods and other large native fauna are not funnelled along the perimeter fence and onto the road creating a traffic hazard and collision risk to the animal.

A perimeter fence would provide a barrier to the movement of many large terrestrial fauna species. Species likely to use the proposal site for foraging and dispersal would be capable of covering significant distances of open ground and are unlikely to be greatly effected by the reduction habitat brought about by a perimeter fence. Similar modified grazing habitat is abundant and wide spread in the district. There is a low possibility that Koalas dispersing from forested areas to the west and north may occasionally cross the proposal site. A perimeter fence would limit their movement at a local scale, however the proposal site is not considered a fauna movement corridor and the adjacent land carries similar structural characteristics and would provide alternative movement opportunities.

For species that would still have access to the habitat within the perimeter fence habitat modification due to microclimate changes and associated invertebrate and vegetation changes may reduce the quality of the foraging habitat. As the land is highly modified and representative of much of the farmland in the district loss of 100 ha of this habitat type would not be likely to be significant.

Species with the ability to disperse through open country are likely to utilise the remnant trees on the proposal site however if clearing of any of the site was required it would not be likely to be significant in terms of restricting fauna movement considering the surrounding matrix.

Potential introduction and spread of weeds (general)

The site carries noxious weeds which would require control before and after the proposed works. With the application of weed controls during and following construction, weed impacts within and off the proposal site are not expected to be significant. The spacing between the PV array rows would be adequate to allow an all terrain vehicle to access the site for ongoing weed control and pasture renovation, as required.

Indirect impacts

Indirect impacts occur when project related actions affect species, populations or ecological communities in a manner other than direct loss, usually beyond the footprint of the Proposal. Indirect impacts can include loss of individuals through predation by domestic and/or feral animal, deleterious hydrological changes (including increased runoff and raising or lowering the water table), erosion,


4 November 2010 83

weed invasion, pollution, trampling, altered fire regimes, habitat fragmentation and disruption of wildlife movement corridors.

Indirect and off‐site impacts relevant to the proposal include:

• Fauna habitat avoidance and corridor impacts

• Downstream sedimentation and pollution

• Effects on fire frequency and impact.

Fauna habitat avoidance and corridor impacts

The structure provided by the PV arrays and perimeter fence my deter species from foraging between the PV arrays however they may also increase the habitat value for perching species such as the Flame and Scarlet Robin. Flame Robins were recorded foraging from the south western boundary fence and would be likely to use the PV arrays (particularly those on the edges) as a surrogate for the fallen timber that they use in a more natural setting. Post construction site usage studies would be valuable to determine the level of site usage by native fauna.

As the proposal site is largely cleared and representative of the adjacent land, connectivity is unlikely to be compromised by the construction of the PV arrays and perimeter fence.

The infrastructure of the solar farm including the perimeter fence and PV arrays may provide shelter from predators such as foxes and raptors.

Downstream sedimentation and pollution

The proposed works have potential to release sediment and pollutants into riparian and aquatic habitats of Mandagery Creek, located 200m to the west of the site. These risks would apply mainly during the construction phase. This can be effectively managed onsite by installation of sediment erosion controls if required.

A continuous grassy groundcover will need to be established and maintained under the array to maximise infiltration of module washing water, reduce sediment runoff and reduce dust during the operational phase of the project.

Module washing

The panels would be periodically washed as required, using a pressure hose and water truck. Washing is expected to be infrequent, and in response to particular events such as a dust storm. Water for washing would be obtained from existing Council supplies. No detergent would be used for washing the panels. The panel washwater is not expected to result in pollution of local waterways or the groundwater resource.

Effects on fire frequency and impact

Although there have been isolated cases of sparks from the back of panels, the risk of this causing a grass fire is considered to be low. Vegetation under the array would be kept low by slashing or sheep grazing. Access tracks would be constructed to each inverter and around the perimeter of the farm. This network would serve to contain any fire starting at the array, to protect the array during a wildfire and to provide access for fire suppression during an event. The Proposal is unlikely to significantly affect wildfire frequency in the proposal site.


4 November 2010 84

The Suntech modules to be used do not have passed the Underwriters Laboratories standard UL1703 (which includes flammability tests) and are inflammable and do not pose a pollution risk in the event of fire.

Threatened species and ecological communities

Assessments of Significance for impacts to the EEC and threatened flora and fauna (listed in Table 6‐2) conclude that, with the adoption of specific mitigation measures and pending follow up spring surveys to confirm the assumptions of the assessment, the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on any of the threatened entities.

The focus of the follow up surveys would be to confirm the presence or absence of the following threatened species at the site:

Silky Swainson‐pea (Swainsona sericea)

Small Purple‐pea (Swainsona recta)

Austral Toadflax (Thesium australe)

Should presence be confirmed, management actions would be incorporated into the proposal to ensure significant impacts are avoided.

Offsetting

An offset plan would be developed prior to any construction impacts and would be based on the final infrastructure layout. It would reflect the value of habitat areas to be removed or modified by the proposal. The permanent removal of quality flora and fauna habitat is expected to be minimal, as the infrastructure footprint is comparatively small and areas of conservation significance have been mapped to allow infrastructure placement to avoid them. This assessment considers that there is ample ability to offset native vegetation removal onsite. Native pasture is in varying condition. Offsetting impacts to native pasture would only be undertaken where it is in moderate‐good condition as defined by the biometric guidelines and considered to provide quality habitat. Offsite offset areas may be required to achieve this. Surveys and assessments conducted in spring would be used to determine the area and locations of native pasture in moderate to good condition and providing quality habitat.

The biodiversity offset principles developed by DECCW would guide the development of an Offset Plan. The final infrastructure layout will determine the precise amount of clearing required. At that time, formal agreements would be sought with the affected involved land owners to secure offsetting for areas of habitat permanently removed by the proposal. It appears that, by locating infrastructure in areas of lesser habitat value, managing offset areas to improve their biodiversity value for the life of the project and, viewed in terms of the wider environmental benefits of establishing renewable energy generation in rural areas, that the proposal can achieve an overall ‘maintain or improve biodiversity outcome’.

6.1.3 Environmental safeguards

By identifying areas of high biodiversity values early in the planning process and then using this information to develop a sensitive layout design, the Proposal achieves the aim of minimising any impacts to biodiversity. In conjunction with a targeted offset plan, that aims to improve connectivity


4 November 2010 85

and habitat values both on site and for the wider locality, the Proposal would maintain or improve biodiversity values. With the effective implementation of the safeguards below, it is considered that in terms of the significance thresholds identified in the Draft Guidelines for Threatened Species Assessment for Part 3A Applications (DEC/DPI 2005) the project would:

• Be likely to maintain or improve biodiversity values

• Be unlikely to reduce the long‐term viability of a local threatened species population or ecological community

• Be unlikely to accelerate the extinction of a species, population or ecological community or place it at risk of extinction

• Not adversely affect critical habitat.

SoC Impact Objective Mitigation tasks Project phase Auditing

1 Flora protection Avoid and minimise impact

A supplementary flora survey during spring (November) would be undertaken to confirm the assumptions of the Biodiversity Assessment (Appendix E), in areas including the western paddock, western access and areas identified on the Biodiversity Constraints map (Figure 6‐1) that would be impacted by infrastructure.

Pre‐determination

CEMP

2 Loss or modification of habitat

Minimise and offset impact

An Offset Plan would be prepared by an ecologist consistent with ‘maintain or improve’ principles for biodiversity outcomes, as set out in the Biodiversity Assessment. The plan would be developed in consultation with the landowner and would operate for the life of the project.

Pre‐construction CEMP

3 Infrastructure related biodiversity impacts

Minimise biodiversity impacts

The PV array, site access tracks and other infrastructure should be sited to avoid constraints identified within the Biodiversity Assessment constraints mapping. These include:

• The larger stands of Box‐Gum Woodland across the site

• Hollow bearing trees

• Isolated shade trees where possible

• Native grassland and associated rock outcrops in the Western Paddock

• As far as possible rock outcrops across the proposal site together with a minimum 2.5 metre buffer to avoid shading.

Design phase CEMP



Areas of high biodiversity value would be clearly identified throughout construction and protected from the direct and indirect impacts of the Proposal. Contractors and staff would be made aware of the significance and sensitivity of these areas.

Design phase CEMP



The western paddock of the proposed solar farm site should be avoided if possible to minimise impacts to grassy groundcover flora comprising the Box‐Gum Woodland EEC.

Design phase CEMP

6 Construction impacts


Where security concerns permit perimeter fences should not contain barbed wire, particularly the top strands. If a cycisolated mesh fence is to be used efforts should be made to increase the visibility to fast flying parrots.

Design

Construction

CEMP


4 November 2010 86




If used, and where practicable, power poles and overhead powerlines will be bird‐safe using flags or marker balls, large wire size and wire and conductor spacing.

Design

Construction

CEMP



If the removal of any hollow bearing trees was required this activity would be proceeded by a pre clearance check by a qualified ecologist including anabat survey and stag watching.

Pre‐construction CEMP



Works will avoid impacts to mature eucalypts wherever possible. Tree protection standards should comply with Australian standard AS4970‐2009 Protection of trees on development sites (Standards Australia, 2009). Wherever practicable, excavations and vehicle/machinery movements will occur outside the canopy dripline of large eucalypts.

Design phase

Construction

CEMP



Existing farm tracks should be used wherever possible to minimise the number of new roads.

Construction CEMP



Where cement is included in cable trench backfill, at least 20 centimetres of cement‐free topsoil will be replaced as the top layer in the backfill.

Construction CEMP



Where practicable, whole sods will be removed with an excavator where these areas are well‐vegetated with dense root systems. Sods will be stored in moist, shaded conditions and replaced following the works. Sod storage time will be minimised and sods will be replaced in a manner that maximises the chances of re‐establishment.

Construction CEMP



Where possible, as a precaution, works should be planned to avoid sensitive times for Superb Parrots ‐ September to January.

Construction CEMP



Excavated topsoil, subsoil will be stored separately and replaced in a manner that replicates the original profile as closely as possible.

Construction CEMP



Where practicable, grass surfaces and shrubs will be retained or restored on infrequently used vehicle routes.

Construction CEMP



Site stabilisation, rehabilitation and revegetation of all disturbed areas would be undertaken without delay.

Construction CEMP



As a general rule, disturbed areas will be used preferentially for vehicle and machinery access, materials laydown, stockpiling of cleared vegetation and the deposition and retrieval of spoil whenever practicable.

Construction CEMP



Works will be avoided during, and immediately following heavy rainfall events to protect soils and vegetation at the site.

Construction CEMP



Weed / pathogen controls will be implemented, including:

o Machinery and vehicles used in construction works will be washed before and after site access to reduce the introduction and spread of weeds and pathogens.

Construction CEMP


4 November 2010 87


o Laydown sites for excavated spoil, equipment and construction materials will be weed‐free or treated for weeds wherever practicable.

o Weed monitoring will be carried out at all sites after the completion of construction works and ongoing weed control will occur where noxious or invasive species are recorded. In particular, monitoring will be undertaken during the following late spring/early summer, and remedial action taken as required.

o Sediment control materials should be weed free (straw bales, geotextiles).

o Imported materials such as sand and gravel will be sourced from sites which do not show evidence of noxious weeds or Phytophthora infection.



If dams are removed during site development works, alternative watering points should be established to compensate for their loss and maintain similar habitat resources for native fauna.

Construction CEMP



Any trench sections left open for greater than a day would be inspected daily, early in the morning and any trapped fauna removed. The use of ramps or ladders to facilitate trapped fauna escape is recommended.

Construction CEMP



Rock and log habitat removed during the construction phase will be reinstated following the works.

Construction CEMP



Where tree hollows are required to be removed, these should be replaced by nest boxes of similar size in nearby trees.

Construction CEMP



Wherever possible small rock outcrops at the site should be excluded from the array, together with a minimum 2.5 metre buffer to avoid shading.

Construction CEMP

25 Operational impacts


A groundcover management plan would be developed that would include regular monitoring of vegetation cover and composition and allow for adaptive management. This would include:

o Establishment of a shade tolerant perennial groundcover across the cropping and exotic dominated grazing paddocks prior to the installation of the PV arrays

o Advice from an agronomist in relation to preferred species/varieties, establishment methods of alternative pastures and best practice management.

o Where information is lacking, trials may be required onsite

Pre‐construction Construction

operation

CEMP

OEMP


4 November 2010 88




If localised erosion is detected, effective treatments would be applied without delay, such as hardening with mulch, reseeding and covering with an open weave jute matting, gypsum application to improve structure and infiltration, protection with geotextile fabric or localised flow dispersal and diversion structures.

Operation OEMP



The space between the PV array rows should be maintained and kept clear to enable access by vehicles for ongoing weed control, and pasture renovation if required.

Operation OEMP



Efforts should be made to minimise disturbance to the existing groundcover during construction. Construction and maintenance vehicles should not access the site when soils are very wet to minimise soil compaction and disturbance.

Construction

Operation

CEMP

OEMP



Fencing along Molong Manildra Road should be maintained so as macropods and other large native fauna are not funnelled along the perimeter fence and onto the road creating a traffic hazard and collision risk to the animal.

Operation OEMP



Monitoring of fauna site habitat usage pre and post construction is recommended but not considered essential.

Operation OEMP

6.2 VISUAL AMENITY

6.2.1 Introduction

The proposed Manildra Solar Farm would be a contrasting visual element within the existing rural landscape. The solar farm would potentially attract attention from a range of viewpoints in the area. As a result, the visual assessment is recognised as being an important component of the environmental assessment (EA) process.

Moir Landscape Architecture were commissioned by the Proponent to prepare a Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) for the proposed Manildra Solar Farm. A comprehensive Visual Impact Assessment has been undertaken and is included as Appendix F of this EA as per the Director General’s Requirements (DGR). The key aspects of the visual assessment have been summarised in this chapter of the EA.

The objectives adopted for the visual assessment are as follows:

1. To identify and describe the existing visual/landscape environment and to evaluate its current qualities;

2. An assessment of the site in relation to any landscapes of local or regional significance;

3. Visibility from the general surrounds including major roads and surrounding residential areas;

4. Visual impacts associated with any potential development; and


4 November 2010 89

5. Proposed mitigation measures to reduce visual impacts associated with any development within the proposal site.

Survey work for the study was undertaken during August 2010 using key viewpoints and locations with potential views towards the proposal site. The comprehensive report (Appendix F) details the results of the field work, documents the assessment of the landscape character and visual setting, and makes recommendations concerning measures to mitigate any impacts arising from potential development.

The method applied to this study involved systematically evaluating the visual environment pertaining to the site and using value judgements based on community responses to scenery.

The assessment was undertaken in five stages as noted below:

1. Description of the existing visual environment, including the identification and appraisal of visual catchments/landscape units;

2. Undertaking of a viewpoint analysis to identify sites likely to be affected by development within the investigation zone;

3. Photographic survey using a Canon 40D Digitals SLR with a 50mm Fixed Focal lens (80mm 35mm Film SLR equivalent) and a handheld GPS unit to record position and altitude;

4. Assessment of visual impacts (including reflectivity); and,

5. Preparation of recommendations for impact mitigation and suggestions for suitable development to maintain the area’s visual quality.

The purpose of the above methodology is to reduce the amount of subjectivity entering into impact assessment and to provide sufficient data to allow for third party verification of results. A summary of the key aspects of the Visual Impact Assessment are summarised in the subsequent sections of this chapter.

6.2.2 Existing visual environment

The proposed Manildra Solar Farm is located to the north east of the Manildra township in central western New South Wales. The topography of the proposed solar farm site is defined by slightly undulating, grazing land, generally devoid of native vegetation. The majority of the Site is cleared with tree coverage occurring in sparse patches.

The broader landscape is characterised by a mosaic of agricultural land with a sparse coverage of remnant native woodland and riparian vegetation. Creek and natural drainage lines branch from the Mandagery Creek through the low points of the slightly undulating landscape.

Landscape character units

The surrounding landscape was divided into Landscape Character Units (LCU), each defined by their own distinct and recognisable pattern of elements. Representative views of these LCUs are presented in the following figures.


4 November 2010 90

LCU1 Manildra Town: The LCU encompasses the land and associated infrastructure to the west of Mandagery Creek. The land area is predominately residential with an industrial main street, associated with the Manildra Grain Silos. The town is flat and vegetation associated with the Mandagery Creek creates a visual barrier to the north east.

Figure 6‐11: Manildra Town

LCU2 Manildra Rural Residential: The LCU encompasses the rural/residential development associated with Manildra, located on the eastern side of the Mandagery Creek. The LCU is characterised by a country town character. The LCU includes the rural residential properties located along Old Orange Road, Orange Road and Mandagery Lane.

Figure 6‐12: Manildra Rural Residential


4 November 2010 91

LCU3 Open Pastoral Land: The LCU encompasses the typically open, rural grazing land surrounding Manildra. Vegetation consists of sparse coverage of remnant woodland vegetation and open pastoral land. The land is used for a number of agricultural pursuits including grazing, cropping and improved pasture.

Figure 6‐13: Open Pastoral Land

LCU4 Molong Manildra Road: The LCU includes the road and associated homesteads which run along the western perimeter of the proposal site. The landform is slightly undulating and remnant native vegetation follows the roadside.

Figure 6‐14: Molong Manildra Road


4 November 2010 92

Figure 6‐15: Landscape Character Units


4 November 2010 93

6.2.3 Viewpoint analysis

The visual assessment considers the likely impact that development would have on the existing landscape character and visual amenity by selecting prominent sites, otherwise referred to as viewpoints. For the purpose of the VIA, nine viewpoints were selected on the basis of where development of the proposal site would be most prominent. This was either based on the degree of exposure or the number of people who are likely to be affected by the development.

Sites were first selected by using topographical maps. This was followed by field inspections to ascertain the visibility from these sites. Further viewpoints were selected by driving or walking around the site area. It is important to note that viewpoints for this study have been taken only from accessible public land. As part of the Viewpoint Analysis the Landscape Character and Visual Sensitivity were also assessed from each viewpoint. The detailed VIA included in Appendix F encompasses the detailed viewpoint description and analysis.


4 November 2010 94

Figure 6‐16: Assessment Viewpoint Locations


4 November 2010 95

6.2.4 Photomontages

Photomontages of the proposed solar farm were prepared to assist in the impact assessment of the proposal, conveying the final visual impact from typical vantage points.

Photomontages are a representation of the solar farm that are superimposed onto a photograph of the site. The process for generation of these images involves computer generation of a wire frame perspective view of the solar farm and the topography from each viewpoint. The images that the photographic simulations are based on have been captured with a Canon 40D SLR digital camera with 50mm lens which closely represents the central field of vision of the human eye.

It is important to note the photomontages are based on worst case scenario, without the inclusion of mitigation methods. Therefore measures to mitigate the impact of the solar farm would reduce the impact conveyed in the photomontage.

A complete collection of the photomontages are included in the detailed Visual Impact Assessment included in Appendix F of this report. Examples of these photomontage images are included in Figure 6‐17 to Figure 6‐25 below. These figures have been copied and as a result they are not to scale.

Figure 6‐17: Existing view towards the site from Molong Manildra Road.

Figure 6‐18: Photomontage of the site from Molong Manildra Road.

Figure 6‐19: Photomontage of the site from Molong Manildra Road with screen planting.


4 November 2010 96

Figure 6‐20: Existing view towards the site from Molong Manildra Road.

Figure 6‐21: Photomontage of the site from Molong Manildra Road.

Figure 6‐22: Photomontage of the site from Molong Manildra Road with boundary planting

Figure 6‐23: Existing view over the site from the Manildra Substation.

Figure 6‐24: Photomontage of the site from the Manildra Substation.

Figure 6‐25: Photomontage of the site from the Manildra Substation with boundary planting.


4 November 2010 97

6.2.5 Visual impact assessment

Overview of visual impact

The nature and scale of the project would create a new landscape and visual environment. This part of the report will assess the source and magnitude of development effects on the existing landscape elements, character and quality in the context of the site and its environs.

Overall the proposed Manildra Solar Farm would result in impacts on the existing surrounding environment in terms of landscape and scenic values. The visual impacts associated with the proposal would vary depending on the viewing location. The potential visual impacts associated with the proposed development are assessed in this section of the report.

Character of the proposal

The Solar Panels are relatively low lying, reaching a height of approximately 2 to 3m above the existing ground level. The solar farm is designed as an array of panels arranged in an east‐west direction, facing approximately north on an angle of 30 degrees. The highest visual effect of the PV panels is likely to be seen from the north and south, where the most surface area is visible. Visibility of the solar farm from the east and west would be significantly lower. The visual impact is mostly likely to be at its highest during the construction phase.

Visual impact assessment

Existing landscape features of the region which assist in the reduction of the visual impact of the Site have been illustrated in the visual impact analysis (Figure 6‐26).

Riparian vegetation associated with Mandagery Creek to the east of Manildra provides a strong visual screen for a large percentage of developed area. The natural topography prevents views to the site from residential properties to the south of the Site associated with Old Orange Road.

Areas surrounding the proposed development are largely uninhabited parcels of undulating land with a sparse coverage of woodland vegetation. The Site upon which the development is proposed is characterised by an undulating, cleared pastoral land.

The highest visual impact would be felt from those areas within the immediate vicinity of the proposed development, in particular a narrow section of Molong Manildra Road as represented in the photomontages.

The Molong Manildra Road is located approximately 500m to the east at its closest point. Views from Molong Manildra Road are towards the western edge of the proposed development and would be seen as a grey line within the landscape. Due to topography and existing vegetation, views to the site other than Manildra Molong Road are restricted to areas of private land. No residences are located within these vantage areas.


4 November 2010 98

Figure 6‐26: Visual Impact Map


4 November 2010 99

Review of visibility surrounding the site

Views to the site from Manildra:

The Manildra Town and associated residential development are located approximately 1.2km south west of the proposal site. The Town is bounded on its eastern edge by the Mandagery Creek, with its associated vegetation. The Riparian Vegetation creates a visual barrier between the town and the proposal site. The proposed Solar Farm would not be visible from the town or associated residential properties.

Views to the site from the north:

To the north of the Site, the land is generally characterised by uninhabited pastoral land. A small number of homesteads are located to the north of the Site. The closest property is “Yarran” farmhouse, from which the Site would be obscured by a rise in topography between the Site and farmhouse. Viewpoint MASF02 is taken from the property entry.

The nearest properties north of the Yarran Farmhouse are sited approximately 2.3km north of the Site. A sparse coverage of remnant woodland vegetation and undulating topography prevent views of the Site from these properties.

Views to the site from the east:

East of the Site, the landscape is characterised by uninhabited, undulating grazing land. The closest residential property to the east of the Site is located at a distance of approximately 2km. The Site would not be visible from these properties.

Views to the site from the south:

The closest residences to the south of the Site are located along Old Orange Road. These rural residential properties are located approximately 500m from the sites southern boundary. Views from these properties are impeded by a rise in topography south of the Site.

The Broken Hill Railway runs in an east‐west direction to the south of the Site. The proposed development would not be visible from passenger trains travelling along this road due to the undulating topography and coverage of vegetation north of the railway line. Orange Road follows the same route as the railway and as a result views to the Site from the road would be impeded by topography and vegetation.

Views to the site from the west:

Two homesteads are located approximately 600 metres to the west of the Site on the eastern side of the Molong Manildra Road. A combination of the existing roadside vegetation and foreground planting associated with the homesteads buffer views towards the Site.

Views to the proposal site from residential properties to the east of Manildra, along Mandagery Lane would be impeded by dense remnant woodland vegetation between the Site and rural properties. Beyond these properties to the east of the Mandagery Creek riparian vegetation creates a visual buffer towards the Site.

Molong Manildra Road:

Travelling in a southern direction along the Molong Manildra Road towards Manildra Road, glimpse views towards the proposal site would be visible along a 500m stretch of road approximately 2.6km


4 November 2010 100

from the Manildra town centre. Views to the proposal site in all other sections are restricted due to topography, roadside planting and the distance to the Site.

Manildra Toogong Road:

The Manildra Toogong Road runs in a north‐south direction towards Manildra. Travelling along this road in a northerly direction views to the Site are obscured by the dense riparian vegetation associated with Mandagery Creek.

Of the 9 viewpoints assessed as apart of this VIA, the proposed solar farm development would be visible from 6 viewpoints. These 6 viewpoints have all been assessed as having a moderate visual impact. Table 6‐3 summarises the visual impact of all 9 viewpoints.

Table 6‐3: Viewpoint visual impact summary

VIEWPOINT LOCATION VISUAL SENSITIVITY VISUAL EFFECT VISUAL IMPACT

MASF01 North West corner of Proposal site

MASF02 Yarran Farmhouse, Molong Manildra Road

‐ ‐ ‐

MASF03 Molong Manildra Road‐ Ridgelite

Moderate Moderate Moderate

MASF04 Paddock Low High Moderate

MASF05 Paddock Low High Moderate

MASF06 Molong Manildra Road Moderate Moderate Moderate

MASF07 Silo East of Substation Low High Moderate

MASF08 Manildra Substation Low High Moderate

MASF09 Property South of Mandagery Lane on Molong Manildra Rd

‐ ‐ ‐


4 November 2010 101

Figure 6‐27: Zone of Visual Influence (based on topography)


4 November 2010 102

6.2.6 Reflectivity

There is a perceived issue of glint and glare surrounding the reflectivity of the proposed PV solar panels. As a result of the perceived reflection levels, there is a concern of possible distractions to motorists, aircraft and the hazard of eye damage.

The Poly‐Crystalline Solar Panels proposed for the installation are designed to absorb the suns energy and directly convert it to electricity. The PV modules being used in the installation for the Manildra Solar Farm absorb approximately 82‐90% of the light received. The Suntech Solar Panels proposed for the Manildra Solar Farm have been designed using two anti‐reflective coatings which significantly reduce the reflectivity. An innovative method of developing the required metal contact on the face of the solar panel reduces the metal surface area and further reduces any potential glare.

A number of rural landing grounds are located within close proximity to the area. PV Solar Panels have been installed at a number of airports in the USA, including Denver and the Oakland FedEx International Airport Hub. These precedents and further studies have found that the reflection created would not cause problems for aircraft, particularly at the critical take off and landing stage.

The level of glare and reflectance from the PV solar panels are considerably lower than the level of glare and reflectance of common land surfaces including those surrounding the proposed Solar Farm. The PV panels would reflect approximately 10‐18% of energy which is less than typical rural environments which have a reflectivity of approximately 15‐30%. Figure 6‐28, Figure 6‐29 and Figure 6‐30 compare the percentage of reflected energy from common reflective surfaces to that of the Suntech PV Solar Panels.

Figure 6‐28: Analysis of typical material reflectivity (Sunpower)


4 November 2010 103

Figure 6‐29: Comparative reflection analysis.

Figure 6‐30: Comparative reflection diagram.


4 November 2010 104

6.2.7 Impact mitigation methods

Overview of impact mitigation

A range of methods for mitigating the visual impact of the proposed development have been identified and are outlined below. The recommendations seek to achieve a better visual integration of the proposed Manildra Solar Farm and the retention of existing landscape character at both local, and regional scales. The mitigation measures attempt to lessen the visual impact of the proposed development whilst enhancing the visual character of the surrounding environment.

When site planning the Solar Farm, the design should consider some or all of the following mitigation strategies to lessen the visual impact of the proposal. This is by no means an exhaustive list, however the adoption of these recommendations would assist considerably in ensuring the proposal contributes positively to the visual quality and character of the area.

In addition to the impact mitigation strategies outlined in the following sections, a visual impact mitigation plan has been prepared and is included as Figure 6‐31 below.

Construction mitigation

It is likely the greatest visual impact would occur through the construction stage. Though the construction phase would be temporary practical methods should be employed to reduce the impact of this stage. These include but are not limited to the following:

• Dust reduction throughout the construction process

• Restoration of any earthworks required for the construction

• Clearing of existing vegetation is to be kept to a minimum

Solar panel and associated infrastructure

Once construction has been completed, the solar farm would be a relatively low lying development, with panels having a vertical height of approximately 2 to 3m above ground level. Due to the low height, visibility of the solar panels can potentially be significantly reduced through a variety of mitigation methods.

Although the PV Solar Panels are the most visible feature of the landscape, a considerable amount of associated infrastructure is to be included in the proposal. This infrastructure associated with the solar panels is outlines in the project proposal section of this report. Methods of mitigation which would be incorporated into the project include:

• Colour of above ground infrastructure to be sympathetic to the landscape character

• Underground cabling to be utilised where possible

• The design and location of ancillary works are to incorporate measures which would reduce the visual impact

Landscaping and visual screening

Visual screen planting is a beneficial mitigation method used to assist in the reduction of the Solar Farm’s visual impact. Visual screen planting can be undertaken in the form of boundary planting around the solar farm, foreground planting at affected viewpoints and residential tree planting.


4 November 2010 105

The existing remnant woodland vegetation contributes significantly to the character of the area. The selection of endemic species for use as screen planting would enhance the existing landscape character, and be a seen as a continuation of the existing vegetation. This planting would be best implemented in areas where natural vegetation has been removed for access roads and agricultural activity.

To assist in concealing the proposal site from areas with a visual impact, screen planting is proposed along the boundary edges of the proposed development. Boundary planting is proposed to be undertaken along the northern, western and southern perimeters of the proposed solar farm. Screen planting along these boundaries would ensure visibility is restricted from roads and nearby homesteads.

Roadside planting along the eastern edge of Molong Manildra Road is an additional mitigation method proposed to ensure views from the road are fragmented. Planting along the roadside would be seen as a continuation of the existing roadside vegetation and would reinforce the existing landscape character.

In areas where additional screen planting is required, the proposed solar farm can be screened through the implementation of foreground planting around areas affected. Amelioration of the visual impact from homesteads within close proximity to the proposed development should be undertaken in consultation with the relevant land owners.

Proposed visual impact mitigation in the form of visual screen planting has been suggested in Figure 6‐31.

Visual opportunities:

The proposed Manildra Solar Farm is a flagship development for renewable energy which, due to the relatively large scale and new technology, is bound to be of interest to viewers. There are opportunities for the provision of educational viewing areas at various locations around the site. The integration of a viewing area where visitors would be able to safely view the solar farm and surrounding landscape would be a positive attribute to the development. Combined with interpretive signage these viewing areas would provide insight into the function, output and benefits of large scale solar farms.

An area on the southern edge of the Site has been identified as a potential location for a public viewpoint due to the expansive views over the proposed solar farm site. The public viewing area is identified in Figure 6‐31on the following page.

Documents

2.5.1 Construction and commissioning