STATEMENT OF  
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 
 

GULLEN SOLAR FARM 
 

     

 
 
 

JANUARY 2016 
 
 
 
 
 
 

6385 Final v2  i   
  

Document Verification
Project Title:  Gullen Solar Farm 

 
Project Number:  6385 
Project File Name:  Final V2 
Revision  Date  Prepared by (name)  Reviewed by (name)  Approved by (name) 
Draft V0  09/10/15  Brooke Marshall  Jenny Walsh  Brooke Marshall 
Draft V1  4/11/15  Jane Blomfield   Brooke Marshall  Brooke Marshall 
Draft V2  3/12/15  Jane Blomfield  Brooke Marshall  Brooke Marshall 
Final V1  17/12/15  Jane Blomfield  Brooke Marshall  Brooke Marshall 
Final V2  15/01/16  Jane Blomfield  Minor changes  Nick Graham‐Higgs 
         
         

NGH Environmental prints all documents on environmentally sustainable paper including paper made from bagasse (a by‐
product of sugar production) or recycled paper. 

 
NGH Environmental Pty Ltd (ACN: 124 444 622. ABN: 31 124 444 622) and NGH Environmental (Heritage) 
Pty Ltd (ACN: 603 938 549. ABN: 62 603 938 549) are part of the NGH Environmental Group of Companies. 
 

6385 Final v2  ii   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

Contents 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... VII 
1  INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 
1.1  BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................1 
1.2  PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...........................................................1 
2  PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 3 
2.1  TERMINOLOGY .....................................................................................................................................3 
2.2  LOCATION OF THE ACTIVITY AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ................................................................3 
2.3  SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................6 
2.4  RELATIONSHIP TO THE GULLEN RANGE WIND FARM ..........................................................................6  
2.5  DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................................................................7  
2.5.1  Infrastructure components .................................................................................................................... 7 

2.5.2  Infrastructure layout and development envelope ............................................................................... 10 

2.5.3  Power generation ................................................................................................................................ 13 
2.5.4  Transmission ........................................................................................................................................ 13 
2.5.5  Access and traffic management .......................................................................................................... 13 

2.6  PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ......................................................................................14  
2.6.1  Construction ........................................................................................................................................ 14 

2.6.2  Operation ............................................................................................................................................. 16 

2.6.3  Decommissioning ................................................................................................................................. 16 

2.7  INDICATIVE TIMELINE .........................................................................................................................17  
2.8  JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROJECT ......................................................................................................17  
2.8.1  Need for the Project ............................................................................................................................ 17 

2.8.2  Extension and diversification of renewable energy generation capacity ............................................ 18 

2.9  ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ..............................................................................................................18  
2.9.1  The ‘do nothing’ option ....................................................................................................................... 18 
2.9.2  Development of a larger solar farm ..................................................................................................... 19 
2.9.3  Alternative locations ............................................................................................................................ 19 
2.9.4  Alternative infrastructure layouts ....................................................................................................... 19 

3  STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ................................................................................................. 20 
3.1  COMMUNITY CONSULTATION ...........................................................................................................20  
3.1.1  Involved property owners ................................................................................................................... 20 
3.1.2  Neighbours to the site ......................................................................................................................... 20 

6385 Final v2  i   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

3.1.3  Broader community ............................................................................................................................. 21 

3.1.4  Aboriginal community consultation .................................................................................................... 22 

3.2  GOVERNMENT AGENCY CONSULTATION ...........................................................................................23  
3.2.1  Upper Lachlan Shire Council ................................................................................................................ 23 
3.2.2  NSW Office of Environment and Heritage ........................................................................................... 23 

3.2.3  Water NSW .......................................................................................................................................... 23 
3.2.4  Crown Lands ........................................................................................................................................ 24 
3.2.5  Transgrid .............................................................................................................................................. 24 

4  PLANNING CONTEXT ................................................................................................................. 25 
4.1  LOCAL LEGISLATION ...........................................................................................................................25  
4.1.1  Zoning and permissibility ..................................................................................................................... 25 

4.1.2  Local provisions (part 6 of the LEP 2010) ............................................................................................. 26 

4.2  NSW LEGISLATION ..............................................................................................................................26 
4.2.1  NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 .................................................................... 26 

4.2.2  Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) ......................................................................... 27 
4.2.3  Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) ....................................................... 27 

4.2.4  Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) .......................................................................................... 28 

4.2.5  Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act) ............................................................................................. 28 
4.2.6  National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act) ................................................................................. 29 

4.2.7  Roads Act 1993 (Roads Act) ................................................................................................................. 29 
4.2.8  Crown Lands Act 1979 ......................................................................................................................... 29 

4.2.9  Heritage Act 1977 ................................................................................................................................ 30 
4.2.10  Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NW Act) ..................................................................................................... 30 
4.2.11  Mining Act 1992 ................................................................................................................................... 30 

4.3  STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES ..................................................................................30  
4.3.1  State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011 ............................... 30 

4.3.2  State Environmental Planning Policy No 44‐Koala Habitat Protection ................................................ 32 

4.4  COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATION .......................................................................................................32  
4.4.1  Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ...................................................... 32 

4.4.2  Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 ............................................................................................. 33 

5  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................................................... 34 
5.1  VISUAL AMENITY ................................................................................................................................34 
5.1.1  Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 34 
5.1.2  Existing environment ........................................................................................................................... 35 

6385 Final v2  ii   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

5.1.3  Potential impacts ................................................................................................................................. 35 

5.1.4  Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................... 41 

5.2  NOISE AND VIBRATION ......................................................................................................................42  
5.2.1  Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 42 
5.2.2  Existing environment ........................................................................................................................... 42 

5.2.3  Policy setting and criteria .................................................................................................................... 44 
5.2.4  Potential impacts ................................................................................................................................. 45 
5.2.5  Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................... 48 

5.3  BIODIVERSITY .....................................................................................................................................49 
5.3.1  Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 49 
5.3.2  Existing environment ........................................................................................................................... 51 
5.3.3  Potential impacts ................................................................................................................................. 58 
5.3.4  Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................... 61 

5.4  ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGY ..............................................................................................................63  
5.4.1  Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 63 
5.4.2  Existing environment ........................................................................................................................... 63 
5.4.3  Potential impacts ................................................................................................................................. 67 

5.4.4  Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................... 69 

5.5  TRAFFIC, TRANSPORT AND ROAD SAFETY..........................................................................................70  
5.5.1  Existing environment ........................................................................................................................... 70 
5.5.2  Potential impacts ................................................................................................................................. 72 

5.5.3  Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................... 73 

5.6  HISTORIC HERITAGE ...........................................................................................................................74  
5.6.1  Existing environment ........................................................................................................................... 74 
5.6.2  Potential impacts ................................................................................................................................. 76 

5.6.3  Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................... 76 

5.7  FIRE AND BUSH FIRE ISSUES AND IMPACTS .......................................................................................77  
5.7.1  Existing environment ........................................................................................................................... 77 
5.7.2  Potential impacts ................................................................................................................................. 78 

5.7.3  Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................... 79 

5.8  PHYSICAL IMPACTS .............................................................................................................................79  
5.8.1  Existing environment ........................................................................................................................... 79 

5.8.2  Potential impacts ................................................................................................................................. 82 
5.8.3  Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................... 85 

6385 Final v2  iii   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

5.9  SOCIO ECONOMICS AND COMMUNITY WELLBEING ..........................................................................87 
5.9.1  Existing environment ........................................................................................................................... 87 
5.9.2  Potential impacts ................................................................................................................................. 89 

5.9.3  Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................... 90 

5.10  LAND USE ...........................................................................................................................................90 
5.10.1  Existing environment ........................................................................................................................... 90 
5.10.2  Potential impacts ................................................................................................................................. 91 
5.10.3  Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................... 92 

5.11  RESOURCE USE AND WASTE GENERATION ........................................................................................92  
5.11.1  Existing environment ........................................................................................................................... 92 

5.11.2  Potential impacts ................................................................................................................................. 94 

5.11.3  Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................... 95 

5.12  CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ......................................................................................................................95  
5.12.1  Existing environment ........................................................................................................................... 95 

5.12.2  Environmental safeguards ................................................................................................................... 96 

5.13  PRINCIPLES OF ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ..........................................................97 
5.13.1  The precautionary principle ................................................................................................................. 97 

5.13.2  Inter‐generational equity ..................................................................................................................... 97 
5.13.3  Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity .............................................................. 97 
5.13.4  Appropriate valuation of environmental factors ................................................................................. 97 

6  ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ........................................................................... 98 
6.1  LICENSES AND APPROVALS REQUIRED ..............................................................................................98  
6.2  ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................98  
6.3  SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES.............................................................................................99  
7  CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 107 
8  REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 108 
APPENDIX A  INFRASTRUCTURE SPECIFICATIONS ............................................................................A‐I 
APPENDIX B  SECTION 79C MATTERS ............................................................................................. B‐1 
APPENDIX C  SPECIALIST STUDIES .................................................................................................. C‐1 
APPENDIX D  NEUTRAL OR BENEFICIAL EFFECT ON WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT .........................D‐1 
APPENDIX E  COMMUNITY CONSULTATION PLAN .......................................................................... E‐1 
 

   

6385 Final v2  iv   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

TABLES 
Table 2‐1 Lots affected by infrastructure, works and associated facilities for the Gullen Solar Farm ...........4 

Table 2‐2 Key infrastructure components (including items to be installed at the existing Gullen Range Wind 
Farm Substation) .............................................................................................................................................7 

Table 2‐3 Indicative timing for the Gullen Solar Farm. .................................................................................17 

Table 3‐1 Landowner consultation ...............................................................................................................21  

Table 4‐1  Summary of Matters of National Environmental Significance (10km search radius). .................32 

Table 4‐2  Summary of Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act (10km search radius). ...........................33 

Table 4‐3  Summary Extra Information (10km search radius). .....................................................................33 

Table 5‐1 Ambient Background noise levels for Receptor Catchment Areas ...............................................43 

Table 5‐2– Noise management levels at residential receivers, INCG (DECC 2009). .....................................44 

Table 5‐3 Project specific Construction noise management levels ..............................................................44 

Table 5‐4 Noise impact assessment methodology .......................................................................................45  

Table 5‐5 Project specific operational noise criteria ....................................................................................45  

Table 5‐6 Construction predicted noise levels and exceedances of construction noise criteria (only relevant 
to PW5) .........................................................................................................................................................46 

Table 5‐7 Operational noise assessment ......................................................................................................47  

Table 5‐8:  Survey effort completed within development envelope ............................................................50 

Table 5‐9:  Prevailing weather conditions during each Striped Legless Lizard tile survey ............................51 

Table 5‐10:  Prevailing weather conditions during the nocturnal survey (including spotlight/stagwatch and 
call playback times) .......................................................................................................................................51 

Table 5‐11 Conservation status of native vegetation at the subject site .....................................................52 

Table 5‐12 Potential impacts of the proposed solar plant ...........................................................................58 

Table 5‐13 Estimated impact areas of each proposal component ...............................................................58 

Table 5‐14 Archaeological significance of Aboriginal object locales in the subject area .............................64 

Table 5‐15  Aboriginal object locales by survey unit within the proposal area ............................................67 

Table 5‐16  Summary of total heritage listings in the Upper Lachlan LGA. ..................................................75 

 
   

6385 Final v2  v   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

FIGURES 
Figure 1‐1 Regional location of the proposal. .................................................................................................2  

Figure 2‐1 Location of the proposal. ...............................................................................................................5  

Figure 2‐2 Images representative of proposed infrastructure components ..................................................9 

Figure 2‐3 Development envelope (assessed area within which infrastructure would be located). ...........11 

Figure 2‐4 Indicative layout ..........................................................................................................................12  

Figure 2‐5 Two examples of potential creek crossing types (if required) .....................................................14 

Figure 4‐1 Sydney Drinking Water Catchment within the Upper Lachlan Shire LGA (Pejar Catchment) (ULSC 
2015) .............................................................................................................................................................31 

Figure 5‐1 Photomontage 1 and montage location (G12) ............................................................................38 

Figure 5‐2 Photomontage 1 and montage location (G16) ............................................................................39 

Figure 5‐3 Photomontage 1 and montage location (G20) ............................................................................40 

Figure 5‐4 Monitoring locations and receivers. ............................................................................................43  

Figure 5‐5 Vegetation survey effort and results ...........................................................................................53  

Figure 5‐6 Fauna survey effort and results ...................................................................................................57  

Figure 5‐7 Location of Aboriginal locales within the development envelope. .............................................69 

Figure 5‐8 Transport routes ..........................................................................................................................71  

Figure 5‐9 Windbreaks and low pasture. ......................................................................................................77  

Figure 5‐10 Peripheral woodland is well connected. ....................................................................................77  

Figure 5‐11 Western soils (left), more stable. ..............................................................................................81  

Figure 5‐12 Eastern soils (right), stony and erodible. ...................................................................................81  

Figure 5‐13 Local hydrology and bores (NSW Government, 2015c; DPI, 2015). ..........................................82 
 

   

6385 Final v2  vi   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
ABARE  Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics 
ABS  Australian Bureau of Statistics 
AC  Alternating Current 
ACHA  Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment 
AGO  Australian Greenhouse Office 
AHIMS  Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System 
AHIP  Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit 
ANZECC  Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council 
CdTe  Cadmium telluride 
CEMP  Construction environmental management plan 
CMA  Catchment Management Authority 
Cwth  Commonwealth 
DA  Development Application 
dB  Decibel 
dB(A)  A measure of A‐weighted (c.f.) sound levels. 
DC  Direct Current 
DEC  Department of Environment and Conservation 
DECC  Department of Climate change 
DECCW  Refer to OEH 
DEMP  Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan 
DOE  Department of the Environment 
DPI  (NSW) Department of Primary Industries 
EP&A Act  Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)  
EP&A Regulation  Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (NSW) 
EPA  (NSW) Environment Protection Authority 
EPBC Act  Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwth) 
ESD  Ecologically Sustainable Development 
FM Act  Fisheries Management Act 1994 
g  grams 
GA  Geoscience Australia 
GBD  Green Bean Design 
GRWF  Gullen Range Wind Farm 
GSF  Gullen Solar Farm 
ha  hectares 
Heritage Act  Heritage Act 1977 (NSW) 
INCG  Interim Construction Noise Guideline 
INP  NSW Industrial Noise Policy 
ISEPP  State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 
KFH  Key Fish Habitat 

6385 Final v2  vii   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

Kg  Kilograms 
km  kilometre 
KV  Kilovolts 
kWh  Kilowatt hour 
L  Litre 
LAeq(15 minutes)  The A‐weighted equivalent continuous (energy average) sound pressure level of the construction 
works under consideration over a 15‐minute period that excludes other noise sources such as 
from industry, road, rail and the community. 
LCA  Life Cycle Assessment 
LEP  Local Environment Plan 
LGA  Local Government Area 
LLS  Local Land Services 
m  Metres 
mm  Millimetres 
MDA  Marshall Day Acoustics 
MNES  Matters of National Environmental Significance, under the EPBC Act (c.f.) 
MSDS  Material Safety Data Sheets 
MW  Megawatt 
NOW  NSW Office of Water 
NPW Act  National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 
NSW  New South Wales 
NW Act  Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NSW) 
O&M  Operation and Maintenance 
OEH  (NSW)  Office  of  Environment  and  Heritage,  formerly  Department  of  Environment,  Climate 
Change and Water 
OEMP  Operational environmental management plan 
POEO Act  Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) 
Proponent  The person or entity proposing a development, in this instance, Gullen Solar Farm Pty Ltd. 
PV  Photovoltaic 
RBL  Rating Background Level ‐ the level of background noise 
RE Act  Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 (Cwth) 
RET  Renewable Energy Target 
RFS  NSW Rural Fire Service 
Roads Act  Roads Act 1993 (NSW) 
RMS   (NSW) Roads and Maritime Services, formerly Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA)  
SEE  Statement of Environmental Effects 
SEPP  State Environmental Planning Policy (NSW) 
SIS  Species Impact Statement 
sp/spp  Species/multiple species 
SU  Survey Unit 
TSC Act  Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) 
ULSC, Council   Upper Lachlan Shire Council 

6385 Final v2  viii   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

V  Volts 
VAC  Visual Absorption Capability 
VIA  Visual Impact Assessment 
WARR Act  Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001 
WM Act  Water Management Act 2000 

6385 Final v2  ix   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

1 INTRODUCTION  

1.1 BACKGROUND 
Gullen Solar Pty Ltd (ACN: 600 639 450) is the Proponent of a proposed  solar photovoltaic (PV) farm of up 
to 11 megawatt (MW) capacity located in the Southern Tablelands of New South Wales, approximately 
12kms south of Crookwell and 28km northwest of Goulburn (refer to Figure 1‐1) (‘the Project’).  
The capital cost of construction is estimated to be around $25‐30 million.  
The  Project  is  adjacent  to  the  165.5  MW  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm,  which  became  fully  operational  in 
December 2014. The development of additional renewable energy infrastructure at this location would 
make use of existing electricity generation and transmission infrastructure used for the Gullen Range Wind 
Farm.  
The Project requires development consent under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 
1979 (EP&A Act).  

1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 
This Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) has been prepared by NGH Environmental on behalf of the 
Proponent,  to  support  a  Development  Application  (DA)  to  be  lodged  with  Upper  Lachlan  Shire  Council 
(ULSC).  
The SEE has been prepared in line with Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. Being 
private infrastructure with a capital cost of over $5 million, it is deemed regional development under the 
provisions of Part 4 clause 20 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 
2011. Given these provisions, the final determination of the DA would be made by the Southern Region 
Joint Planning Panel.  
The purpose of this SEE is to describe: 

 The Project environment; 
 Details  of  the  proposed  facilities  and  activities  for  construction,  operation  and 
decommissioning; 
 The Project timeframe and key milestones; 
 The environmental assessment of the Project; 
 The protective measures to be implemented to avoid or mitigate identified impacts to the 
environment. 
The  objective  of  the  SEE  is  to  fulfil  the  requirements  of  Schedule  1  of  the  Environmental  Planning  and 
Assessment  Regulation  2000  and  Section  79C  of  the  EP&A  Act.  The  SEE  also  addresses  the  assessment 
requirements of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) and the Australian Government’s 
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). 

6385 Final v2  1   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

CROOKWELL
GRABBEN
GULLEN CROOKW ELL
GOULBURN

R
!
!
R

R
!
R!
! R !
R
! !
R R
!
R
R
!
GRA BBEN GULLEN
! !
R R !
R!
! RR
R !
R
!
R
!
R!
! !
R
R
R
!
R
!
R
!
R!
!
R !
! R
R!
! R!RR
R
!

Leahy Lane Walkom

s
Lane
Lane

s
ier
an e

rr
Sto
Prices L

!
R
R !
!
R!
! RR
R
!
R
!
R !
! R
!
R
Lane

R R
! R !
! R
!!R
R
!
R
!
Bannister

R
! R
!
R
!
R
!
!
R
R
!
Po
R
! m er o
!
R
R!
! R y Ro
R !
! R
R
!
R
!
ad
R
!
R !
! R!
R
R !
! R
R
!
R
!
R
!
R
!

Notes:
- Aerial imagery coutesy of Goldwind
- Layout layers provided by Goldwind
- Transport layers and topo sourced from ESRI

R
! Gullen Range Wind Farm turbines 0 1 2 4 Kilometres

Existing Gullen Range Wind Farm Substation

°
Ref:6385 1-1 v2
Gullen Range Wind Farm boundary Author: JB
Gullen Solar Farm site

www.nghenvironm ental.com .au

 
Figure 1‐1 Regional location of the proposal. 

6385 Final v2  2   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

2.1 TERMINOLOGY 
In this assessment the following terms are used: 

Gullen Solar Farm  This refers to all infrastructure and activities required to construct, operate 
Project (‘Project’)  and decommission the proposed solar farm. 

Gullen Solar Farm site  This refers to the main site containing most operational infrastructure (Figure 
boundary (‘site’)  2‐1).  
The site is 113 hectares. 
It is noted that some additional infrastructure would be located offsite. Lots 
additional  to  the  ‘site’  that  would  contain  infrastructure  (such  as  grid 
connections within the Gullen Range Wind Farm) or are proposed for road 
upgrades are detailed in Table 2‐1 Land Titles affected by the Project. 

The development  The development envelope is the area within which infrastructure would be 
envelope  located. This includes the solar array, temporary construction facilities and 
access  tracks  and  cabling  to  Storriers  Lane  and  south  to  the  Gullen  Range 
Wind Farm Substation. 
The development envelope has been identified using two indicative layouts 
as  a  guide,  as  well  as  preliminary  environmental  site  investigations  and 
stakeholder consultation.  It is the area assessed in this SEE. 
It  is  a  larger  area  than the actual  constructed  footprint  would  be, to  allow 
some design flexibility regarding the final infrastructure placement. 
The development envelope is approximately 64 hectares. 

The constructed  The  final  constructed  solar  farm  footprint  will  be  dependent  on  detailed 
footprint  design work. It will be located within the development envelope but will not 
cover  all  areas  or  options  covered  by  the  development  envelope.  An 
indicative footprint is provided as Figure 2‐4.  
The constructed footprint is estimated to be 25‐30 hectares. 

2.2 LOCATION OF THE ACTIVITY AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 
The  Project  is  located  in  the  Southern  Tablelands  of  New  South  Wales,  approximately  12km  south  of 
Crookwell and 28km northwest of Goulburn (refer to  Figure 1‐1) which is within the Upper Lachlan Local 
Government Area (LGA). It is also within the Hawkesbury ‐ Nepean Local Land Services (LLS) district.  
The Gullen Solar Farm site boundary shown in Figure 2‐1 is located at 131 Storriers Lane, Bannister NSW 
2580 on Lot 1 of Deposited Plan 1196222. The site is owned by Goulburn Land Pty Ltd (a wholly owned 
subsidiary  of  Goldwind  International  Holdings  (HK)  Limited  (‘Goldwind’)).  The  Gullen  Solar  Farm  site 
boundary covers an area of 113 hectares and would contain most operational infrastructure.  
Some additional infrastructure would be located offsite. Lots additional to the ‘site’ that would contain 
infrastructure  (such  as  grid  connections  within  the  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm)  or  are  proposed  for  road 

6385 Final v2  3   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

upgrades are detailed in the table below. Table 2‐1 shows the land title details for the Gullen Solar Farm 
including:  

 Land parcels for the solar arrays; 
 Crown land associated with parts of the Project; 
 Lands within Gullen Range Wind Farm Project area where parts of the Gullen Solar Farm 
infrastructure are located. 
 
Table 2‐1 Lots affected by infrastructure, works and associated facilities for the Gullen Solar Farm 

Infrastructure / works / associated facilities  Lot  DP  Owner 

Solar arrays, inverters, internal access tracks,  1  1196222  Goldwind 

underground powerline, fencing, spare parts 
shed. 

Works within the existing Gullen Range Wind  2  1168750  Goldwind 

Farm  Substation,  underground  powerline, 
overhead  powerline  (optional)  and  access 
track (two alternative options) to the Gullen 
Range Wind Farm Substation. Use of existing 
Gullen Range Wind Farm facilities. 

Gullen Solar Farm access track from Storriers  NA  Crown  Crown – Refer to Section 4.2.8 

Lane. Upgrade and maintenance works.  “paper” 
road 
NB:  Land  parcel  located  to  east  of  Lot  1  DP 
1196222 and Lot 57 DP 750043. 

Underground powerline, overhead powerline  NA  Crown  Crown 

(optional)  and  access  track  (alternate)  to  “paper” 
Gullen Range Wind Farm Substation.   road 
 
NB: Land parcel bisects Lot 1 DP 1196222 (it 
crosses the site near Ryans Creek). 

Upgrade and maintain part of Storriers Lane  NA  Storriers  Upper Lachlan Shire Council 

during construction.  Lane 

Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm  Substation  access  100  1026064  Private landowner  

track.  Upgrade  and  maintain  existing  access 
track between Storriers Lane and substation. 

6385 Final v2  4   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

R
!
R
! (
!
(
! (
!
R
!
R
! (
!
R
!

R
!
R
! R
!

R
! ( !
! (
(
!

r La n e
(
!

Ba n niste
!!
((
(
!
(
! Le a hy L Ra ng
a ne e
(
! (
!
(!
! (
Ro ad
(
! !
( (
! (
! Walko m
s L a ne
L an e (
! (
!
(
!
(
!
Sto rr ie rs

(
!

(
! (
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
e

(
! (
!
an
Price s L

(
! R
!

R
! R
!

R
!
R
!
(
!
(
!

R
!

(
! R
!

R
!
R
!
R
!

R
! R
!
R
!
R
! R
!

Indicative layout and subject to change R

!
d
Notes: R oa
- Aerial imagery Copyright Google Earth 2015 R
! oy
er
- Layout layers provided by Goldwind m
R
! Po
- Transport layers sourced from ESRI ! R

(
! Residences Lot 100 DP1026064
Lot boundaries Crown Road access to solar farm 0 200 400 800 Meters
Existing 330kV transmission line Development Envelope (including
Gullen Range Wind Farm turbines access tracks and cabling to Storriers

°
R
! Ref:6385 2-1 v4
Existing Gullen Range Wind Farm Lane and south to substation) of Author: JB
Substation approx. 64Ha
Gullen Range Wind Farm boundary Proposed road upgrades
(Lot 2 DP 1168750) Gullen Solar Farm site boundary
(Lot 1 DP 1196222) www.nghenvironm ental.com .au  
Figure 2‐1 Location of the proposal. 

6385 Final v2  5   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

2.3 SITE DESCRIPTION 
The Gullen Solar Farm Site is predominantly cleared of overstorey vegetation. Onsite grazing keeps the 
understorey low and grass dominated. However, scattered trees and wind break plantings occur within the 
site  boundary  and  woodland  connecting  to  large  contiguous  forest  occurs  on  the  periphery  of  the  site 
boundary. 
The site is undulating, part of a larger plateau formation. The site slopes down to the north and east. Locally 
steep areas border the site boundary to the south. Gully systems are present to the south in larger areas 
of contiguous forest. Most of the site drains to the east, towards Sawpit Creek. 
The Project is within the Wollondilly River sub catchment of the Hawkesbury Nepean catchment and the 
Sydney Drinking Water Catchment. Two 1st order creek lines are present; one in the southern part and the 
other in the eastern part of the site. They join to form a 2nd order creek south east of the site.  
There is a small residence located within the site. The residence is not currently occupied however, it may 
be used during construction or operation as an office or accommodation.  
Land use within the local area is dominated by rural activities on large holdings. Population density is low. 
Adjoining lands are privately owned and are predominantly cleared grazing lands. Privately owned land to 
the south east retains extensive areas of remnant woodland.  
The operational Gullen Range Wind Farm is located south, southwest and northeast of the Gullen Solar 
Farm site boundary. 

2.4 RELATIONSHIP TO THE GULLEN RANGE WIND FARM 
The site proposed for the Gullen Solar Farm is ultimately owned by Goldwind, which is both part‐owner 
and operator of the Gullen Range Wind Farm. The potential for the Gullen Solar Farm and the Gullen Range 
Wind  Farm  to  share  facilities  maximises  the  use  of  available  facilities  without  requiring  further  impact 
through the development of similar facilities elsewhere. It also increases the value of the Project. Existing 
facilities  proposed  to  be  shared  between  that  the  Gullen  Solar  Farm  and  the  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm 
include: 

 Control room and staff facilities; 
 330/33kV Gullen Range Wind Farm Substation; 
 330kV grid connection infrastructure; 
 Telecommunications infrastructure; 
 Operation and maintenance facility; 
 Access tracks; 
 Vehicles and equipment; and 
 Transport routes on public roads. 
 

In addition, it is anticipated that some personnel, including operation and maintenance technicians, may 
carry out maintenance for both the wind and solar farm. 

6385 Final v2  6   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

2.5 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE 

2.5.1 Infrastructure components 
The  key  infrastructure  components  of  the  Project  are  shown  in  the  table  below.  Images  considered 
representative of the key infrastructure components are provided in Figure 2‐2. 
Table 2‐2 Key infrastructure components (including items to be installed at the existing Gullen Range Wind Farm 
Substation) 

Component  Details  Construction activities 

Solar panels  Equivalent of 40,000 solar PV panels sized at  Excavate  and  form  footings 
approximately  1m  x  2m,  standing  3m  to  4m  (concrete)  or  install  posts  (pile 
high. Solar array locations shown in indicative  driven). 
layout, Figure 2‐4.  Attach  support  structures  to 
Panels tilted at 25‐35 degrees.  footings or posts. 
Support structures for mounting solar panels. 
Mount  panels  on  support 
Concrete  footings  or  driven  posts  as  structure. 
foundations.  
Electrical  Wiring between panels and inverter systems.  Install/connect electrical wiring 
connections/inverters  5 ‐ 10 inverter stations (each 6m long) each of  Footings  installed  for  inverters 
1 ‐ 2MW capacity and step up transformers to  and  transformers,  mount 
convert  direct  current  (DC)  to  alternating  inverters  and  transformers  on 
current (AC).  footings. 
1000‐1500  Volt  DC  junction  boxes  Connect inverters. 
(combiner boxes). 
Collection circuits  33kV  underground  cables  for  connection  to  Trenching,  cable  laying  and 
the  existing  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm  backfill.  Pole  erection  and  line 
Substation (approximately 3km) and an option  stringing  for  optional  overhead 
for a short section (240m) of 33 kV overhead  section. 
reticulation  to  span  a  steep  slope  and  creek 
crossing. 
Access works  Access tracks (up to 8m wide) to and from site,  Earthworks. 
to  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm  Substation  and  Rehabilitation. 
around  arrays.  Dependent  on  access  route 
option  chosen,  works  may  include  a  creek 
crossing.  
Indicative layout shown in Figure 2‐4. 
Drainage works, approximately 240m. 
Central  control  and  Control  cabling  between  Gullen  Range  Wind  Install fibre optic cable with 33kV 
monitoring system  Farm  Substation  and  panels  and  monitoring  collection  circuit  and  within 
system at Gullen Range Wind Farm Substation. existing  control  room  at  Gullen 
Range Wind Farm. 
Maintenance  An  approximate  12m  x  12m  x  3.6m  high  Footings, install shed. 
colorbond  rural  shed  for  storage  of  spare 
parts.  This  may  be  connected  to  a  small 
rainwater tank. 
Safety  Fencing of the entire facility with 2m ‐ Excavate  and  form  footings 
2.4m high chain mesh fence.  (concrete). 
Install posts and attach mesh. 

6385 Final v2  7   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

Gullen  Range  Wind  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm  Substation  and  Existing – no change. 
Farm items  33/330kV transformers. 
Switchgear modular units (33kV).  Configure  existing  units  inside 
33kV switchroom at Gullen Range 
Wind Farm Substation. 

6385 Final v2  8   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

a) Conenergy (example) solar array panels.

b) SMA (example) Inverters.   

 
c) Example pile driving rig in operation.
Figure 2‐2 Images representative of proposed infrastructure components 

6385 Final v2  9   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

2.5.2 Infrastructure layout and development envelope 
The Project layout comprises groups of panels on reasonably level ground or north facing slopes. These will 
all be located within the development envelope. Inverters will be located centrally to groups of panels. The 
33kV underground cables will be located between the Gullen Solar Farm site and the existing Gullen Range 
Wind Farm Substation, on the Gullen Range Wind Farm site.  The switchgear will be installed within the 
existing  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm  Substation  located  on  the  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm  site.  Materials 
laydown areas would be required during construction.  
While the final infrastructure layout and components have yet to be determined, two indicative layouts 
were considered. Together, these provide the largest possible impact area, which forms the ‘development 
envelope’  shown  in  Figure  2‐3.  The  development  envelope  is  the  total  assessment  area,  within  which 
infrastructure would be located. It includes two cabling options to the Gullen Range Wind Farm Substation, 
proposed road upgrades and areas required for stockpiling and materials laydown during construction, to 
ensure all areas that may be required by the Project are assessed in this SEE. The development envelope 
includes  a  30m  from  centreline  buffer  on  access  and  cabling  options  that  will  allow  some  flexibility  in 
micrositing these routes.  
It  should  be  noted  that  the  final  infrastructure  layout  of  the  constructed  Project  would  have  a  smaller 
footprint than the development envelope assessed in this SEE. The development envelope is approximately 
64  hectares.  The  constructed  footprint  is  estimated  to  be  25‐30  hectares.  An  indicative  layout  under 
consideration is provided in Figure 2‐4. 

6385 Final v2  10   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

Existing 330kV transmission line

Lan e
Crown Road access to solar farm

s
Sto rr ier
R Gullen Range Wind Farm turbines
!
Existing 330kV
transmission line Existing Gullen Range Wind Farm
Pine trees to Substation
be removed Gullen Range Wind Farm boundary
(Pomeroy precinct)
Gullen Solar Farm site boundary
Development Envelope (including
access tracks and cabling to Storriers
Lane and south to substation) of
approx. 64H a

Proposed road upgrades

POM_01
R
!

POM_02 Indicative layout and subject to change

R
! POM_05
R
!
0 100 200 400 Metres
POM_04
R
!

°
POM_03 Ref: 6385 2-3 v3
R
!
Author: JB
Notes:
- Aerial imagery copyright Google Earth 2015
- Layout layers provided by Goldwind
- Transport layers sourced from ESRI www.nghenvironm en tal. com .au
 
Figure 2‐3 Development envelope (assessed area within which infrastructure would be located). 

6385 Final v2  11   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

La n e
Gullen Solar Farm site boundary
Existing 330kV transmission line

Sto rr iers
(
! Residences
)
" Transformer/invertor

Pine trees to Access road

be removed OH transmission line to substation
PW5 Pine trees to UG cabling
be removed
Footprint of solar array
(
! (Approx 19.4ha)

Storage shed and parking

)"
" ) Temporary construction facilities
Perimeter fence

)
" )
" )
"
(
!
Indicative layout and subject to change

PW34 Optional cable and road routes to windfarm

substation not shown

0 100 200 400 Metres

Notes:
Ref: 6385 2-4 v1
Author: JB °
- Aerial imagery copyright Google Earth 2015
- Layout layers provided by Goldwind
- Transport layers sourced from ESRI www.nghenvironm en tal. com .au  
Figure 2‐4 Indicative layout 
The final layout will be determined through a competitive tendering process and will be within the development envelope and subject to environmental management 
controls identified for the Project. The final layout will be presented in construction management plans provided prior to construction. This indicative layout is one 
layout under consideration. 

6385 Final v2  12   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

2.5.3 Power generation 
The PV modules would be connected in series to form strings and then the strings would be connected 
together  in  parallel  to  inverters.  The  inverters  would  convert  DC  output  from  the  PV  modules  into  AC. 
Medium voltage transformers would step up the AC output from the inverters, and then the power would 
be transmitted at 33kV to the Gullen Range Wind Farm Substation (existing as part of the Gullen Range 
Wind Farm development).  
At the substation, an existing high voltage transformer would step up the voltage from 33kV to 330kV, for 
connection into the grid.   

2.5.4 Transmission 
The Project would be connected to the electricity grid via the existing Gullen Range Wind Farm Substation 
and Transgrid Gullen Range 330kV switching station. 
Additional cabling to connect the solar arrays will be underground (approximately 3km). There is also a 
cabling  option  to  replace  a  short  section  (approximately  240m)  of  underground  cabling  with  a  33kV 
overhead reticulation, to span a steep slope and creek crossing. This would minimise soil and water impacts 
in relation to trenching activities in this area. A final decision on the use of underground or overhead cabling 
for the creek crossing will be determined following detailed design work and in context of the potential 
environmental impacts. 

2.5.5 Access and traffic management 

Access 
The Gullen Solar Farm Site is serviced by roads from Goulburn and Crookwell via several alternative routes. 
The two main routes that would be used include Crookwell and Kialla Road route and Range Road route. 
These routes are detailed further in Section 5.5. 
Access to the Gullen Solar Farm site is off Storriers Lane via a Crown Road with an Enclosure Permit held 
by Gullen Solar Pty Ltd. The Crown road would require minor upgrades such as widening for haulage vehicle 
access. The upgrades to the Crown Road will require Council approval (refer to Section 6.1). 
Access to the existing Gullen Wind Farm Substation would also be off Storriers Lane, along an existing track, 
through a private landowner’s property (Lot 100 DP 106064). There is also an option to construct an access 
track between the existing substation and proposed Gullen Solar Farm site. This would intersect Crown 
land and Goldwind land and include a crossing over Ryans Creek. (This option is also assessed in this SEE). 
If the crossing over Ryans Creek is required for the Project, it would be utilised for stock and light vehicle 
traffic only. It is envisaged the design would be a causeway or simple culvert type crossing (refer to example 
below). The final design would depend on the water flows experienced and would likely consist of one or 
more circular concrete pipes or box culverts or a paved causeway, both protected from scouring by large 
stones and rock in the head cut. The NSW DPI Office of Water (NOW) Guidelines for Watercourse Crossings 
on  Waterfront  Land  and  Water  NSW  (previously  Sydney  Catchment  Authority)  Current  Recommended 
Practices  would  be  referenced  during  the  design  phase.  Impacts  in  riparian  areas  would  be  subject  to 
specific rehabilitation strategies. 

6385 Final v2  13   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

Figure 2‐5 Two examples of potential creek crossing types (if required) 

Traffic 
During  construction,  traffic  to  the  site  would  include  employee  vehicles  and  materials  and  equipment 
vehicles. During the peak of the construction period, the traffic volume is expected to be six heavy vehicles 
and 23 cars per day.  
Maintenance  of  the  site  during  operation,  would  be  managed  by  existing  staff  of  the  wind  farm.  It  is 
expected 2 cars per day at the solar farm site during operation on average; one car on most days, more 
during specific activities. 

2.6 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION  

2.6.1 Construction 

Works activities 
The sequence of the construction program would likely be as follows: 

6385 Final v2  14   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

 Pre‐construction site investigations, such as geotechnical assessment1 to inform how the 
panels are mounted and secured. 
 Detailed design and procurement of materials. 
 Site establishment and preparation for construction, including fencing, earthworks, set out 
and  construction  of  access  roads  and  sediment  and  erosion  controls.  While  extensive 
earthworks are not proposed, some land forming (including localised cut and fill areas) may 
be undertaken to achieve more consistent gradients beneath the array. 
 Delivery of materials and equipment. 
 Installation of the foundations (excavation and concrete footings) or driven piles. 
 Installation of underground cabling (with an option for a short section of overhead cabling; 
240m). 
 Assembly of the panel frames and mounts. 
 Installation of the PV panels. 
 Installation  of  the  inverter  /  transformer  units,  including  pouring  of  concrete  pads  for 
inverter / transformer units. 
 Installation of low voltage cabling and combiner boxes. 
 Construction of a spare parts storage shed.  
 Substation  works  to  connect  the  solar  farm  to  the  existing  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm 
Substation (these occur within the switch room of the existing substation with no additional 
visible external substation infrastructure required). 
 Testing and commissioning of the solar farm. 
 Removal of temporary construction facilities and completion of restoration works. 

Proposed construction equipment 
Proposed construction equipment would include: 

 Cable trenching equipment 
 Cable laying equipment 
 Earthmoving equipment such as excavators, bulldozers, pile drivers, backhoes, compactors, 
rollers and graders 
 Materials handling equipment such as small cranes and forklifts 
 Water truck 

Source and quantity of materials 
Sourcing of materials would be local where possible, maximising the local economic benefits of the Project. 
The Project will promote opportunities for local business involvement through the Gullen Solar Farm web 
site.  Local  content  will  be  one  of  the  assessment  criteria  for  selecting  the  preferred  Engineering 
Procurement Construction (EPC) Contractor. 
Materials would include: 

 Gravel and road base for forming the gravel roads, imported from local quarries.  
 Concrete will come premixed from a Goulburn batching plant; anticipated to require 10‐15 
concrete trucks in total over the construction period. 

                                                              
1 A preliminary geotechnical investigation was undertaken at the site during the week of November 16, 2015. 

6385 Final v2  15   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

 Panels, steelwork & inverters will come from ports and metropolitan areas via the Hume 
Highway. 
 Water  for  dust suppression  and cleaning  of panels would  be  commercially sourced  from 
offsite (water truck) or rainwater tanks on the Gullen Range Wind Farm site; anticipated to 
require  up  to  50,  000L  per  day,  for  a  6  month  period  (total  requirement  less  than  3ML; 
primarily for dust control, depending on seasonal requirements). 

Timing of work 
Construction would be undertaken during standard construction hours: 

 Monday to Friday:       7am to 6pm 

 Saturday:         8am to 1pm 

 Sunday and Public Holidays:    No work 
No night works are proposed. It is unlikely that any works or deliveries will be required outside standard 
construction hours. It is expected that the construction program for the Project would be six months.  

Staffing requirements  
During construction, it is expected an average of 30 workers will be required onsite with a construction 
peak of approximately  75  workers.  Including  offsite  requirements,  50  jobs  with  a construction  peak of 
approximately 100 jobs are anticipated. Peak construction periods would have the greatest potential to 
employ local contractors and labourers. 

2.6.2 Operation 
The  Project’s  operational  life  is  anticipated  to  be  25  years.  After  this  time,  components  may  be  either 
decommissioned and removed from the site or upgraded for continued operation. 
Operational  activities  would  include  monitoring  and  facility  maintenance,  such  as  panel  cleaning  and 
landscaping works, and the management of breakdowns and repairs. These requirements are likely to be 
largely met by existing operational staff at the wind farm. 
Grazing may be used as a ground cover management strategy under and around the array however, this 
would  be  more  orientated  to  management  of  the  infrastructure  than  to  a  grazing  income.  The  income 
stream generated from the operation of the solar farm is anticipated to be 20 times higher than the existing 
extensive grazing income. 

2.6.3 Decommissioning 
Key elements of Project’s decommissioning stage would include: 

 The PV power plant would be disconnected from the electrical grid; 
 PV modules and all equipment would be disconnected; 
 PV modules would be collected and recycled at a dedicated recycling facility; 
 All buildings and equipment would be removed and materials recycled, wherever possible; 
 Posts, frames and above ground cabling would be removed and recycled; and 
 Site rehabilitation. 
 

6385 Final v2  16   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

All  aboveground  infrastructure  would  be  removed  from  the  site  at  the  decommissioning  phase. 
Infrastructure and materials removed from the site would be recycled or otherwise disposed of at approved 
facilities.  All  areas  of  soil  disturbed  during  decommissioning  would  be  rehabilitated,  appropriate  to  the 
existing species composition.  
The  development  is  highly  reversible.  After  operation,  the  land  could  be  returned  to  agriculture  or  an 
alternative land use with negligible impact on production capacity. Formalised access and internal tracks, 
if elected to be retained, may benefit future development options. 

2.7 INDICATIVE TIMELINE 
The indicative timing for the Gullen Solar Farm is outlined below.  
Table 2‐3 Indicative timing for the Gullen Solar Farm. 
Phase  Approximate commencement   Duration 
Environmental investigations   Third‐and fourth quarters 2015  2‐3 months 
Development Application submission  December 2015   
Public exhibition  December 2015 to January 2016  At least 1 month (more time 
may  be  required  over  the 
holiday period) 
Consent Authority/JRP Review  January – February 2016   
Development Consent  March 2016   
AHIP issued  March  2016   
Preconstruction  documentation  and  Second quarter 2016  3 months 
design 
Construction  Third‐fourth quarters 2016  6 months 
Commissioning  Fourth quarter 2016 to first quarter  2‐3 months 
2017 
Operation    25 years 
Decommissioning    6 months 
 

2.8 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROJECT 

2.8.1 Need for the Project  
The Gullen Solar Farm would generate approximately 22 gigawatt hours (AC) or 22,000 megawatt hours of 
electricity per annum. This is enough electricity to supply the equivalent of approximately 31602 homes. 
The generation of non‐polluting renewable energy assists with the transition from fossil fuel generated 
electricity  to  a  cleaner  more  sustainable  alternative.  This  is  in  keeping  with  national  and  international 
agreements to which Australia is a party. 

                                                              
2 Based on Australia’s average annual electricity consumption per household in 2014, 6,964kWh/hh (Enerdata, 

2015). 

6385 Final v2  17   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

2.8.2 Extension and diversification of renewable energy generation capacity 
The central objective of the Project is to generate renewable electricity using solar PV technology. It would 
form  part  of  a  hybrid  wind/solar  facility  and  export  electricity  generated  to  the  grid  through  existing 
infrastructure associated with the Gullen Range Wind Farm. The Gullen Solar Farm would complement the 
Gullen Range Wind Farm, together operating as a wind‐solar hybrid facility. The solar infrastructure would 
be located adjacent to the Gullen Range Wind Farm site boundary. 
Wind  and  solar  energy  generation  profiles  are  seen  as  compatible,  given  that  some  wind  farms  may 
generate a greater percentage of energy at night and wind farm substations often have an amount of spare 
capacity. Solar generation is also a better match to daytime electricity demand, especially in summer when 
electricity usage peaks due to air‐conditioning demand. The hybrid system provides a more continuous 
level of generation than would occur for either wind or solar alone. 
The hybrid wind/solar facility is seen as an important demonstration Project. It would be at the fore‐front 
of renewable energy integration technology. It would demonstrate the advantages of co‐locating energy 
infrastructure,  to  minimise  costs  and  environmental  impacts.  The  solar  farm  would  make  use  of  other 
infrastructure  already  in  place  and  maintained  for  the  adjacent  wind  farm,  including  electrical 
infrastructure  (substation),  access  roads,  buildings  and  transport  routes.  The  Gullen  Solar  Farm  has 
committed to a Knowledge Sharing Plan aimed at providing publicly available information to allow others 
to  capitalise  on  key  lessons  learned  from  the  Project.  This  will  include  reports,  industry  events  and  a 
website  showing  live  performance  data,  providing  valuable  knowledge  for  the  wider  renewable  energy 
industry.   
During  its  operational  life,  the  Gullen  Solar  Farm  would  provide  additional  work  onsite  for  wind  farm 
operational maintenance staff. The maintenance staff will acquire new transferrable skills and experience, 
and there is some potential for further employment for local skilled workers. 

2.9 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 
During the development of the Project, a number of alternative locations and infrastructure layouts were 
considered.  Minimising impact on neighbours and environmental impacts were major considerations in 
the evaluation of alternative options. Alternative options considered are described below. 

2.9.1 The ‘do nothing’ option 
The  consequences  of  not  proceeding  with  the  Project  would  be  to  forgo  the  benefits  of  the  Project, 
resulting in: 

 Loss  of  opportunity  to  reduce  greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  move  towards  cleaner 
electricity generation. 
 Loss of additional electricity generation and supply into the Australian grid. 
 Loss of opportunity to increase the utilisation of the existing wind farm grid connection. 
 Loss  of  social  and  economic  benefits  through  the  provision  of  direct  and  indirect 
employment opportunities locally and regionally during construction and operation of the 
solar farm. 
Doing  nothing  would  avoid  potential  environmental  impacts  associated  with  the  development  and 
operation of the proposed solar farm, which include construction noise, traffic and dust, visual impacts and 
a reduction in agricultural production at the site. However, there is likely to be an increased adoption of 
megawatt scale renewable energy at other locations perhaps without the benefit of co‐locating with wind 

6385 Final v2  18   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

energy facilities and sharing infrastructure. These potential impacts are considered to be manageable and 
would not result in a significant impact to the environment. As such, and given the benefits of the Project, 
the do nothing option is not considered to be a preferred option. In light of the benefits of the Project and 
the low level of environmental impact, the Project is considered to be ecologically sustainable. 

2.9.2 Development of a larger solar farm  
The site on which Gullen Range Wind Farm is sited could accommodate a larger solar farm. Consideration 
of a large scale (over $30 million capital cost) was considered. Development of a larger plant would: 

 Require a longer period for Project development and greater capital investment. 
 Require expansion of the 33kV/330kV transformer facilities at Gullen Range Wind Farm Substation 
(whereas the preferred Project is feasible without any substation upgrade). 
 Increase  potential  environmental  impacts  associated  with  the  Project,  specifically 
construction duration and associated impacts (noise, traffic, dust) and operational impacts 
(primarily visual impact). 
 
A  smaller  plant  was  considered  preferable  on  the  basis  of  faster  Project  development  and  reduced 
environmental impacts.   

2.9.3 Alternative locations 
Three other locations were considered for the solar farm; one within the wind farm site boundaries and 
one outside of it. The current location was considered a preferred location due to: 

 Close proximity to established access roads (Storriers Lane). 
 Close proximity to the existing Gullen Range Wind Farm Substation. 
 The proponent owns the land. 
 Fewer neighbours overlooking the site leading to lower impact on visual amenity. 
 Minimal environmental values of the subject land. 
 
The  final  site  was  selected  in  consultation  with  the  NSW  Office  of  Environment  and  Heritage  (OEH), 
regarding biodiversity and Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment requirements, as well as feedback from 
nearby neighbours. 

2.9.4 Alternative infrastructure layouts 
Several infrastructure layouts will be considered for the site, within the development envelope shown in 
Figure 2‐3. The final layout will be determined through a competitive tendering process. The final layout 
will be presented in construction management plans provided prior to construction. An indicative layout 
under consideration is shown in Figure 2‐4. 
 

   

6385 Final v2  19   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

3.1 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION 
A Community Consultation Plan has been prepared and is being implemented for the Gullen Solar Farm. It 
is provided in Appendix E. 

3.1.1 Involved property owners 
The Gullen Solar Farm site is located on land owned by Goldwind.  
The cabling connecting the Gullen Solar Farm Site to the Gullen Range Wind Farm Substation will be over 
Goldwind’s land and will be predominately underground with the option of a short (approximately 240m) 
section of overhead line.   
Two  alternative  access  routes  are  being  considered  to  link  the  site  to  the  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm 
Substation. The first, and preferred, access route uses an existing access road for the Gullen Range Wind 
Farm over Council owned road, land privately owned and land owned by Goldwind.  The second access 
route (if required) will be located on land owned by Goulburn Land and would require a creek crossing. 
Gullen Solar Pty Ltd is currently in discussions with and will secure rights over the Crown Land to access the 
Gullen Solar Farm Site off Storriers Lane.   
Gullen Solar Pty Ltd will also enter into further arrangements with Goulburn Land Pty Ltd for the purpose 
of constructing and operating the powerline for the Gullen Solar Farm site. 

3.1.2 Neighbours to the site 
The site is located in a rural area with a low population density. There are three residences within 1km of 
the site (excluding the Gullen Range Wind Farm). There are up to an additional 18 residences within 2km 
of the site.  
Consultation has commenced with neighbours to the site, regarding the Project and has comprised: 

 In person meetings with each of nine neighbours groups (each representing a residence), 
regarding the proposed Project (February and March 2015); 
 Additional  landowners  (14)  were  consulted  as  a  group  and  later  directly,  during  the 
investigation of the preferred site location.  
 A Public Information Day on held on the 19th February 2015 which introduced the Project 
to the local community (albeit, for an alternative site that was being considered 3km south 
of the currently proposed site). It also involved: 
o a letter drop to all residents within 5km to advertise the event; and. 
o advertisement placed in two local papers.  
 Media releases in local newspaper, interview with local journalist in February 2015 leading 
to local coverage of the proposed Project. 
 Approximately  21  September  2015,  a  letter  to  25  nearby  neighbours  of  the  Project, 
providing an update on site selection and proposed survey works for feasibility assessments. 
 Direct telephone communication with neighbours unable to meet face to face. 

6385 Final v2  20   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

 A  second  Public  Information  Day  held  on  Wednesday  25th  November  2015  to  display 
updates to the proposed Project and the results of environmental studies conducted to date 
It also involved: 
o Advertisement placed in local paper 
o Individual phone calls and emails to local landowners to inform them of the event.  
Table  3‐1  summarises  the  status  of  communications  with  neighbouring  landowners.  Landowners  with 
residences that share a direct boundary with the Project have been offered an agreement with Gullen Solar 
Farm. Agreements aim to compensate landowners for potential construction impacts, use of access ways 
and operational impacts, specific to the lot locations. 
Table 3‐1 Landowner consultation  

Lot  and  DP  of  relevant  Status of discussions  Agreement  (executed  /  in  Terms 
land block  negotiation) 
Auto  Consol  15254‐75  Completed.  Involved  Neighbour Involvement Deed  Subject  to 
known as “Hillcrest”  Neighbour.  executed.  Agreement  confidentiality 
includes provision for access, 
and  any  potential  impacts 
arising from construction and 
operation 
Lot 100 DP 1026064  In progress  Proposed  access  easement  Subject  to 
and grazing agreement to be  confidentiality 
negotiated.  
Lot 44 DP 750043  In progress  Neighbour Involvement Deed  Subject  to 
to be negotiated with private  confidentiality 
landowner. 
Lot  2  DP  1168750  (part  In progress  Preparation  of  agreements  Subject  to 
of  Gullen  Range  Wind  with  GRWF  and  a  lessee  for  confidentiality 
Farm  Site.  Land  owned  to secure rights over the land 
by Goldwind)  for  the  purposes  of 
construction  and  operation 
of the Gullen Solar Project. 

3.1.3 Broader community 
A number of activities have been aimed at providing information to the broader community, as well as near 
neighbours. These include: 

 First Public Information Day on 19th February 2015  
 Updates to local media outlets which covers the settlements of Crookwell and Goulburn.   
 A toll‐free phone number, email and postal address have been established specifically for 
the solar farm to allow the wider community to make enquiries and complaints about the 
Project.  
 Project specific website providing details of the Project and a factsheet. 
 Briefings of the Project with Upper Lachlan Shire Council, resulting in a local media article. 
 Second Public Information Day on 25th November 2015. 
The Community Consultation Plan (Appendix E) has been reviewed throughout the development process 
and will continue to be implemented, concurrent with key Project milestones. This is a commitment of the 
Project (Section 5.9.3). 

6385 Final v2  21   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

3.1.4 Aboriginal community consultation 

Local Aboriginal Land Council and Registered Aboriginal Parties 
In order to identify, notify and register Aboriginal people who may hold cultural knowledge relevant to 
determining the cultural significant of Aboriginal objects and/or places in the area of the proposed Project, 
NSW Archaeology undertook a consultation procedure. This was undertaken in accordance with the Draft 
Guidelines for  Aboriginal  Cultural  Heritage  Impact  Assessment  and Community  Consultation  (DEC  2005) 
and OEH’s Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents 2010 (DECCW 2010).  In 
summary, a notification regarding the proposal (dated 20 January 2015) was sent to: 

 OEH Queanbeyan office. 
 Onerwal Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC). 
 The Registrar, Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983. 
 The  National  Native  Title  Tribunal,  requesting  a  list  of  registered  native  title  claimants, 
native title holders and registered Indigenous Land Use Agreements. 
 Native Title Services Corporation Limited (NTSCORP Limited). 
 Upper Lachlan Shire Council. 
In addition, an advertisement was placed in the local newspaper (Goulburn Post) on 23 January 2015.  
Responses were received from the Office of the Registrar Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 indicating that 
there does not appear to be Registered Aboriginal owners for the Project area. The Native Title Services 
Corporation responded, indicating that they would forward our correspondence to any parties who may 
have  an  interest  in  the  area  in  question.  The  Upper  Lachlan  Shire  Council  provided  contact  details  for 
Onerwal and Pejar LALCs. The National Native Title Tribunal responded indicating that native title for area 
had been extinguished.  
Correspondence was received from OEH on (22 January 2015) providing a list of seven Aboriginal parties 
who may have an interest in the area and correspondence was also sent to these groups, including: 

 Alice Williams 
 Cowra LALC 
 Peter Falk Consultancy 
 Pejar LALC 
 Buru Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation 
 Gundungurra Aboriginal Heritage Association 
 Koomurri Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation. 
There are three Registered Aboriginal Parties in the formal process of consultation: 

 Peter Falk 
 Tyronne Bell 
 Glen  Freeman  on  behalf  of  Koomurri  Ngunawal  Aboriginal  Corporation  and  Gulgunya 
Ngunawal Heritage Aboriginal Consultancy. 
Appendix C provides full details of this consultation process and the results. 

6385 Final v2  22   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

3.2 GOVERNMENT AGENCY CONSULTATION 

3.2.1 Upper Lachlan Shire Council 
The proponent met with representatives from Upper Lachlan Shire Council (ULSC) in September 2014. At 
this time, an alternative solar farm site was being investigated within the wind farm site Project boundaries, 
3km south of the current site. The proponent provided ULSC with a scoping document and outlined the 
infrastructure components and proposed timing for the Project.  
Council  did  not  provide  any  formal  direction  regarding  the  format  or  content  of  the  environmental 
assessment. In this circumstance, Section 79C of the EP&A Act is a principal reference for Development 
Applications under Part 4 of the Act. 
On 19th November 2015, the proponent presented the preferred solar farm Project to Upper Lachlan Shire 
Council,  updating  them  regarding  the  progress  of  the  assessment.  A  draft  of  the  SEE  was  provided  to 
Council on 4th December, prior to formal submission. 

3.2.2 NSW Office of Environment and Heritage 
On 27 February 2015, three OEH representatives inspected the Project site accompanied by a Goldwind 
representative  and  ecologist  from  NGH  Environmental.  Discussions  during  the  site  inspection  covered 
environmental assessment requirements which are listed below. 

Biodiversity 
 The need for targeted threatened species surveys: Striped Legless Lizard and Golden Sun 
Moth. This issue was progressed, informing the biodiversity survey strategy documented in 
Section 5.3 of this SEE. 
 The  need  for  biometric  plots  undertaken  in  suitable  seasonal  conditions  (no  later  than 
March) 
 The need to include an assessment of potential impacts on Koalas in the biodiversity report. 
 The requirement for offsets; while not required, this would be recommended for clearing 
of vegetation of conservation significance. 

Aboriginal heritage 
 The presence of several artefacts observed during the site inspection. 
 The need for an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) to impact heritage items. 
It  is  noted  that,  in  accordance  with  the  Code  of  Practice  for  Archaeological  investigation  of  Aboriginal 
Objects in NSW (DECCW 2010), a consultation process was carried out as part of the Aboriginal cultural 
heritage assessment, summarised in Section 3.1.4. An AHIP is being prepared for the Project. 

3.2.3 Water NSW 
The Project occurs within the catchment of the greater Sydney water supply system. The Project would be 
classed as a Module 5 development by the authority and requires concurrence under SEPP (DWC) 2011 
from Water NSW. 
The option to establish a track and cable trench across Ryan’s Creek is the most relevant aspect of the 
Project, in terms of potential impacts in the catchment. A Neutral or Beneficial Effect on Water Quality 

6385 Final v2  23   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

Assessment for the Project is provided in Appendix D. The assessment concludes a neutral effect on water 
quality is achievable, with the effective implementation of the environmental safeguards provided in this 
SEE.  

3.2.4 Crown Lands 
Two ‘paper’ (not formalised) Crown Roads are relevant to the Project (set out in Table 2‐1).  
1. The northern access track from Storriers Lane. 
2. The proposed powerline and (optional) access track to Gullen Range Wind Farm Substation, 
near Ryans Creek.  
The proponent has been in contact with Crown Lands regarding the Crown road off Storriers Lane to be 
used to access the Project site. Upgrades of the Crown road are required for the construction and operation 
of the solar farm. The Proponent is in discussions with ULSC and Crown Lands with regards to dedication 
of the road as a Council road to permit the upgrade.  The Proponent has also has entered into an involved 
neighbour agreement with the adjacent landowner.  
For the second paper road, before any works commence, rights to construct and operate a powerline or 
access the paper road will be agreed with Crown lands.   
Upgrades to public roads would be undertaken in accordance with a Section 138 permit obtained through 
ULSC (consent to carry out works on a public road).  

3.2.5 Transgrid 
Some  access  across  an  existing  Transgrid  330kV  overhead  powerline  easement  will  be  required.  No 
permanent aboveground infrastructure (panels, buildings, fencing) would be installed in this area but an 
access track and underground cable would be formalised across the easement. Preliminary consultation 
has  been  undertaken  with  Transgrid  regarding  the  Project’s  requirements  and  they  have  indicated  no 
objection. 
 

   

6385 Final v2  24   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

4 PLANNING CONTEXT 

4.1 LOCAL LEGISLATION 

4.1.1  Zoning and permissibility 
The Project is located within the Upper Lachlan LGA and is subject to the provisions of the Upper Lachlan 
Local  Environmental  Plan  2010  (LEP).  The  proposed  solar  farm  development  is  defined  as  a  type  of 
electricity generating works in accordance with the LEP.  
The site is zoned RU2 – Rural Landscape. Under the provisions of the LEP, electricity generating works are 
permissible with consent within the RU2 zone. 
The LEP states that the consent authority must also have regard to the objectives of the applicable land 
use zones identified in the LEP when determining development applications. The  objectives of the RU2 
zone are: 
a) to  encourage  sustainable  primary  industry  production  by  maintaining  and  enhancing  the 
natural resource base. 
The Project can be considered a sustainable primary industry that extracts renewable energy (a natural 
resource) and is complementary to surrounding land uses. Refer to Section 5.10. It adds diversity to the 
natural resource base. 
b) to maintain the rural landscape character of the land. 
The low lying infrastructure will have a limited view shed, refer to Section 5.1. 
c) to provide for a range of compatible land uses, including extensive agriculture. 
While grazing will be largely excluded from the solar array area (except as a groundcover management 
option), the Project is highly reversible and will not impact the future productivity of the land. Refer to 
Section 5.10. 
d) to preserve environmentally sensitive areas including waterways and prevent inappropriate 
development likely to result in environmental harm. 
e) to  protect  the  Pejar  catchment  area  from  inappropriate  land  uses  and  activities  and 
minimise risk to water quality. 
The  Project  would  occur  within  the  Pejar  Catchment,  which  is  part  of  the  Sydney  Drinking  Water 
Catchment, refer to Section 4.3.1. Stringent controls are included as part of the Project, to manage impacts 
on the catchment. Refer to Section 5.8. 
f) to minimise visual impact of development on the rural character landscape. 
g) to minimise the impact of development on the existing agricultural landscape character. 
As above, refer to Section 5.1. 
h) to protect and enhance the water quality of watercourses and groundwater systems and to 
reduce land degradation. 
As above, refer to Section 5.8. 
i) to maintain areas of high conservation value vegetation. 
Impacts  on  high  conservation  value  vegetation  and  habitat  would  be  limited  and  are  considered 
manageable. Refer to Section 5.3.  

6385 Final v2  25   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

The Gullen Solar Farm Project would be generally consistent with the objectives of the zone. It would be 
compatible with surrounding land uses and planning and management measures would ensure the Project 
is consistent with the objectives of preserving environmentally sensitive areas and maintaining areas of 
high conservation value vegetation and of protecting waterways and catchments.  

4.1.2 Local provisions (part 6 of the LEP 2010) 
The following local provisions have been considered with regard to the Project: 

 Flood planning ‐ the Project would not impact flood patterns or land mapped as flood prone.  
 Biodiversity ‐ impacts on high conservation value vegetation and habitat would be limited 
and are considered manageable. Refer to Section 5.3.  
 Land  –  soil  risks  are  addressed  by  the  Project.  Refer to  Section  5.8.  The  project  is  highly 
reversible. 
 Water – water risks are addressed by the Project. Refer to Section 5.8. If impacts on Ryan’s 
Creek are required, this would be done in accordance with Controlled Activity Approval and 
Water NSW approval. 
 Earthworks  –  major  earthworks  are  not  proposed.  Some  levelling,  trenching,  tracks  and 
footings  would  be  required,  however.  Soil  risks  are  addressed  by  the  Project.  Refer  to 
Section 5.8. 
 Erection of dwellings – not applicable. 
 Dual occupancy development – not applicable. 
 Multi dwelling housing developments – not applicable. 
 Essential services – the Project requires minimal water, electricity, management of sewage, 
and stormwater management. Existing operational facilities for staff will be shared with the 
Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm.    Road  access  and  upgraded  to  existing  roads  are  described  in 
Section 2. 
 Erection of dwelling houses – not applicable. 
 Development in proximity of waste disposal facilities and sewerage treatment works – not 
applicable. 
 Airspace operations – the potential for reflection, glare and sun glint to impact aircraft is 
addressed in Section 5.1. No impacts are anticipated. 
 Development in areas subject to airport noise – not applicable. 

4.2 NSW LEGISLATION 

4.2.1 NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 
The EP&A Act provides the framework for the assessment of development activities. The Project is being 
assessed  under  Part  4  of  the  act.  It  would  have  a  capital  cost  of  less  than  $30  million.  Being  private 
infrastructure with a capital cost of over $5 million, it would be deemed regional development under the 
provisions of Part 4 clause 20 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 
2011.   
Given these provisions, a Development Application (DA) would be required to be submitted to the Upper 
Lachlan Shire Council (ULSC). The DA will be supported by an SEE and requirements of Section 76C of the 
EP&A Act must be addressed by the DA and SEE.  

6385 Final v2  26   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

The works are considered Integrated Development under this act as they require permits listed in s91 of 
the EP&A Act, including: 

 Section 138 of the Roads Act, consent to carry out works on a public road 

 Section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit 
(AHIP), to impact identified Aboriginal heritage sites 
The  consent  authority  must  refer  the  DA  to  the  relevant  agencies  and  must  incorporate  the  agency’s 
general terms of approval in any approval or must not approve the DA if the agency recommends refusal 
of the DA. If the advice is not received in 21 days (after the agency has received the application or any 
requested additional information), the consent authority can determine the DA 
The  DA  and  SEE  will  be  placed  on  exhibition  by  ULSC  for  at  least  30  days.  Final  determination  of  the 
application would be made by the Southern Region Joint Planning Panel. Where the Gullen Solar Farm is 
granted consent, this would be subject to conditions set out in the Instrument of Consent. 

4.2.2 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) 
The TSC Act deals with the listing of threatened species, populations and communities, the declaration of 
critical  habitat,  recovery  plans,  threat  abatement  plans,  licensing,  Species  Impact  Statements 
requirements, biodiversity certification and biobanking.  
The EP&A Act specifies seven factors which must be considered by decision‐makers regarding the effect of 
a proposed development or activity on threatened species, populations or ecological communities (or their 
habitats) that  are  listed under  the  TSC  Act.  These  factors  are  collectively referred  to  as  the  ‘Seven‐part 
Test’. If the seven‐part test determines that there is likely to be a significant effect, then the Project must 
be modified to remove the potential for this impact, or a Species Impact Statement (SIS) must be prepared 
and  the  concurrence  of  the  Director‐General  of  OEH  obtained  by  the  determining  authority  prior  to 
determination. 
An assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed activities on threatened species, populations and 
ecological communities was undertaken, as documented in Section 5.3 of this SEE.  
A significant impact on any listed threatened species, population or ecological community is considered 
unlikely and this Project has not been referred to OEH. 

4.2.3 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) 
The  POEO  Act  provides  an  integrated  system  of  licensing  for  polluting  activities  within  the  objective  of 
protecting the environment. 
 Section 148 of this Act requires notification of pollution incidents.  
 Section 120 of this Act provides that it an offence to pollute waters. 
 Schedule 1 of the POEO Act describes activities for which an Environment Protection Licence is 
required. 
The  proponent  must  ensure  that  all  stages  of  the  Project  are  managed  to  prevent  pollution,  including 
pollution of waters.  
The proponent is obliged to notify the relevant authorities (e.g. Environment Protection Authority) when a 
‘pollution incident’ occurs that causes or threatens ‘material harm’ to the environment. 
The  Project  is  not  defined  as  a  scheduled  activity  under  this  act,  therefore  an  Environment  Protection 
Licence would not be required.   

6385 Final v2  27   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

Legal requirements for the management of waste are also established under the POEO Act 1997 and the 
POEO  (Waste)  Regulation  2005.  Unlawful  transportation  and  deposition  of  waste  is  an  offence  under 
section 143 of the POEO Act. Waste management should be undertaken in accordance with the Waste 
Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001 (WARR Act). The objectives of this Act are: 
a) to  encourage  the  most  efficient  use  of  resources  and  to  reduce  environmental  harm  in 
accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, 
b) to  ensure  that  resource  management  options  are  considered  against  a  hierarchy  of  the 
following order: 
i. avoidance of unnecessary resource consumption, 
ii. resource recovery (including reuse, reprocessing, recycling and energy recovery),  
iii. disposal, 
c) to provide for the continual reduction in waste generation, 
d) to  minimise  the  consumption  of  natural  resources  and  the  final  disposal  of  waste  by 
encouraging the avoidance of waste and the reuse and recycling of waste, 
e) to  ensure  that  industry  shares  with  the  community  the  responsibility  for  reducing  and 
dealing with waste, 
f) to ensure the efficient funding of waste and resource management planning, programs and 
service delivery, 
g) to  achieve  integrated  waste  and  resource  management  planning,  programs  and  service 
delivery on a State‐wide basis, 
h) to  assist  in  the  achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the  Protection  of  the  Environment 
Operations Act 1997. 
Waste minimisation and management is assessed in Section 5.11 of the SEE. 

4.2.4 Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) 
The  FM  Act  sets  out  to  conserve  fish  stocks  and  key  fish  habitats,  threatened  species,  populations  and 
ecological communities of fish and marine vegetation and biological diversity. Further, it aims to promote 
viable  commercial  fishing,  aquaculture  industries  and  recreational  fishing  opportunities.  Threatened 
species, populations and ecological communities and key threatening process are listed in the FM Act’s 
Schedules.  
The  Project  site  is  located  4.6km  north  east  of  waterways  mapped  as  Key  Fish  Habitat  (KFH)  on  NSW 
Fisheries’ KFH Mapping. The Project may include a vehicle crossing and trenching across a first order creek 
(Ryans Creek), to connect the Gullen Range Wind Farm Substation to the solar farm site. No impacts on 
KFH or fish passage are considered likely. DPI Fisheries have confirmed a fisheries permit is not required 
for the works (A.Lugg, 18 November 2015). 

4.2.5 Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act)  
The WM Act deals with to the sustainable and integrated management of the State’s water sources. Under 
the WM Act, a controlled activity approval confers a right on its holder to carry out a specified controlled 
activity at a specified location in, on or under waterfront land. 
The Project may include a vehicle crossing and trenching across a first order creek (Ryans Creek), to connect 
the Gullen Range Wind Farm Substation to the solar farm site. This would be considered water front land 
under the act. On rural land, exemptions apply for this type of vehicle crossing however, the trenching 
would trigger a Controlled Activity Approval under this act. 

6385 Final v2  28   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

The Guidelines for Controlled Activities on Waterfront Land provide relevant information for designing and 
managing  works  in  this  area  and  have  been  cited  in  the  mitigation  measures  for  controlling  physical 
impacts, should this track and cabling route become the preferred routes, refer to Section 5.8.3. 

4.2.6 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act)  
The  NPW  Act  establishes  the  fundamental  functions  of  the  NSW  National  Parks  and  Wildlife  Service, 
including the conservation of nature, objects, features, places and management of land reserved under the 
Act.  
The NPW Act also sets out to protect and preserve Aboriginal heritage values. Part 6 of this act refers to 
Aboriginal objects and places and prevents persons from impacting on an Aboriginal place or relic, without 
consent or a permit.  
Sections  5.3  and  5.4  of  this  SEE  addresses  potential  impacts  to  native  flora  and  fauna  and  Aboriginal 
heritage respectively.  An Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) is being prepared to address potential 
impacts of the Project on Aboriginal heritage values. This will be prepared and lodged during the time that 
the DA is under review. The AHIP will be required to be granted prior to commencement of construction. 

4.2.7 Roads Act 1993 (Roads Act) 
The Roads Act provides for the classification of roads and for the declaration of the Roads and Maritime 
Services (RMS) and other public authorities as roads authorities for both classified and unclassified roads. 
It also regulates the carrying out of various activities in, on and over public roads.  
The Project may require intersection works where the site access meets with Storriers Lane and potentially 
other upgrade works to consolidate site access for large vehicles. Approval from the road authority (Upper 
Lachlan Shire Council) would be required under section 138 of the Roads Act to erect a structure or carry 
out a work in, on or over a public road.  

4.2.8 Crown Lands Act 1979 
The objective of the Crown Lands Act is to ensure that Crown land is managed for the benefit of the people 
of  New  South  Wales.  The  Catchments  and  Lands  Division,  Department  of  Primary  Industries  (DPI)  is 
responsible for the sustainable and commercial management of Crown land. This involves the management 
of state‐owned land, linking with other agencies, local government, the private sector and communities to 
provide social and economic outcomes for NSW.  
Access to the Project site would be via a Crown road, joining Storriers Lane which is subject of an Enclosure 
Permit.  A Crown road is a public road that may be freely accessed by the public even if the road is subject 
to an enclosure permit. An enclosure permit: 

 Does not provide the holder with any title to the Crown road; and 
 Requires that the land must remain available for access if required. 
An application has been lodged by an adjacent landowner to the Gullen Solar Farm to close the Crown road 
on the west boundary of Lot 57 DP 750043.   
The proponent has liaised with the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) and the current applicant of 
the Enclosure Permit regarding the Crown road. The current Enclosure Permit is to be transferred to the 
proponent.  

6385 Final v2  29   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

To  upgrade  the  Crown  road,  approval  from  the  road  authority  (Upper  Lachlan  Shire  Council)  would  be 
required under section 138 of the Roads Act to erect a structure or carry out a work in, on or over a public 
road. The proponent would seek an agreement with council, whereby council will “close” the crown road 
used for access, and the Project will take on responsibility for upgrade and maintenance of the road for the 
life of the solar farm, until decommissioning. 

4.2.9 Heritage Act 1977 
This act aims to conserve heritage values. The Heritage Act 1977 defines ‘environmental heritage’ as those 
places, buildings, works, relics, moveable objects and precincts of State or local heritage significance. A 
property is a heritage item if it is listed in the heritage schedule of the local Council's LEP or listed on the 
State Heritage Register, a register of places and items of particular importance to the people of NSW. 
Section 5.6 of this SEE addresses potential impacts on heritage items or places.  

4.2.10 Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NW Act) 
This  act  aims  to  control  noxious  weeds  in  NSW.  Part  3  of  this  act  outlines  the  obligations  of  a  public 
authority to control noxious weeds.  
Noxious weeds are discussed in Section 5.3 of this SEE. 

4.2.11 Mining Act 1992 
The main objective of the Mining Act 1992 is to encourage and facilitate the discovery and development of 
mineral resources in New South Wales, having regard to the need to encourage ecologically sustainable 
development.  
South of the Project, overlapping the Gullen Range Wind Farm, is an area with a Mining Exploration Licence. 
The Project would not impact this title. 

4.3 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES 

4.3.1 State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011 
This SEPP relates to the use of land within the Sydney drinking water catchment. The Project occurs within 
the catchment of the greater Sydney water supply system (Figure 4‐1). The Project would be classed as a 
Module 5 development by the authority and requires concurrence under SEPP (DWC) 2011 from Water 
NSW. 
A  Neutral  or  Beneficial  Effect  on  Water  Quality  Assessment  is  provided  in  Appendix  D.  The  assessment 
concludes  a  neutral  effect  on  water  quality  is  achievable,  with  the  effective  implementation  of  the 
environmental safeguards provided in this SEE.  

6385 Final v2  30   
 Gullen Solar Farm  
Statement of Environmental Effects 

 
Figure 4‐1 Sydney Drinking Water Catchment within the Upper Lachlan Shire LGA (Pejar Catchment) (ULSC 2015) 
The Project site occurs within the Sydney Drinking Water Catchment. 

6385 Final v2  31   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

4.3.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No 44‐Koala Habitat Protection 
This SEPP encourages the conservation and management of natural vegetation areas that provide habitat 
for Koalas to ensure that permanent free living populations will be maintained over their present range 
across 107 council areas.  
Upper Lachlan is not a listed council area. However, impacts on koalas were considered in Section 5.3 of 
this SEE. Koalas are not considered likely to be adversely impacted. 

4.4 COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATION 

4.4.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 
The EPBC Act is administered by the Commonwealth Department of Environment (DoE). Under the EPBC 
Act, if the Minister determines that an action is a ‘controlled action’ which would have or is likely to have 
a significant impact on a Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES) or Commonwealth land, 
then the action may not be undertaken without prior approval of the Minster. 
The EPBC Act identifies eight MNES: 

 World Heritage properties. 
 National heritage places. 
 Ramsar wetlands of international significance. 
 Threatened species and ecological communities. 
 Migratory species. 
 Commonwealth marine areas. 
 The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. 
 Nuclear actions (including uranium mining). 
When a person proposes to take an action that they believe may be a ‘controlled action’ under the EPBC 
Act, they must refer the Project to the Department for a decision about whether the proposed action is a 
‘controlled action’. 
A search for MNES and other matters protected by the EPBC Act was carried out within a 10km radius of 
the Project site using the Commonwealth online Environmental Reporting Tool (report created 8 October 
2015). A summary of the findings is provided in the tables below, which also indicate the relevant sections 
of the SEE where these matters are addressed.  
Table 4‐1  Summary of Matters of National Environmental Significance (10km search radius). 

Matters of National Environmental Significance  No.  Addressed in this SEE 

World Heritage Properties  None  NA 
National Heritage Places  None  NA 
Wetlands of International Significance  4  Not applicable to site 
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park  None  NA 
Commonwealth Marine Areas  None  NA 
Threatened Ecological Communities  2  Section 5.3 
Threatened Species  20  Section 5.3 

6385 Final v2  32   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Migratory Species  10  Section 5.3 

 
Table 4‐2  Summary of Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act (10km search radius). 

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act  No.   Addressed in this SEE 

Commonwealth Lands  2  Not applicable to site. 
Commonwealth Heritage Places  None  NA 
Listed Marine Species  13  Not applicable to site. 
Whales and Other Cetaceans   None  NA 
Critical Habitats  None  NA 
Commonwealth Reserves  None  NA 
 
Table 4‐3  Summary Extra Information (10km search radius). 

Extra Information  No.  Addressed in this SEE 

State and Territory Reserves  None  NA 
Regional Forest Agreements  None  NA 
Invasive Species  31  Section 5.3 
Nationally Important Wetlands  None  NA 
Key Ecological Features (Marine)  None  NA 

 
No other matter of national environmental significance would be affected by the proposed activity. The 
Project has not been referred to the DoE. 

4.4.2 Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 
The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 (RE Act) aims: 

 To encourage the additional generation of electricity from renewable sources. 
 To reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector. 
 To ensure that renewable energy sources are ecologically sustainable. 
Section 17 of the RE Act defines renewable energy sources eligible under the Commonwealth government’s 
Renewable Energy Target (RET). This includes solar energy. 
Certificates  for  the  generation  of  electricity  are  issued  using  eligible  renewable  energy  sources.  This 
requires purchasers (called liable entities) to surrender a specified number of certificates for the electricity 
that  they acquire. In January  2011,  renewable  energy certificates were  reclassified  as  either large‐scale 
generation certificates or a small‐scale technology certificates following changes to the RET scheme. 
Gullen Solar Pty. Ltd. will need to be accredited as a Renewable Energy Generator to create Renewable 
Energy Certificates. 
   

6385 Final v2  33   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

5.1 VISUAL AMENITY  
A specialist assessment was undertaken to investigate the potential visual impacts of the Gullen Solar Farm. 
The  assessment  was  undertaken  by  Green  Bean  Design  Pty  Ltd  (GBD).  The  full  report  is  provided  in 
Appendix C and is summarised below. 

5.1.1 Approach 
The methodology employed for the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) has been based on aims and objectives 
outlined in existing VIA guidelines including: 

 Visual Landscape Planning in Western Australia (Western Australian Planning Commission, 
November 2007) 
 The Environmental Impact Assessment Practice Note – Guideline for Landscape Character 
and Visual Impact Assessment EIA–N04 (practice note EIA‐N04) 
 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Ed. (Landscape Institute and 
Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2013).  
The VIA has been undertaken to: 

 Assess  the  existing  visual  character  within  the  Project  site  as  well  as  the  surrounding 
landscape 
 Determine the extent and nature of the potential visual impact of the proposed solar farm 
on surrounding areas 
 Identify measures to mitigate and minimise any potential visual impacts. 
The VIA included the following tasks: 

 Desktop study addressing visual character and identification of view locations within the 
surrounding  area  ‐  Topographic  maps  and  aerial  photographs  were  used  to  identify  the 
locations  and  categories  of  potential  receiver  locations  that  could  be  verified  during  the 
fieldwork  component  of  the  assessment.  The  desktop  study  also  outlined  the  visual 
character  of  the  surrounding  landscape  including  features  such  as  landform,  elevation, 
landcover and the distribution of residential dwellings. 
 Fieldwork  and  photography  ‐  A  site  inspection  to  determine  and  confirm  the  potential 
extent of visibility of the proposed solar farm and ancillary structures. Determination and 
confirmation of the various view location categories and locations from which the proposed 
solar farm structures could potentially be visible. 
Assessment  and  determination  of  visual  impact    ‐  The  overall  determination  of  visual 
impacts  resulting  from  the  construction  and  operation  of  the  Gullen  Solar  Farm  results 
primarily from a combination of receiver sensitivity and the magnitude of visual effects. The 
sensitivity of visual receptors has been determined and described in the VIA by reference 
to: 
o the location and context of the view point 
o the occupation or activity of the receptor 
o the overall number of people affected. 
Judging the magnitude of the visual effects has taken account of: 

6385 Final v2  34   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

the scale of the change in the view with respect to the loss or addition of features 
o
in the view and changes in its composition, including the proportion of the view 
occupied by the proposed solar farm 
o the  degree  of  contrast  or  integration  of  any  new  features  or  changes  in  the 
landscape  with the existing or remaining landscape elements and characteristics 
in terms of form, scale and mass, line height, colour and texture 
o the nature of the view of the proposed solar farm, in terms of the relative amount 
of time over which it will be experienced and whether views will be full, partial or 
glimpses. 
 Determination of potential mitigation measures. 

5.1.2 Existing environment 

Landscape character and visual absorption capability 
The  landscape  character  surrounding  the  proposed  solar  farm  site  has  been  determined  as  a  singular 
landscape  unit  which  generally  occurs  within  a  2km  viewshed  of  the  proposed  solar  farm  site.  For  the 
purpose of this VIA, the viewshed is defined as the area of land surrounding and beyond the solar farm site 
which may be potentially affected by the solar farm. In essence, the viewshed defines this VIA study area.  
The  landscape  unit  represents  an  area  that  is  relatively  consistent  and  recognisable  in  terms  of  its  key 
landscape  elements  and  physical  attributes;  which  include  a  relatively  limited  combination  of 
topography/landform, vegetation/landcover, land use and built structures (including settlements and local 
road  corridors).  The  predominant  landscape  unit  within  and  surrounding  the  Project  site  has  been 
identified as gently sloping and undulating modified agricultural land. 
The Visual Absorption Capability (VAC) of the landscape surrounding the proposed solar farm is generally 
high as a result of locally undulating landforms and significant areas of tree cover within and surrounding 
the proposed solar farm site. 

Visual receivers (residential dwellings and road corridors)  
The  VIA  identified  a  total  of  20  residential  dwellings  located  within  an  approximate  2km  viewshed 
surrounding the Gullen Solar Farm site. One dwelling (B11) also accommodates the Bannister Hall. One 
residential dwelling (PW34) is located on the proposed solar farm site and is owned by the proponent. 
A small number of local roads connect localities and residential dwellings within the surrounding landscape. 
The roads from which views may extend toward the proposed solar farm site include: 

 Range Road 
 Walkoms Lane 
 Bannister Lane 
 Leahy Road 
 Storriers Lane. 

5.1.3 Potential impacts 
Impacts investigated by the VIA included: 

 Impacts during construction 
 Operational impacts: 

6385 Final v2  35   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

o Changes to landscape character 
o Visual impact on nearby visual receivers 
o Potential impact or glare or glint, from proposed infrastructure on nearby receivers 
o Cumulative impacts 

Construction activities 
The key pre‐construction and construction activities that may be visible from areas surrounding the Project 
site include: 

 Ongoing detailed site assessment including technical investigations 
 Various minor civil works at access points 
 Construction facilities, including portable structures and laydown areas 
 Various construction and directional signage 
 Excavations and earthworks 
 Various construction activities including erection of solar panels with associated electrical 
infrastructure works. 
The majority of pre‐construction and construction activities would be unlikely to result in an unacceptable 
level of visual impact for their duration and temporary nature. 

Landscape character 
The  overall  sensitivity  rating  of  the  landscape  considers  landform  and  scale,  landcover,  settlement  and 
human influence, movement patterns, rarity and intervisibility. It was assessed on a quantitative scale as 
14/30; low landscape sensitivity (refer to detailed evaluation, Table 4, in the appended VIA, Appendix C). 
In consideration of the existing landscape characteristics, the landscape within and surrounding the Project 
site is determined to have a low sensitivity to the solar farm development.  
The VIA determined that existing landscape characteristics are generally robust, and will be less affected 
by the proposed Project. The degree to which the landscape may accommodate the solar farm will not 
significantly alter existing landscape character. 

Visual impact on nearby visual receivers (residential dwellings and views from road corridors) 
Of the 20 residential dwellings located within an approximate 2km viewshed of the Gullen Solar Farm site, 
the VIA determined that: 

 1 residential dwelling (PW34) would experience a high‐moderate visual impact 
 19 of the residential dwellings would experience a negligible visual impact. 
This VIA determined one residential dwelling (PW34) would be subject to a high‐moderate visual impact. 
Dwelling  PW34  is  Project‐associated.  The  dwelling,  unoccupied  at  the  time  of  the  solar  farm  VIA  site 
inspection, may be occupied during the solar farm construction or operation. Whilst determined as a high‐
moderate visual impact, the dwelling’s direct association to wind farm and solar farm sites will mitigate the 
high‐moderate visual impact to low. 
The determination of negligible visual impact for the majority of residential dwellings surrounding the solar 
farm site reflects the high degree of localised screening provided by the low undulating landform extending 
across this section of the Great Dividing Range, as well as the occurrence of tree screening alongside local 
road corridors and within surrounding agricultural land. 

6385 Final v2  36   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Available views toward the proposed solar farm site from surrounding local roads will be tend to be indirect 
and of a very short duration from moving vehicles. The majority of road corridors also support a significant 
amount of tree planting, including tree planting along proximate road locations such as Bannister Lane and 
Storriers Lane which will generally block and/or filter views toward the proposed solar farm site.  
The Project has the potential to impact people engaged in predominantly farming activities, where views 
toward the solar project occur from surrounding and non‐associated agricultural areas. Ultimately the level 
of impact would depend on the type of activities engaged in as well as the location of the activities together 
with the degree of screening provided by local vegetation within individual properties. Whilst views toward 
the  solar  farm  could  occur  from  surrounding  rural  agricultural  land,  this  VIA  has  determined  that  the 
sensitivity  of  visual  impacts  is  less  for  those  employed  or  carrying  out  work  in  rural  areas  compared to 
potential  views  from  residential  dwellings;  however  the  sensitivity  of  individual  view  locations  will  also 
depend on the perception of the viewer.  
The majority of proposed electrical connection works within the Gullen Solar Farm site would be located 
underground. A short section (around 240m) of overhead 33 kV powerline may be constructed in the south 
west  portion  of  the  solar  farm  Project  site.  This  powerline  would  be  screened  from  external  site  view 
locations by landform and existing tree cover and would not be visible from surrounding receiver locations 
including residential dwellings. 
The proposed solar farm does not propose to incorporate external lighting, other than manually operated 
safety lighting at main component locations, therefore night time lighting is not expected to give rise to 
potential visual impacts.  
Photomontages 
Representative photomontages of the proposed infrastructure have been produced from three locations. 
The photomontage locations were selected from accessible sections of surrounding road corridors. They 
represent typical viewpoint locations and illustrate the potential influence of both distance and existing 
tree cover on visibility. The locations include: 

 Photomontage  1  from  photo  location  G13  looking  south  from  the  Walkoms  Lane  road 
corridor. The photomontage illustrates proposed and potential indirect views toward the 
proposed solar farm from the Walkoms Lane corridor; 
 Photomontage 2 from photo location G16 looking south from Bannister Lane road corridor. 
The photomontage illustrates proposed and potential indirect views toward the proposed 
solar farm from the Bannister Lane corridor; and 
 Photomontage  3  from  photo  location  G20  looking  south  from  Range  Road  corridor.  The 
photomontage illustrates proposed and potential indirect views toward the proposed solar 
farm from the Range Road corridor. 
The photomontages demonstrate that the overall visual bulk and scale of the proposed solar farm will not 
be visually significant in the landscape following completion of the construction works. 

6385 Final v2  37   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Figure 5‐1 Photomontage 1 and montage location (G12) 
Details and existing views are provided within the full VIA, Appendix C. 

6385 Final v2  38   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Figure 5‐2 Photomontage 1 and montage location (G16) 
Details and existing views are provided within the full VIA, Appendix C. 
 
   

6385 Final v2  39   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Figure 5‐3 Photomontage 1 and montage location (G20) 
Details and existing views are provided within the full VIA, Appendix C. 

6385 Final v2  40   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Reflectivity: sunglint and glare 
The VIA determined that opportunities for sunglint and glare would be limited due to the properties and 
characteristics of the solar panels, which are designed to absorb light rather than reflect it. Sunglint and 
glare would also be limited due to the lack of direct visibility and line of sight from surrounding sensitive 
receiver locations to the proposed solar farm site. The potential for sunglint impacting motorists travelling 
along  local  roads  would  largely  mitigated  by  tree  planting  alongside  road  corridors,  and  where  visible, 
sunglint would tend to be indirect relative to the direction of travel and very short term in duration.   

Cumulative impacts 
The cumulative assessment determined that the overall very low level of visibility will limit potential for 
cumulative visual impacts and specifically those that could result from views toward the existing wind farm 
development. Constructed elements associated with the proposed solar farm would be dissimilar in scale, 
line and form to existing infrastructure associated with the wind farm development. Proposed electrical 
infrastructure works within the wind farm substation are unlikely to be of such magnitude to result in any 
noticeable change to the existing visual environment associated with the wind farm development. 

5.1.4 Environmental safeguards 
Whilst  the  VIA  has  determined  an  overall  very  low  level  visual  impact,  mitigation  measures  may  be 
considered  appropriate  to  minimise  any  residual  or  localised  visual  impacts.  Additional  mitigation 
measures would largely address the selection of appropriate materials, finishes and colours for proposed 
infrastructure  and  some  limited  landscape  treatments  to  address  any  specific  and  localised  views  from 
private property following construction. The following measures are provided, specific to the stage of the 
Project: 

Design 
Mitigation measures during the detail design process should consider: 

 Further refinement in the design and layout which may assist in the mitigation of bulk and 
height of proposed structures; 
 Consideration in selection and location for replacement tree planting which may provide 
partial screening or backdrop setting for constructed elements; and 
 A review of materials and colour finishes for selected components including the use of non‐
reflective finishes to structures where possible. 

Construction 
Mitigation measures during the construction period should consider: 

 Minimisation of tree removal where possible 
 Protection of mature trees within the proposed solar farm site where retained.  
 Avoidance of temporary light spill beyond the construction site where temporary lighting is 
required 
 Rehabilitation of disturbed areas 

Operation  
Mitigation measures during the operational period should consider: 

 Ongoing maintenance and repair of constructed elements 

6385 Final v2  41   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

 Replacement of damaged or missing constructed elements 
 Long term maintenance (and replacement as necessary) of tree planting within the solar 
farm site to maintain visual filtering and screening of external views where appropriate. 

5.2 NOISE AND VIBRATION 

5.2.1 Approach 
A specialist assessment was undertaken to investigate the potential noise impacts of the Gullen Solar Farm 
Project. The assessment was undertaken by SLR Consultancy Australia Pty Ltd, using existing information 
of relevance to the assessment to model potential noise levels. The full report is provided in Appendix C 
and  is  summarised  below.  It  includes  consideration  of  construction,  operational  and  cumulative  noise 
impacts (considering the possible interaction with the existing Gullen Range Wind Farm). 

5.2.2 Existing environment 

Noise monitoring 
Unattended noise monitoring was previously undertaken by Marshall Day Acoustics (MDA) as part of the 
operational noise impact for the wind farm. The results presented in MDA Report entitled “Gullen Range 
Wind Farm Operational Noise Impact Assessment”:– Report No. 2007265SY 001 R02 dated 4th June 2008 
have been used for the determination of applicable noise limits in the assessment of the solar farm. 
MDA conducted background noise monitoring as part of the Noise Impact Statement between June 2007 
and November 2007 at 16 representative locations. Two of these monitoring locations are located within 
the vicinity of the solar farm and deemed representative of those dwellings located to the north and south 
of facility. The monitoring locations are shown in Figure 5‐4 along with other previously identified sensitive 
receptors within 1.5km of the facility.  

6385 Final v2  42   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

 
Figure 5‐4 Monitoring locations and receivers. 

Existing background levels 
The  results  of  the  recorded  background  noise  levels  (RBL)  are  shown  in  Table  5‐1  for  representative 
receptors; B11 for the receptors in the north and PW7 for the receptors around and south of the solar farm 
site. 
Table 5‐1 Ambient Background noise levels for Receptor Catchment Areas 

Representative  Receptors  Day (0700 h‐ 1800 h)  Evening (1800 h  Night (2200 h – 0700 

Receptor locations  represented  – 200 h)  h) 
B11 (north of site)  B35,  B38,  B38A,  34  36  34 
B45.  B47,  B48 
and B49 
PW7  (around  site  PW29,  PW34,  33  33  29 
and  southern  PW35,  PW36, 
region)  PW5 

6385 Final v2  43   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

5.2.3 Policy setting and criteria 

Construction noise 
The  NSW  Interim  Construction  Noise  Guideline  (ICNG)  deals  with  managing  construction  noise  impacts 
(DECC 2009). The guideline sets out Noise Management Levels at residences and how they are to be applied 
(Table 5‐2).  
Table 5‐2– Noise management levels at residential receivers, INCG (DECC 2009). 

Time of day  Management Level 
Recommended standard hours:  Noise affected 
Monday to Friday  RBL + 10dB(A) 
7 am to 6 pm  Highly noise affected 
Saturday 8 am to 1 pm  75dB(A) 
No work on Sundays or public holidays 
Outside recommended standard hours  Noise affected 
RBL + 5dB(A) 

 
Based on the measured RBL’s outlined in Table 5‐1 and NSW ICNG (DECC 2009) criteria outlined above, the 
construction noise goals for day, evening and night at the representative receptors are shown in Table 5‐3.  
Restrictions to the hours of construction may apply to activities that generate noise at residences above 
the ‘highly noise affected’ noise management goal. None of the receptors are above this level.
Table 5‐3 Project specific Construction noise management levels  

Locations  Period  RBL (dBA)  Construction Noise Goal LAeq (15min) 

Noise affected  Highly  noise 
affected 
B11  (north  Day1  34  44  75 
receptors)  Evening   2
36  41  75 
3
Night   34  39  75 
PW7  (site/south  Day1  33  43  75 
receptors)  Evening2  33  38  75 
3
Night   29  34  75 
1 Day period noise goal = RBL + 10dB 

2 Evening period noise goal = RBL + 5dB 

3 Night period noise goal = RBL + 5dB 

Operational noise 
The Industrial Noise Policy (INP) provides a framework and process from deriving noise criteria for consents 
and  licences  that  will  enable  the  EPA  to  regulate  premises  that  scheduled  under  the  Protection  of  the 
Environment Operations Act 1997. The INP includes assessing intrusiveness and amenity. The assessment 
criteria under the INP for the Gullen Solar Farm is outlined in Table 5‐4. 
It is noted that whilst there is an existing wind farm nearby, it is subject to very different criteria as the 
noise source (and background noise environment) and can vary significantly with wind speed and direction. 

6385 Final v2  44   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Furthermore, noise from the wind farm has already been assessed in accordance with applicable criteria 
(i.e. the 2003 South Australia Environment Protection Authority (SA EPA) Guidelines) in the MDA Report. 
Consequently, noise from the wind farm should not be assessed using NSW INP. However, for the purpose 
of  considering  cumulative  noise  emissions  from  the  wind  farm,  an  indicative  assessment  has  been 
provided. This is discussed in operational impacts, below. 
Table 5‐4 Noise impact assessment methodology 

Assessment Criteria  Project Specific Criteria  Noise Management Zone  Noise Affection Zone 

Intrusive  Rating  background  level  +  <5  dBA  above  project  >5  dBA  above  project 
  5dBA  specific criteria  specific criteria 

Amenity  INP based on recommended  <5  dBA  above  project  >5  dBA  above  project 
LAeq  noise  levels  from  specific criteria  specific criteria 
industrial noise sources 

 
The operational project specific noise criteria for the solar farm based on the INP criteria and guidelines 
(Table 5‐4) is shown in Table 5‐5. 
Table 5‐5 Project specific operational noise criteria 

Receiver  Period  ANL  Measured  Predicted  INP Criteria 

(period)  RBL  (dBA)1 2 
LAeq (dBA) 
(dBA)1  Intrusiveness  Amenity  Criteria 
criteria  LAeq  LAeq  (Period) 
(15  minute)  (dBA) 3,4 
(dBA) 
B11  (north  Day  50  34  36  39  503 
receptors)  Evening  45  36  36  41  453 
Night  40  34  36  39  383 
PW7  Day  50  33  41  38  503 
(site/south  Evening  45  33  41  38  433 
receptors) 
Night  40  29  41  34  323 

Note 1: ANL Acceptable Noise Level for a rural area  

Note 2: The level of existing industrial noise to the surrounding residential areas has been conservatively based on the highest 
predicted noise from the wind farm, within each catchment area 

Note 3: Assuming existing noise levels are unlikely to decrease 

Note 4: Adjustments applied in accordance with modification to acceptable Nosie level (Table 3 in Appendix C) to determine 
appropriate modification factors. 

5.2.4 Potential impacts 

Construction 
The proposed works were divided into six stages based on the proposed works and required equipment. 
The stages include: 

 Site preparation, clearing and demolition 
 Establish site compound, access roads and delivery of materials 
 Installation of foundations 

6385 Final v2  45   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

 Installation of underground cabling (with the option for a short section of overhead cabling; 
240m) 
 Assembly of panel frame mounts and transformer units 
 Site rehabilitation/removal of temporary construction facilities  
 
Noise modelling results indicated that the predicted noise levels at all receptors were well below the highly 
noise affected noise management criterion of 75 dBA. 
Noise associated with the required construction works are predicted to comply with the ICNG criteria for 
most scenarios, with the exceptions shown in Table 5‐6. In all cases, the exceedances were predicted at 
receptor PW5 which is located approximately 130m west of the site with the exception of Stage 3. Whilst 
higher noise levels were predicted at the dwelling at PW34, located on site, these results have not been 
included in the discussion as the dwelling is project‐involved and will not be used as a residential dwelling 
during construction.  
Table 5‐6 Construction predicted noise levels and exceedances of construction noise criteria (only relevant to 
PW5) 

Stage  Receiver  Predicted  Exceedance  Description 

with  the  noise level   level 
highest  (dBA)  (dBA) 
noise level 
1  Site  preparation,  PW5  47‐52  4‐9  Dominant  noise  source  would  be  the 
clearing & demolition  use of chainsaws and mulcher for site 
clearing works 
2  Establish  site  PW5  45‐49  2‐6  Depends  on  weather  conditions. 
compound,  access  Excavator doing earthworks nearby. 
roads  &  delivery  of 
materials 
3  Installation  of  PW5  25‐59  2‐16  Primarily due to piling rig. Where the 
foundations  piling  rig  is  not  operating  there  be  a 
significant  reduction  is  noise,  (in  the 
order of 10 dBA at PW5). 
For  other  dwellings  the  predicted 
noise  levels  were  significantly  lower 
with  minor  exceedances  predicted 
under  enhanced  propagation 
condition at PW29 and B35. 
6  Site  PW5  26‐48  5  Loader  to  be  operating  on  site 
rehabilitation/removal  approximately  300m  from  the 
of  temporary  dwelling.  While  the  plant  isn’t 
construction facilities  operating it likely that noise level will 
be below the noise affected NML 

The results indicate that during some of the stages there will be a few minor noise impacts at the closest 
dwelling PW5. 
Under worst case propagation conditions, the highest noise levels were predicted during the Stage 3 Piling 
works. During this stage noise levels up to 59 dBA were predicted at PW5 which equates to an excess of 
the daytime NML of 16 dBA. Whilst this is sufficient for the piling works to be clearly audible, the noise 

6385 Final v2  46   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

levels are likely  to  be  acceptable  given  the  day  works  period  and other opportunities  to  mitigate  noise 
levels (set out in the safeguards, below).  For the other stages where the NML’s were exceeded, Stages 1, 
2 and 6, the exceedance is again limited to PW5 with noise levels ranging from 5 to 9 dBA above the NML 
criterion. 

Operation 
In order to determine the noise impacts of the operating solar farm, a computer model incorporating all 
significant noise sources, the closest potentially affected residential properties, and the intervening terrain 
was prepared. The sources of noise during operation would include the inverters and existing transformer 
substations.  
The noise modelling below shows that noise from the operational solar farm complies with the project 
noise  criteria,  set  out  in  Table  5‐5.  The  highest  noise  emissions  are  predicted  at  PW5  with  noise  levels 
ranging from 32 dBA to 37 dBA, Leq. There are no predicted exceedances. 
Table 5‐7 Operational noise assessment 

Catchment area  Receiver   Noise  level  Leq  Project  criteria:  Predicted 

(15mins)  intrusiveness  /  exceedance 
(dBA)  predicted  at  amenity 
dwelling  upper 
limit 
North of site  B11  24  33 / 45  0 
B35  27  33 / 45  0 
B38  26  33 / 45  0 
B38A  28  33 / 45   
B45  28  33 / 45  0 
B47  28  33 / 45  0 
B48  29  33 / 45  0 
B49  27  33 / 43  0 
South of site  PW5  37  38 / 43  0 
PW7  26  38 / 43  0 
PW29  28  38 / 43  0 
PW35  29  38 / 43  0 
PW36  33  38 / 43  0 

 
Given the predicted level of compliance and conservative allowance included in the noise modelling it is 
likely that there will be minimal noise impacts during normal operation of the solar farm. All receivers are 
predicted  to  be  compliant.  In  fact,  at  most  receptors,  noise  from  the  solar  farm  will  predominantly  be 
inaudible above the ambient background noise environment. 
Whilst the noise modelling results indicate that noise from the solar plant is likely to comply at all receptor 
locations, it is noted that the layout and design of the solar plant has not been finalised. Consequently, it 
is possible that the dominant source of noise (the inverters) will be located in different locations to those 
assumed in the assessment. As receptor PW5 is located significantly closer to the site than any of the other 

6385 Final v2  47   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

dwellings, it is recommended (where possible) that the final layout maximise the available offset distance 
from the inverters to this dwelling. Noise emissions from the final layout should also be reviewed to ensure 
compliance with applicable noise criteria.  

Cumulative noise from wind farm and solar farm 
Noise from the wind farm is subject to specific criteria, which has already been assessed as part of the MDA 
Report. However, for indicative purposes the cumulative noise from both the wind and solar farm has been 
predicted assuming worst case propagation conditions for both facilities. 
The cumulative contribution from both facilities is detailed in Table 14 of the full specialist noise report, 
Appendix C of this SEE. For all receptors, the cumulative noise from both facilities was found to comply 
with the amenity criterion. It should be noted that in reality, noise emissions from both facilities will vary 
significantly depending on wind speed, direction, solar load etc. As such, cumulative noise levels are likely 
to be much lower than shown. 

5.2.5 Environmental safeguards 
The following noise management and mitigation strategies are recommended: 

Construction 
 Where  possible,  the  final  layout  would  maximise  the  available  offset  distance  from  the 
inverters to PW5. Predicted noise emissions from the final layout should also be reviewed 
to ensure compliance with applicable noise criteria. 
 All  construction  works  are  to  be  undertaken  under  EPA’s  standard  daytime  construction 
periods (i.e 7.00am to 6.00 pm Monday to Friday and 8.00 am to 1.00 pm on Saturdays). 
 During Piling works:  
o Use of less noise‐intensive equipment, where reasonable and feasible. 
o Where  practicable,  install  localised  acoustic  hoarding  around  significantly  noise 
generating items of plant. This would be expected to provide between 5 dB and 10 dB 
of  additional  noise  attenuation  if  adequately  constructed  to  ensure  line‐of‐sight 
between all receivers and the construction equipment is broken. 
o Planning of the higher Noise Management Level exceedance activities / locations to be 
undertaken  predominantly  during  less  noise‐sensitive  periods  (i.e.  away  from  early 
morning  /  late  afternoon  periods  when  residents  are  home  from  work),  where 
available and possible.  
o Briefing  of  the  work  team  in  order  to  create  awareness  of  the  locality  of  sensitive 
receivers (in particular PW5) and the importance of minimising noise emissions.  
o Use of respite periods during highly noise intrusive works. 
 Additionally, noise minimisation will be undertaken with reference to AS 2436‐2010 
“Guide to Noise and Vibration Control on Construction, Demolition and Maintenance Sites” 
which sets out numerous practical recommendations to assist in mitigating construction 
noise emissions. 
 

6385 Final v2  48   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

5.3 BIODIVERSITY 

5.3.1 Approach 
A specialist assessment was undertaken to investigate the potential biodiversity impacts of the Gullen Solar 
Farm. The assessment was undertaken by NGH Environmental. The full report is provided in Appendix C 
and is summarised below. 
The assessment approach involved literature reviews, database searches, as well as field surveys conducted 
in accordance with relevant surveys guidelines, as summarised briefly below. 

Flora surveys 
The initial flora survey was conducted on 18 February 2015 by a senior botanist to ascertain vegetation 
type  and  condition  and  provide  a  representative  species  list  for  the  site.  A  second  flora  survey  was 
undertaken  on  the  20  March  2015  by  two  ecologists  to  collect  additional  Biometric  plot  data.    The 
techniques and standards utilised included the following: 

 Random meander, condition assessment – February 2015 
 Biometric plot surveys – March 2015 
 Plant and community nomenclature 
 Vegetation community mapping 

Fauna surveys 
The general fauna surveys included fauna habitat assessment (terrestrial and aquatic), a hollow‐bearing 
tree  inventory,  diurnal  bird  surveys,  nocturnal  spotlighting,  stagwatching  and  call  playback.    Targeted 
threatened species surveys included an artificial shelter (tile) survey for threatened reptiles (specifically 
targeting the Striped Legless Lizard, Delma impar), and native grassland traverses to search for the Golden 
Sun Moth (Synemon plana). 
The general fauna survey was undertaken over two days and one night, on the 26th and 27th of October 
2015  and  involved  two  ecologists.    The  tile  surveys  were  installed  on  27  August  2015  and  then  left 
undisturbed for one month. Fortnightly checks commenced from the 29th September and continued for 
eight checks.3  The Golden Sun Moth surveys include three site traverses during the month of December, 
conducted through areas of native grassland with a high proportion of Wallaby Grass.4 It is noted that the 
final results of these targeted surveys will not be obtained until after the submission of the SEE. This is 
justified on the basis of relatively high confidence of not detecting these species at the site. They were not 
detected in extensive surveys for the wind farm and the site is outside the known range of the Golden Sun 
Moth. The survey results will confirm the assumptions of this assessment or provide a trigger to undertake 
further assessment and management for these species. 

   

                                                              
3 Additional tile checks will be undertaken after the submission of the SEE. 

4 Surveys will be undertaken concurrent with submission of the SEE. 

6385 Final v2  49   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Survey effort and conditions 
The survey effort and conditions during the surveys are summarised in the tables below. 
Table 5‐8:  Survey effort completed within development envelope 
Date  Method  Survey Effort  Target Species 
Flora       
18 February 2015  Random meander surveys  2 person hours  All flora species  
Targeted searches  0.5 person hours  Threatened flora 
species 
20 march 2015  Biometric plots  16 person hours (8 plots)  All flora species 
Fauna       
27 August 2015  Tile Survey – Initial placement  1 person hour  Striped Legless Lizard 
29 September 2015  Tile Survey – Check 1  1 person hour  Striped Legless Lizard 
12 October 2015  Tile Survey – Check 2  1 person hour  Striped Legless Lizard 
26 October  Habitat Assessment  3 person hours  All fauna species 
Hollow‐bearing tree Inventory –  4 person hours  Hollow‐bearing trees 
supplementary survey 
Diurnal bird survey  1 person hour  All diurnal bird species 
Stagwatching  1.5 person hours  Hollow‐dependant 
fauna 
Aquatic Survey  0.5 person hours  Aquatic fauna species 
Spotlighting   3 person hours  Nocturnal Species 
Call Playback  0.5 person hours  Forest Owls, Green and 
Golden Bell Frog, 
Squirrel Glider & 
Spotted‐tailed Quoll 
27 October  Diurnal bird survey  1 person hour  All diurnal bird species 
Aquatic Survey  0.5 person hours  Aquatic fauna species 
Tile Survey – Check 3  1 person hour  Striped Legless Lizard 
10 November  Diurnal bird survey  1 person hour  All diurnal bird species 
Tile Survey – Check 4  1 person hour  Striped Legless Lizard 
24 November  Tile Survey – Check 5  1 person hour  Striped Legless Lizard 
December  GSM Surveys  To be confirmed  Golden Sun Moth 
 

   

6385 Final v2  50   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Table 5‐9:  Prevailing weather conditions during each Striped Legless Lizard tile survey  
Date  Time  Temperature  Cloud cover range  Wind  Rain 
recorded 
(min – max) 
29/09/2015  11.00 – 12.00  5 ‐21oC  20 ‐ 40%  Light  Nil 
12/10/2015  10.00 – 11.00  10 ‐ 25oC  0 ‐ 20%  Light  Nil 
27/10/2015  10.00 – 11.00  9 ‐ 20oC  60‐80%  Light  Nil 
10/11/2014  10.30 – 11.30  9 ‐ 280C  0‐20%  none  Nil 
24/11/2015  10.00 – 11.00  7 ‐ 270C  20‐40%  Light  Nil 
10/12/2015  9.30 – 10.30  10 ‐ 310C  0‐20%  none  Nil 

 
Table 5‐10:  Prevailing weather conditions during the nocturnal survey (including spotlight/stagwatch and call 
playback times) 

Date  Time  Temperature  Cloud  cover  Wind  Moon phase 

recorded  range 
26/10/2015  19.30  19oC  20 ‐ 40%  Light  Full 
20.30  14oC  40 ‐ 60%  Light ‐ Moderate  Full 

5.3.2 Existing environment 

Site context 
The site is currently used for grazing purposes, and as such, has been predominantly cleared of overstorey 
vegetation, with pasture improved paddocks the dominant feature of the site, although there are some 
scattered  remnant  trees  and  planted  wind  breaks  occurring  within  the  site.    Intact  remnant  woodland 
occurs on the periphery of the site’s eastern and southern boundaries which connects to large contiguous 
forested areas further to the southeast of the site.  
The  site  is  situated  within  the  Wollondilly  River  sub  catchment  of  the  Hawkesbury  Nepean  catchment 
(administered by the Local Land Services).   
Overall, the site is undulating, and generally slopes down to the north and east, towards Sawpit Creek. 
Gully systems are present to the south in larger areas of contiguous forest which supports locally steep 
areas, as well as to the north, in a broader and shallow open drainage gully supporting a number of farm 
dams.  

Flora and ecological communities 
Native vegetation types 
A total of three native vegetation types were recorded in the development envelope, including grasslands 
derived from the clearing of these communities: 

 Red Stringybark ‐ Brittle Gum ‐ Inland Scribbly Gum dry open forest of the tablelands, South 
Eastern Highlands 
 Ribbon  Gum  ‐  Narrow‐leaved  Peppermint  grassy  open  forest  on  basalt  plateaux,  Sydney 
Basin and South Eastern Highlands 

6385 Final v2  51   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

 Snow Gum ‐ Candle Bark woodland on broad valley flats of the tablelands and slopes, South 
Eastern Highlands 
 
These vegetation communities are discussed in more detail in the specialist report, Appendix C and mapped 
below. The conservation status of these communities is summarised below. 
Table 5‐11 Conservation status of native vegetation at the subject site 

  Vegetation type  Estimated  percent  EEC  (TSC  Act  or 

cleared in the CMA  EPBC Act)? 
Red Stringybark ‐ Brittle Gum ‐ Inland Scribbly Gum dry open  55%  No 
forest of the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands 
Ribbon Gum ‐ Narrow‐leaved Peppermint grassy open forest  95%  Yes 
on basalt plateaux, Sydney Basin and South Eastern Highlands
Snow Gum ‐ Candle Bark woodland on broad valley flats of the  95%  Yes 
tablelands and slopes, South Eastern Highlands 

6385 Final v2  52   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

R Gullen Range Wind Farm turbines

!
Existing Gullen Range Wind Farm
Substation
Gullen Range Wind Farm boundary
Gullen Solar Farm site boundary
) Biometric plots
"

Crown Road access to solar farm

Indicative access and cabling options to substation
Cabling and access option 1
Cabling and access option 2
DBP4
"
) Endangered Ecological Communities
"
)
DBP5 Tableland Basalt Forest in the Sydney Basin
and South Eastern Highlands Bioregions
Tablelands Snow Gum, Black Sallee, Candlebark
and Ribbon Gum Grassy Woodland in the South
Eastern Highlands, Sydney Basin, South East
DBP6
DBP3 "
)
DBP7
Corner and NSW South Western Slopes
"
)
"
) Bioregions
DBP8
"
) Vegetation type
Brittle Gum - Inland Scribbly Gum dry forest
Brittle Gum dry forest derived grassland
DBP2
"
) Exotic pasture
DBP1
Planted Pine shelter belt
"
)
Planted native vegetation
POM_01 Ribbon Gum - Narrow-leaved Peppermint Forest
R
! Ribbon Gum forest derived grassland
Snow Gum - Candlebark woodland

POM_02
R
! POM_05 0 100 200 400 Metres
R
!

°
Ref:6385 Flora v3
POM_04 Indicative layout and subject to change Author: JB
R
! Notes:
POM_03
R
! - Data collected by nghenvironmental (April 2015)
- Aerial imagery Copyright Google Earth 2015
- Layout layers provided by Goldwind www .nghenvironm en tal. com .au
 
Figure 5‐5 Vegetation survey effort and results 

6385 Final v2  53   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Flora species recorded 
A total of 74 flora species were recorded within the study area. These included 44 native species and 30 
introduced  species.  A  full  species  list  of all  flora  species  recorded  during  the  field  survey  is  provided  in 
Appendix B‐1 of the Biodiversity Assessment report (Appendix C). 

Listed threatened flora species 
No threatened flora species were detected during the surveys however, the timing of the surveys was not 
considered optimal.  The likelihood of all threatened flora species to occur at the site has been assessed in 
relation  to  known  habitat  requirements  and  availability  of  suitable  habitat  within  the  study  area.  This 
evaluation concluded that there was a negligible to low likelihood of any threatened flora species occurring 
within the study area due to: 
1. Absence of required abiotic habitat features  
2. High levels of disturbance 
3. Absence of associated vegetation communities or flora species 
4. Lack of detection of conspicuous species during surveys 
The full evaluation of all threatened species with potential to occur is provided in Appendix C. 
Endangered Ecological Communities 
Two EECs listed under the NSW TSC Act occur within the study area: 

 Tableland Basalt Forest in the Sydney Basin and South Eastern Highlands Bioregions 
 Tablelands Snow Gum, Black Sallee, Candlebark and Ribbon Gum Grassy Woodland in the 
South Eastern Highlands, Sydney Basin, South East Corner and NSW South Western Slopes 
Bioregions  
Within the site,  both  of these  communities  are  largely  cleared and highly  disturbed  and  predominately 
occur as low diversity derived grasslands. However, they are still considered to meet the definitions of the 
EECs.  

Non‐native vegetation types 
The central section of the study area has been tilled and planted to exotic pasture species (Figure 5‐5). 
These areas are not considered to comprise native vegetation and were not investigated in detail. Several 
wind breaks are also present within the study area that are comprised of planted exotic pine trees. Some 
native revegetation (in linear fenced areas) is also being undertaken at the site. 

Disturbance and weeds 
The study area has been subject to extensive clearing to facilitate grazing of sheep and cattle. The grazing 
pressures appear to be high given the general absence of native forb species across the study area and are 
likely to have reduced or eliminated selectively grazed or grazing sensitive species, such as Kangaroo Grass, 
terrestrial orchids, wattles and pea shrubs. 
The agricultural activities within the site and the locality have also resulted in the colonisation of a range 
of introduced  plant  species  including minor  pasture weed  species  which  were  observed  to  be  common 
across the majority of the study area. 
Three species of weeds listed as noxious within the Upper Lachlan Shire Council Local Government Area 
under the NSW Noxious Weeds Act 1993 were recorded within the study area, including Serrated Tussock 
(Nassella trichotoma), Blackberry (Rubus fruticosus aggregate species) and Sweet Briar (*Rosa rubiginosa). 

6385 Final v2  54   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Fauna and fauna habitats 

Fauna species recorded 
46 fauna species were recorded during the field survey including: 

 8 amphibians 
 27 birds 
 7 mammals (including one monotreme) 
 4 reptiles 
The species records include native and non‐native species.  
Exotic  and  pest  species  such  as  the  European  Hare  (Lepus  europaeus),  European  Rabbit  (Oryctolagus 
cuniculus) and European Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) are likely to be common across the landscape.  Flocks of 
European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) were also regularly observed across the cleared open parts of the site. 

Fauna habitats 
Fauna habitats within the site include both terrestrial and aquatic habitats.  The terrestrial habitats include 
remnant woodland and hollow‐bearing trees, as well as open grasslands and rocky outcrops.  The aquatic 
habitats are provided by the farm dams, and the semi‐permanent creek line to the east (outside of the 
development envelope). 
In general, terrestrial fauna habitat quality within the site is considered to be low to moderate.  This is 
because of the largely cleared and regularly grazed nature of the site, resulting in minimal areas of remnant 
woodland or forest vegetation, few mature hollow‐bearing trees, with those available occurring primarily 
as isolated paddock trees, minimal grassland structure, and very little in the way of fallen timber or rocky 
outcrops of any notable value as fauna habitat.   
A total of 30 hollow‐bearing trees were recorded in the study area, although not all of these are subject to 
removal in the study area. Consideration of removal of some hollow bearing trees is covered below.   
Grassland habitat  quality within  the  site  was  considered  to  be  in  a  poor  condition  overall, having  been 
extensively modified and heavily grazed, including areas of pasture improvement in the eastern parts of 
the  site.    The  grassland  areas  have  therefore  been  kept  quite  short  in  recent  times,  and  there  is  little 
structural complexity to these areas, including in areas of native grassland, such as inter‐tussock spaces, 
that normally provide habitat potential for grassland fauna species, including threatened grassland species 
such as the Striped Legless Lizard (Delma impar) and the Golden Sun Moth (Synemon plana). 
The rocky outcrops  appeared  to  be  largely  derived  from  the  collection  of smaller buried  rocks  exposed 
during pasture improvement practices, and collected into small piles, but situated within a broader area of 
short‐cropped and regularly grazed improved or modified pastures with little structural diversity.  Given 
the condition of the surrounding grasslands as described above, it is considered unlikely that these areas 
would support threatened reptile species such as the Striped Legless Lizard or the Pink‐tailed Worm Lizard 
(Aprasia parapulchella).  
Fallen  timber  was  observed  at  a  number  of  locations  within  the  site,  however  only  two  areas  of  fallen 
timber located at the base of existing paddock trees were observed within the development envelope, and 
within areas of grazed short‐cropped grasslands.  These particular places of fallen timber consisted mainly 
of some fallen branches (no entire fallen trees were observed), with very few occurrences of large hollowed 
branch  sections.    These  areas  are  therefore  unlikely  to  be  suitable  for  native  ground‐dwelling  mammal 
species, but may support some common reptile species (such as skinks and snakes), as well as being areas 

6385 Final v2  55   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

utilised by birds for diurnal shelter and foraging for insects.  More extensive areas of fallen timber were 
observed within the remnant woodland and forest patches outside of the development footprint. 
The aquatic habitats within the development site are limited primarily to artificial farm dams with minimal 
aquatic vegetation cover, as well as a short section of the creek running across the southern portion of the 
site where the cable routes will pass through.  Seven species of frog were recorded from these dams and 
surrounding habitats, and it is likely that these areas (particularly the dams) would also be used by turtles.  
No evidence of any threatened amphibians or fish were recorded, and given the locality and prevailing 
conditions in and around these aquatic habitats, it is considered highly unlikely that any threatened aquatic 
fauna (such as the Green and Golden Bell Frog or threatened fish species) would occur within these habitat 
areas. 

Listed threatened fauna species 
Of the species recorded at the site, none are listed as threatened under either the TSC Act or the EPBC Act. 
The site is not considered to provide important habitat for any listed fauna species. The full evaluation of 
all threatened species with potential to occur is provided in Appendix C. 

Critical habitat 
The study area does not contain any areas that have been declared as critical habitat under either the TSC 
Act or EPBC Act. 
Fauna survey effort and results are mapped below. 

6385 Final v2  56   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

R Gullen Range Wind Farm turbines

!
16 Gullen Range Wind Farm boundary
15
(Pomeroy precinct)
14
Existing Gullen Range Wind Farm
13
Substation
12
10 Gullen Solar Farm site boundary
15 16 9 11
14 8 Development Envelope (including
13
12 10 access tracks and cabling to Storriers
11
9 8 Lane and south to substation) of
approx. 64Ha
Crown Road access to solar farm
Indicative access and cabling options to substation
17
Cabling and access option 1
19 Cabling and access option 2
*18
# 20 21 Fauna effort
22
*
# ) Tile survey
"
30
23 * Stagwatching
#
)
" 24 25 26
@
29 28 Fauna results
7 g
h
27
)
" g Nest
h
6
Hollow-bearing tree
2 53 Rocky outcrops
4
1
POM_01
R
!

POM_02
R
! POM_05 0 100 200 400 Metres
R
!

POM_03
R
!
POM_04

Notes:
Indicative layout and subject to change Ref: 6385 Fauna v3
Author: JB °
R
!
- Data collelcted by NGH Environmental (2015)
- Aerial imagery copyright Google Earth 2015
- Layout layers provided by Goldwind www.nghenvironm en tal. com .au  
Figure 5‐6 Fauna survey effort and results 

6385 Final v2  57   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

5.3.3 Potential impacts 
The  proposal  would  involve  the  construction,  operation  and  eventual  decommissioning  of  PV 
infrastructure,  access  tracks,  a  site  maintenance  building  and  perimeter  fencing.  Potential  biodiversity 
impacts are detailed in the table below. 
Table 5‐12 Potential impacts of the proposed solar plant 
   Construction and decommissioning Operation phase 
Vegetation and   Clearing and disturbance during   Microclimate impacts under the PV 
flora  construction and installation of the  array (shading, temperature, humidity).
array and associated infrastructure.    Weed growth and spread. 
 Risk of noxious and environmental 
weed introduction and spread. 
Fauna   Clearing of habitat for construction and   Loss of or alteration to grassland 
installation of the solar plant and  habitat for macropods, birds, reptiles 
associated infrastructure (such as tree  and insects due to shading, changed 
food sources, tree hollows, rock  microclimate and reduced productivity.
habitats). Includes loss of habitat   Movement barrier and collision hazard 
connectivity and nest sites.  created by perimeter fencing. 
 Potential entrapment of fauna from   Habitat avoidance due to presence of 
trenching.  infrastructure. 
 Disturbance to local fauna from noise,   Vehicle collision risks to fauna. 
light and vibration. 
 Vehicle collision risks to fauna. 
 
The impact assessment considers all access and cabling options under consideration. An upper limit impact 
areas has been estimated using the entire solar array envelope and the longer access and cabling route 
options. 
Table 5‐13 Estimated impact areas of each proposal component 
BG  Brittle Gum ‐ Inland Scribbly Gum dry forest    BGG  Brittle Gum dry forest derived grassland 
RG  Ribbon Gum ‐ Narrow‐leaved Peppermint Forest  RGG  Ribbon Gum forest derived grassland 
SG  Snow Gum ‐ Candlebark woodland      E  Exotic pasture 
PN  Planted native shelter belt       PE  Planted exotic shelter belt 
Infrastructure  Option  BG  BGG  RG  RGG  SG  E  PN  PE 
component 

Cabling and access to  1  0.07  0.76  0.00  0.13  0.00  0.09  0.00  0.00 

existing substation 
Cabling and access to  2  0.10  0.76  0.00  0.05  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00 
existing substation 
Northern access  ‐  0.00  0.00  0.01  0.28  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00 
Solar array  NA  0.50  30.79  0.00  8.17  0.80  7.07  0.55  0.90 
Upper  Impact  total     0.57  31.55  0.01  8.58  0.80  7.16  0.55  0.90 
(hectares) 
 

6385 Final v2  58   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Construction Impacts 
Key  impacts  are  discussed  below.  Additional  detail  and  issues  are  provided  within  the  specialist 
assessment, provided in full in Appendix C. 

Loss of native vegetation  
Considering all native vegetation under the solar array area (shown in the development envelope mapping 
Figure 2‐3) would be lost, and the longest access and cabling routes are selected (under Option 1), the 
proposal  will  result  in  the  removal  of  50.12  hectares  of  vegetation,  which  includes  approximately  42 
hectares of native vegetation. The majority of this vegetation (approximately 40 hectares) is comprised of 
highly modified low diversity derived grasslands of low habitat value.  
This is an overestimate. It is noted that the final infrastructure layout is expected to be approximately 25 – 
30  hectares  in  total  area;  specifically,  the  solar  array  would  not  occupy  the  entire  area  shown  in  the 
development envelope. Further, it is unlikely that all of the native groundcover vegetation under the array 
will be removed or modified.  

Impacts to Endangered Ecological Communities 
Tableland Basalt Forest in the Sydney Basin and South Eastern Highlands Bioregions 
Considering the upper limit scenario, up to 8.59 hectares of this community could be impacted by 
the  proposal  of  which  8.58  hectares  is  comprised  of  highly  disturbed  low  diversity  derived 
grassland.  Impact  calculations  based  on  GIS  mapping  identified  that  up  to  0.01  hectares  of 
overstorey vegetation may be impacted for the northern access however, in reality the proposal 
is  unlikely  to  require  the  removal  of  these  trees.  Tracks  would  be  able  to  be  aligned  to  avoid 
existing  trees  and  impacts  would  be  limited  to  the  trimming  of  the  canopy,  if  required,  for 
maintaining clearances. 
An assessment of significance was undertaken for this community concluded that the proposal is 
unlikely to result in a significant impact to this community. 
Tablelands Snow Gum, Black Sallee, Candlebark and Ribbon Gum Grassy Woodland in the South Eastern 
Highlands, Sydney Basin, South East Corner and NSW South Western Slopes Bioregions 
Considering  the  upper  limit  scenario,  two  trees  and  up  to  0.8  hectares  of  highly  disturbed  low 
diversity  derived  grassland  that  meets  the  definition  of  the  EEC  would  be  impacted  by  the 
proposal. As discussed above, not all of the upper limit area assessed is likely to be impacted by 
the proposal, and at the time of the surveys it was advised by the proponent that this vegetation 
would be unlikely to be impacted as the land on which this community occurred began to slope 
down towards Sawpit Creek which was unfavourable for the installation of solar panels. 
An assessment of significance was undertaken for this community concluded that the impacts of 
the proposal on this EEC are unlikely to be significant. 

Loss of habitat 
Loss of hollow‐bearing trees 
A  total  of  30  hollow‐bearing  trees  were  recorded  within  the  study  area,  of  which  seven  were 
recorded within development envelope and are considered likely to be removed, whilst a further 
16 were recorded in or near the access tracks and cabling routes and may be subject to removal 
(dependant on final detailed design).  The majority of the trees proposed to be removed occur as 

6385 Final v2  59   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

isolated  paddock  trees,  or  in  small  clumps  of  retained  trees,  not  contiguous  with  other  forest 
patches, and with little surrounding vegetation cover or structure.  
Given  the  lack  of  any  observed  usage  by  threatened  fauna  and  a  greater  abundance  of  these 
resources to be retained within the remnant forests surrounding the site, as well as the mobile 
nature of most hollow‐dependant fauna species, the impacts of the removal of these trees is not 
expected to be high or otherwise unacceptable from a biodiversity conservation perspective.   
Loss of shelter sites for ground dwelling fauna  
The site supports very little in the way of good quality habitat for ground dwelling fauna, such as 
rocky outcrops and fallen logs.  The rocky areas within the site consist of relatively small rocks that 
have been excavated/exposed during the pasture improvement practices and collected together 
into  small  piles.    Some  common  reptile  species  are  likely  to  utilise  these  including  skinks  and 
snakes.  Given the lack of any records of rare or threatened species using these habitat features, 
and the abundance of these resources in the adjacent remnant woodland areas, the removal of 
these habitat features is not considered likely to result in any substantial impacts to important 
ecological processes or threatened fauna. 
Loss of tree food sources 
No important food tree resources (such as primary Koala food trees or Glossy Black Cockatoo feed 
trees) were recorded within the development footprint.  Additionally, the site supports very few 
flowering trees or shrubs that might otherwise provide an important nectar resource for other 
animals  such  as  woodland  birds.  The  proposed  development  is  not  expected  to  result  in  any 
impacts with regard to loss of food tree resources. 
Loss of habitat connectivity  
The  main  movement  corridors  in  the  area  are  associated  with  the  remnant  woodland  area 
bordering the site to the south, as well as to the north‐east of the site.  These areas would not be 
impacted by the development.  

Direct Impacts to fauna 
During the construction phase, and particularly, during open trenching activities, it is possible that some 
fauna may become trapped within trenches, pits or other enclosed areas. Disturbance to local fauna may 
occur during the construction activities, including nesting fauna within trees, as well as ground dwelling 
fauna occupying rock piles or fallen logs.  During the construction (and operational) phase, there will be an 
increase  in  the  volume  of  traffic  using  the  local  roads,  including  the  farming  access  tracks.    Mitigation 
strategies have been developed for these impacts. 

Operational impacts 

Alteration to microclimate and erosion potential under the array 
Vegetation  and  ground  habitats  would  likely  be  affected  by  reduced  insolation  and  temperature  and 
increased humidity underneath the solar modules.  Wind speeds may also be reduced.  
Pasture grasses at the proposed solar array site comprise two physiological groups; cool season C3 grasses 
and warm season C4 grasses. C4 grasses require more sunlight to drive photosynthesis than C3 grasses and 
are likely to decline or disappear from under the array. 

6385 Final v2  60   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

In the grazed paddocks, existing native and exotic pasture across the site is likely to decline initially due to 
shading following PV array installation. A reduction in cover may lead to bare ground and susceptibility of 
the  soil  to  erosion.  The  selection  of  a  more  suitable  shade  tolerant  pasture  species  for  planting  would 
address this issue, if bare areas develop.  
Soil  underneath  the  PV  modules  would  likely  receive  less  rainfall  than  surrounding  soil,  although 
evapotranspiration  losses  would  also  be  lower  due  to  shading  and  reduced  air  movement.  Lateral 
movement of surface and subsurface water from adjacent rain‐exposed areas would be likely to occur. As 
such,  the  net  amount  of  moisture  available  to  vegetation  under  the  PV  modules  should  not  be  highly 
altered. 

5.3.4 Environmental safeguards 

Pre‐construction 
 Complete final targeted surveys (reptile tile survey checks and Golden Sun Moth traverses). 
If either of these species are detected, further assessment and development of mitigation 
strategies would be undertaken in consultation with OEH. 

Construction  
 Vegetation  clearing  and  disturbance  will  be  minimised  to  the  extent  required  to  complete  the 
works. In particular, works are to avoid impacts to mature eucalypts wherever possible. Wherever 
practicable, excavations and vehicle/machinery movements will occur outside the canopy dripline 
of large eucalypts, and avoid impacts within the adjacent woodland patches that are to be retained 
to the south of the development site.  Tree protection standards should comply with Australian 
standard AS4970‐2009 Protection of trees on development sites (Standards Australia, 2009). 
 Existing areas of disturbance will be preferentially used for vehicle and machinery access, materials 
laydown,  stockpiling  of  cleared  vegetation  and  the  deposition  and  retrieval  of  spoil  whenever 
practicable.  
 Areas  disturbed  by  the  construction  phase  would  be  stabilised  and  rehabilitated  progressively 
during works. Seeding and replanting would be with species appropriate to the areas of impact; 
native in native‐dominated areas.  
 Works will be avoided during, and immediately following heavy rainfall events to protect soils and 
vegetation at the site from compaction, where practical. 
 A  weed  management  plan  would  be  developed  for  the  site  including  but  not  limited  to  the 
following outcomes; 
o The control of noxious weeds recorded on the site 
o Preventative measures for the spread or introduction of weeds. 
o Monitoring of control and preventative measures and ongoing adaptive management to 
suppress weeds 
o Laydown sites for excavated spoil, equipment and construction materials would be weed‐
free or treated for weeds prior to use;  
o Sediment  control  materials  would  be  weed  free  such  as  weed  free  hay  bales  or 
geotextiles; and  
o Imported materials such as sand and gravel would be sourced from sites which do not 
show evidence of noxious weeds or Phytophthora infection. 

6385 Final v2  61   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

 The space between the solar panel rows would be adequate to allow a small vehicle (such as an 
ATV) to access the site for ongoing weed control and pasture renovation if required.  
 Aquatic  habitat  to  be  retained  will  be  protected  by  installation  and  monitoring  of  site  specific 
sediment erosion controls in accordance with Landcom 2004. 
 Any  aquatic  habitats  to  be  removed  (i.e.  draining  and  in‐filling  of  farm  dams)  would  include  a 
protocol  for  inspection  of  the  dams  by  an  ecologist  immediately  after  draining  to  capture  and 
relocate any stranded aquatic fauna (such as frogs and turtles). 
 Any  hollow‐bearing  trees  to  be  removed  would  be  removed  in  accordance  with  a  tree  felling 
protocol, to minimise impacts to resident fauna.  
 All  hollows  removed  would  be  offset;  one  nest  box  per  hollow,  specific  to  the  type  of  hollow 
removed.  Monitoring  would  verify  the  hollows  remain  intact  for  a  period  of  two  years  post 
installation.  
 Rock  and  log  habitat  removed  during  the  construction  phase  will  be  relocated  to  immediately 
adjacent sites, outside of the development footprint, to retain habitat values in the area. 
 Construction materials should not be stockpiled on site for extended periods of time as local fauna 
may take up residence and be injured when the materials are moved.  
 Trenches  should  be  backfilled  as  soon  as  possible  to  minimise  the  chance  of  fauna  becoming 
trapped. 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 (dependent on the size of trench needed). 
 Vehicles would be speed limited onsite, to reduce risk of collision with fauna. 

Operational  
 A Groundcover Management Plan would be developed that would include regular monitoring of 
vegetation cover and composition and allow for adaptive management. The aim of the plan is to 
retain vegetation cover under the panels, to resist erosion and weed infestation. The plan would 
include as a minimum: 
o A monitoring protocol to routinely assess vegetation cover and composition to allow 
for adaptive management 
o Suitable grazing strategies to promote native perennial groundcover 
o Measures  for  the  establishment  of  a  shade  tolerant  native  groundcover  where 
necessary  to  address  the  potential  for  soil  erosion  and  weed  ingress.  Provision  for 
advice from an agronomist (or other suitably qualified person) in relation to preferred 
species/varieties,  establishment  methods  of  alternative  pastures  and  best  practice 
management would be included. Onsite trials would be considered if information is 
lacking. 
 Vehicles would be speed limited onsite, to reduce risk of collision with fauna. 
 Weed monitoring and treatment would continue, to suppress noxious weeds onsite. 

Decommissioning  
 A flora and fauna management plan would be prepared to manage removal of infrastructure from 
the site and rehabilitation of areas disturbed during decommissioning. 
 

6385 Final v2  62   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Note: Offsetting is not mandatory for the Project, although offsetting of hollows to be removed is included 
above. This will serve to replace or offset the impacts associated with the loss of hollow‐bearing resources 
within the site, as well as act as incentive to micro site infrastructure to avoid hollow bearing trees where 
possible. 

5.4 ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGY 
A specialist Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment (ACHA) was undertaken to investigate the potential 
Aboriginal heritage impacts of the Gullen Solar Farm Project. The full report is provided in Appendix C and 
is summarised below. 

5.4.1 Approach 
The  ACHA  sought  to  identify  and  record  Aboriginal  cultural  areas,  objects  or  places,  to  assess  the 
archaeological potential of the proposal site, and to formulate management recommendations based on 
the  results  of  Aboriginal  community  consultation,  background  research,  field  survey  and  significance 
assessment.  
The  ACHA  was  conducted  in  accordance  with  the  NSW  OEH’s  Guide  to  investigating,  assessing  and 
reporting on Aboriginal cultural heritage in NSW (OEH 2011) and the Code of Practice for Archaeological 
Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW 2010).  
Aboriginal  community  consultation  undertaken  as  part  of  the  ACHA  has  been conducted  in  accordance 
with  the  guidelines  set  in  the  Draft  Guidelines  for  Aboriginal  Cultural  Heritage  Impact  Assessment  and 
Community Consultation (DEC 2005) and OEH’s Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for 
Proponents 2010 (DECCW 2010).

5.4.2 Existing environment 

Background 
Human occupation of south east NSW dates from at least 20,000 years ago. The Bulee Brook 2 site in the 
south coast hinterland ranges, excavated by Boot (1994), provides evidence that occupation of this zone 
had occurred by at least 18,000 years ago. Pleistocene occupation sites are however few with the majority 
of recorded sites dating from the mid to late Holocene. It is nevertheless reasonable to assume that the 
Goulburn/Crookwell  area  was  occupied  and  utilised  by  Aboriginal  people  from  the  late  Pleistocene 
onwards. 
Tindale (1974)  determined that  the  area of present‐day  Goulburn  was  situated  at  the  boundary  of two 
tribes  –  the  Gandangara  to  the  north  and  the  Ngunawal  to  the  south.  Tribal  boundaries  are  derived 
principally from linguistic evidence and a virtually identical correspondence in word lists recorded from 
both the Ngunawal and Gandangara languages has been observed (Eades 1976:6). Because of this there 
remains conjecture as to which of these two groups actually occupied the region in which the study area is 
situated at the time of European settlement. The paucity of reliable ethno‐historic sources for this early 
period of European settlement also means that an estimate of the pre‐European Aboriginal population of 
the district cannot confidently be established. 

6385 Final v2  63   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Database searches 
A search of the NSW OEH Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) was conducted 
on  27  September  2015  (AHIMS  Reference:  192262)  for  a  30km2  area  encompassing  the  area  between 
eastings 723000‐ 729000 and northings 6164000‐6169000. Eighteen Aboriginal object sites are listed for 
the search area, all of which were recorded during the 2007 survey of the Gullen Range Wind Farm.  
Searches  have  also  been  conducted  of  the  NSW  State  Heritage  Inventory  and  the  Australian  Heritage 
database. No Aboriginal heritage sites for the area are listed in either database. 

Field survey  
Jackie Taylor (representing NSW OEH), conducted an inspection of the subject area on 27 February 2015 
at which eight stone artefact sites were recorded. These sites have all been re‐located during the current 
assessment. 
A cultural heritage and archaeological survey for Aboriginal areas, objects and places was conducted over 
two days in September 2015 by archaeologists Julie Dibden, NSW Archaeology Pty Ltd. Glen Freeman from 
Koomurri Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation and Gulgunya Ngunawal Heritage Aboriginal Consultancy was 
also involved in the field survey. During the cultural heritage and archaeological survey, 21 stone artefact 
locales were recorded in the vicinity of the proposal site, five were identified as moderate density and 16 
were  identified  as  very  low  density  (refer  to  Figure  5‐7).  No  trees  with  scars  were  recorded.    The 
archaeological significance of the locales is outlined in Table 5‐14.   
Table 5‐14 Archaeological significance of Aboriginal object locales in the subject area 

Survey  Description  Significance  Criteria 

unit  
GSF1  4  stone  artefacts  in  bare  Low  local  scientific  Common site type  
earth  exposures  on  a  significance.   Low educational value  
gentle, north facing simple   
Low aesthetic value  
slope in SU2  
Low research potential: disturbed; 
 
predicted very low density.  
GSF2  8  stone  artefacts  in  sheet  Low  local  scientific  Common site type  
erosion  on  a  basal  simple  significance.   Low educational value  
slope in SU3   However,  small  terrace  Low aesthetic value  
  east of the site may be of 
Low research potential: disturbed; 
some  higher 
predicted very low density.  
archaeological value  
GSF 3  3  stone  artefacts  over  a  Low  local  scientific  Common site type  
large  area  measuring  significance.   Low educational value  
approximately 40 x 40m in   
Low aesthetic value  
SU5  
Low research potential: disturbed; 
 
predicted very low density.  
GSF 4   2  stone  artefacts  in  an  Low  local  scientific  Common site type  
erosion scour in SU5  significance.   Low educational value  
  Low aesthetic value  
Low research potential: disturbed; 
predicted very low density. 

6385 Final v2  64   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Survey  Description  Significance  Criteria 

unit  
GSF 5  8 stone artefacts in an area  Low  local  scientific  Common site type  
measuring 50 x 20m in SU5  significance.   Low educational value  
  However,  the  hatchet  Low aesthetic value  
head  is  of  some 
Low research potential: disturbed; 
individual value.  
predicted very low density.  
GSF 6   4 stone artefacts in an area  Low  local  scientific  Common site type  
measuring 50 x 20m in SU5  significance.   Low educational value  
    Low aesthetic value  
Low research potential: disturbed; 
predicted very low density.  
GSF 7  1  broken  ground  edged  Low  local  scientific  Common site type  
hatchet head in SU5   significance.   Low educational value  
  However,  the  hatchet  Low aesthetic value  
head  is  of  some 
Low research potential: disturbed; 
individual value.  
predicted very low density.  
GSF 8  1  stone  artefact  on  the  Low  local  scientific  Rare site type  
edge of a farm road in SU5   significance.   Low educational value  
    Low research potential: disturbed; 
predicted very low density.  
GSF 9  1  stone  artefact  in  a  Low  local  scientific  Rare site type  
cultivated paddock in SU5   significance.   Low educational value  
    Low research potential: disturbed; 
predicted very low density.  
GSF 10  1  stone  artefact  at  the  Low  local  scientific  Common site type  
edge of a paddock outside  significance.   Low educational value  
development area     Low aesthetic value  
 
Low research potential: disturbed; 
predicted very low density.  
GSF 11  12  stone  artefacts  at  the  Low  local  scientific  Common site type  
edge  of  a  the  tree  line  in  significance.   Low educational value  
SU2     Low aesthetic value  
 
Low research potential: disturbed; 
predicted very low density.  
GSF 12  12 stone artefacts (a single  Low  local  scientific  Common site type  
knapping  event)  in  an  significance.   Low educational value  
erosion scour in SU5     Low aesthetic value  
 
Low research potential: disturbed; 
predicted very low density.  
GSF 13  1  stone  artefact  in  a  Low  local  scientific  Common site type  
cultivated paddock in SU5   significance.   Low educational value  
    Low aesthetic value  
Low research potential: disturbed; 
predicted very low density 

6385 Final v2  65   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Survey  Description  Significance  Criteria 

unit  
GSF 14  A  Sensitive  Archaeological  Potentially  moderate  Common  site  type,  however 
Landform  and  Stone  local significance.   Stone  Procurement  Area  is 
Procurement Area = SU7     relatively uncommon  
  Low educational value  
Low aesthetic value  
Moderate  research  potential: 
relatively  undisturbed;  predicted 
moderate density.  
GSF 15  3 stone artefacts in an area  Low  local  scientific  Common site type  
of bare earth measuring 5 x  significance.   Low educational value  
5m in SU5     Low aesthetic value  
 
Low research potential: disturbed; 
predicted very low density.  
GSF 16  A Stone Procurement Area  Potentially  moderate  Rare site type  
with artefacts in SU5   local significance   Low educational value  
    Low aesthetic value  
Moderate  research  potential: 
relatively  undisturbed;  predicted 
moderate density.  
GSF 17  1  stone  artefact  in  a  Low  local  scientific  Common site type  
paddock in SU6   significance.   Low educational value  
    Low aesthetic value  
Low research potential: disturbed; 
predicted very low density.  
GSF 18  1  stone  artefact  in  a  Low  local  scientific  Common site type  
paddock in SU5   significance.   Low educational value  
    Low aesthetic value  
Low research potential: disturbed; 
predicted very low density.  
GSF 19  1  stone  artefact  in  a  Low  local  scientific  Common site type  
paddock in SU5   significance.   Low educational value  
    Low aesthetic value  
Low research potential: disturbed; 
predicted very low density.  
GSF 20  5 stone artefacts on a track  Low  local  scientific  Common site type  
in SU5   significance.   Low educational value  
    Low aesthetic value  
Low research potential: disturbed; 
predicted very low density.  
GSF 21  1  stone  artefact  adjacent  Low  local  scientific  Common site type  
to a track in SU5   significance.   Low educational value  
    Low aesthetic value  
Low research potential: disturbed; 
predicted very low density.  

6385 Final v2  66   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

5.4.3 Potential impacts 

Construction 
Impacts  will  be  located  on  land  currently  utilised  for  stock  grazing.  Previous  land  use  has  resulted  in  a 
generally  degraded  landscape.  European  activated  geomorphological  processes  and  other  natural 
processes associated with land degradation will have caused significant prior impacts to Aboriginal objects 
within the proposal area.  
Irrespective of prior impacts, the proposed works entail ground disturbance and accordingly the Project 
has the potential to cause additional impacts to any Aboriginal objects which may be present within the 
individual components of the proposal. The nature of impacts relating to each Aboriginal object locale is 
set out in Table 5‐15.  Figure 5‐7 illustrates the proposal site in relation to the identified Aboriginal object 
locales.  
Table 5‐15  Aboriginal object locales by survey unit within the proposal area 

Survey  Aboriginal  object  Type of harm  Degree of harm  Consequence of harm 

unit   locales 
SU1  Nil  known  Aboriginal  Direct  Partial   Partial loss of value 
  objects  Impacts  will  be  small 
and discrete 
SU2  GRSF1  Direct  Partial   Partial loss of value 
  GRSF 11  Impacts  will  be  small 
and discrete 
SU3  GRSF2  Direct  Partial   Partial loss of value 
Impacts  will  be  small 
and discrete 
SU4  Nil  known  Aboriginal  Direct  Partial   Partial loss of value 
objects  Impacts  will  be  small 
and discrete 
SU5  GRSF 3  Direct  Partial   Partial loss of value 
GRSF 4   Impacts  will  be  small 
GRSF 5  and discrete 
GRSF 6   In some cases sites will 
be avoided but there is 
GRSF 7 
no imperative to do so 
GRSF 8  with  the  exception  of 
GRSF 9  GSF16, if at all possible. 
GRSF 10   
GRSF 12 
GRSF 13 
GRSF 15 
GRSF 16 
GRSF 18 
GRSF 19 
GRSF 20 
GRSF 21 
SU6  GRSF 17  Direct  Partial   Partial loss of value 

6385 Final v2  67   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Survey  Aboriginal  object  Type of harm  Degree of harm  Consequence of harm 

unit   locales 
Impacts  will  be  small 
and discrete 
SU7  GRSF 14  Direct  Partial   Partial loss of value 
Impacts  will  be  small 
and discrete.  
It  is  however, 
recommended  that  no 
impacts  occur  in  this 
Survey  Unit,  if  at  all 
possible.  
 

Operation 
During operation, it is unlikely the Project would impact on Aboriginal archaeology.  
 

6385 Final v2  68   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

 
Figure 5‐7 Location of Aboriginal locales within the development envelope. 

5.4.4 Environmental safeguards 
The ACHA Report proposes the following management and mitigation strategies. Most are relevant to the 
pre‐construction stage of the Project and focus on avoidance of impacts.  

6385 Final v2  69   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

 A management strategy of active conservation to be implemented in regard to GRSF 14, 
GRSF 16 and the terrace east of GRSF 2 as a form of impact mitigation to off‐set overall 
development  impacts.  If  conservation  is  not  feasible,  salvage  excavation  should  be 
undertaken in order to mitigate development impacts. Salvage excavation would occur after 
Development Consent (and an AHIP) is granted and prior to construction.  
 A  Cultural  Heritage  Management  Plan  would  be  developed  for  the  appropriate 
management  and  mitigation  of  development  impacts  during  any  further  planning  and 
Project construction. The development of an appropriate Cultural Heritage Management 
Plan should be undertaken by the Project archaeologist in consultation with the proponent, 
registered  Aboriginal  parties  and  the  NSW  Office  of  Environment  and  Heritage.  It  would 
include an unexpected finds protocol. 
 The Cultural Heritage Management Plan would be prepared to guide the process for the 
management  and  mitigation  of  impacts  to  Aboriginal  cultural  heritage  and  to  set  out 
procedures relating to the conduct of additional archaeological assessment, if required, and 
the management of any further Aboriginal cultural heritage values which may be identified.  
 Personnel involved in the construction phase of the Project would be trained in procedures 
to implement recommendations relating to cultural heritage, as necessary.  
 Cultural heritage would be included within any environmental audit of impacts proposed to 
be undertaken during the construction phase of the development.  
 No construction works would take place until an AHIP is obtained from the NSW OEH.  

5.5 TRAFFIC, TRANSPORT AND ROAD SAFETY 
This chapter of the assessment was prepared by Rodger Ubrihien, Road Design Consultant. Mr. Ubrihien 
also authored the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the Gullen Range Wind Farm (Bega Duo Designs 2008). 
As the Project site is located immediately north of the Pomeroy Precinct of the Gullen Range Wind Farm, 
reference was made during this assessment to the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the Gullen Range Wind 
Farm (Bega Duo Designs 2008), taking into account differences between traffic requirements for the two 
Projects.  Traffic  impacts  observed  and  road  improvements  carried  out  during  the  recent  wind  farm 
construction were also considered. 

5.5.1 Existing environment 
The Project site is serviced by roads from Goulburn and Crookwell via several alternative routes. The key 
routes are discussed below and shown in Figure 5‐8, either of which could be used for haulage traffic. 

6385 Final v2  70   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

CROOKW ELL

Crookwell and Kialla Road route

Range Road route

ad
Gullen Solar Farm site

Kialla Ro
!
R
R
! R Gullen Range Wind Farm turbines
!
!!
R
R!
!
R
!
RR
R
!
R
!
Gullen Range Wind Farm boundary
GRA BBEN GULLEN R
!
!!
R R!
! R
RR !
! R R
!
R
!
R!
! R!
R
R
!
R
!
R!
!
R
!
R!
! R
RR
R!
!! R
!
R

Bannister Cr
Lane oo
kw
el l
!
R
R
! Ro
R!
R!
! R ad
R
!R
!
RR!
! R
!
R
R!
! R!
R!
! R
!
R!
R!
R
R!
! R!
R
R!
!R

R
!R
!
R!
!
R
! R
R
! R an
!
R R
! ge
R !
! R
Ro a
R
!R!
!RR
! d Notes:
R
!R
! - Aerial imagery coutesy of Goldwind
R
!
R
! - Layout layers provided by Goldwind
- Transport layers sourced from ESRI

0 2 4 8 Kilometres

GOULBURN
Ref: 6385 5-3 v1
Author: JB °
www.nghenvironm en tal.com .au  
Figure 5‐8 Transport routes 

6385 Final v2  71   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Crookwell and Kialla Road route 
The preferred route for the passage of heavy vehicles from Goulburn to the Pomeroy Precinct during wind 
farm construction was via Crookwell Road, Kialla Road, and short sections of Range Road, Banister Lane 
and Storriers Lane. Minor deviations from this route to provide safe passage for heavy and oversize vehicles 
were negotiated with transport authorities for the urban areas of Goulburn and Crookwell. 
The State controlled Crookwell Road (State Road 54), which junctions with the Hume Highway in Goulburn, 
is the major access route to the Crookwell area. This road has an annual average daily traffic volume of 
1940 vehicles per day (RMS, 2012). It is a sealed high standard two lane road with marked centreline and 
edge lines. The Road traverses 48.0km of rolling terrain from Goulburn and has several bridge crossings 
(Bumana  Ck  Bridge,  Sooley  Ck  Bridge,  Pejar  Dam  Bridge).  Crookwell  Road  forms  the  main  street  in 
Crookwell. 
The  initial  section  of  the  Kialla  Road  route  is  in  Colyer  Street  Crookwell  (Colyer  Street  junctions  with 
Crookwell  Road).  The  Kialla  Road  Route  is  bitumen  sealed  approximately  6.0m  wide,  travels  past  the 
hospital and through  residential Crookwell.  The  junction  with  Crookwell Road has  good  sight  lines.  The 
alignment and grading provide relatively safe conditions for most of the route except for some isolated 
curves at approximately 8.5km. Kialla Road is a school bus route and junctions with Range Road at 12.9km. 
Kialla Road forms part of the Bi‐Centennial Trail which is used by horse riding groups. The remainder of the 
Crookwell and Kialla Road route follows Range Road for 2.0km on a sealed pavement followed by 2.2km 
on mostly unsealed road on Bannister Lane and Storriers Lane up to the proposed entry gate. 
During wind farm  construction,  some  improvements have  been carried out  on  Kialla  Road and  the  two 
junctions with Range Road. The gravel pavement on Bannister and Storriers lane has been widened. 

Range Road route 
An alternative route from Goulburn to the proposed site is via Range Road. Range Road is a local access 
road which would normally cater for less than 100 vehicles per day. Range Road route commences from 
the Old Hume Highway in Goulburn and is referred to on some signposting as the Bannister Road.  
The timber Rossiville Bridge is at 4.2km and is single lane. A detour is available via Crookwell Road and 
Chinamans Lane which rejoins the route at 5.7km. There are several concrete bridges on the route at Dixons 
Creek  at  15.9km  and  Wollondilly  River  at  24.5km  and  concrete  causeway  crossings  at  7.1km  and 
14.1km.The route is bitumen sealed (generally 6.2m wide). 
Both major routes share approximately 2.2km of unsealed road on Bannister Lane and Storriers Lane up to 
the proposed entry gate. It is noted the Range Road route is gazetted for 19m B‐Doubles as far as Bannister 
Lane/Leahy Lane/Storriers Lane intersection. 
It is noted that in conjunction with local councils, the wind farm contractors have recently carried out road 
works on all of these routes to minimise traffic impacts.  

5.5.2 Potential impacts 

Construction 
For  the  proposed  Gullen  Solar  Farm,  key  traffic  and  transport  impacts  relate  to  haulage  and  employee 
transport during construction. Increased vehicle numbers can equate to increased traffic collision risk, road 
damage and indirect impacts such as noise and dust. 

6385 Final v2  72   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Many traffic issues identified in the original Traffic Impact Study completed in 2007 for the Gullen Range 
Wind Farm remain valid for the Gullen Solar Farm. However, the overall impacts would be less, as traffic 
volume  are  less  and  the  transport  of  the  major  components  will  be  by  standard  articulated  vehicles. 
Expected peak traffic volumes are six heavy vehicles and 23 cars per day. No over dimensional component 
loads are anticipated as part of the solar farm construction, which was required for the wind farm. Haulage 
of  construction  materials  will  also  occur  over  a  shorter  time  period.  The  solar  farm  construction  phase 
would be approximately 6 months in duration. 
Traffic generation 
Project‐specific vehicle numbers during construction are expected to comprise: 

 Articulated heavy vehicles to transport 12m shipping containers from a coastal port.  
 Concrete mixer trucks from Goulburn; anticipated to require 10‐15 concrete trucks in total. 
 Utilities to transport materials and equipment within the site and to pick up local materials. 
 Trucks to transport larger materials, equipment and machinery. 
 Buses  or  private  vehicles  primarily  from  Goulburn  to  transport  approximately  100 
construction personnel required onsite. 
Risks from increased traffic during construction 

 Increased collision risks (other vehicles, pedestrians, stock and wildlife). 
 Possible damage to local road infrastructure, beyond the normal usage.  
 Associated noise and dust (where traffic is on unsealed roads) may adversely affect nearby 
residents. 
 Disruption to existing services including school buses. 
Traffic impacts would largely be confined to standard hours of construction. Exceptions would occur as 
staff arrive and leave the site, before and after shifts; some of this traffic may occur outside the standard 
construction hours. Construction impacts are considered manageable and a Traffic Management Plan for 
the Project would be developed. 

Operation 
Vehicles would use the designated road network to access the site and travel within the site during the 
operational  phase  (25  year  period).  Activities  undertaken  during  the  operation  phase  would  include 
travelling to the site office or maintenance building and carrying out maintenance activities on the solar 
farm. Operational staff would be confined to designated parking areas and access roads/tracks within the 
site.  
During solar farm operations, it is expected 2‐3 workers on a weekly basis, would access the property to 
operate and maintain the solar farm. These are likely to be staff employed at the operational wind farm 
and therefore not require additional traffic numbers. Additionally, security personnel may also access the 
site. The anticipated volume of staff would result in a very minimal increase in traffic flow on local roads, if 
any. It is considered highly unlikely that operational traffic would obstruct public or private access. Risks to 
road safety from operational traffic would be very minimal and no additional safeguards are proposed. 

5.5.3 Environmental safeguards 
To  appropriately  manage  the  traffic,  transport  and  road  safety  issues  identified  above,  the  following 
measures are recommended: 

6385 Final v2  73   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Construction and decommissioning 
 Preparation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan to include: 
o Confirmation  of  the  haulage  route  in  consultation  with  local  roads  authorities.  It  is 
noted that planning for the wind farm construction established routes and preferred 
travel times within Goulburn and Crookwell town areas which are more suitable for 
the  passage  of  large  numbers  of  heavy  vehicles.  These  routes  and  times  should  be 
considered again in conjunction with the road authorities as preferred routes for all 
truck transport to the solar farm site.  
o In  terms  of  route  selection  for  heavy  vehicles,  it  is  recommended  that  traffic 
management planning should direct heavy vehicle traffic to the Crookwell Road / Kialla 
Road route in preference to the Range Road route. Range Road, because of its shorter 
distance  from  Goulburn  to  the  Pomeroy  site,  experienced  a  large  increase  in  traffic 
during wind farm construction.  
o Consideration of potential conflicts with school buses and mitigation measures where 
required. 
o Provision  for  carpooling  and/or  bus  transport  for  workers  from  Goulburn  and 
Crookwell to minimise the number of vehicles in the peak periods particularly on Range 
Road. 
o Provision  for  dust  suppression,  monitoring  of  pavement  condition  and  regular 
maintenance to reduce potholes and corrugations. Consideration would be given to 
bitumen  sealing  the  Storriers  Lane  route  (1.0km  of  Bannister  Lane  and  1.2km  of 
Storriers Lane) to minimise long term maintenance costs (this would have benefits for 
dust generation to nearby residents). 
Decommissioning traffic impacts would be addressed in a Decommissioning Environmental Management 
Plan.  

Operation 
No additional measures are considered to be warranted. 

5.6 HISTORIC HERITAGE 

5.6.1 Existing environment 
A  desktop  study  was  undertaken  to  identify  any  historic  heritage  (non‐Aboriginal)  items  or  places  in 
proximity to the study area, with a particular focus on the proposed works site (solar farm site). Several 
heritage databases were searched on 6 October 2015 as part of this assessment. These included: 

 The NSW State Heritage Inventory (includes items on the State Heritage Register and items listed 
by state agencies and local government) to identify any items currently listed within or adjacent 
to the Project site. The area searched was the Upper Lachlan LGA. 
 The Australian Heritage Database (includes items on the National and Commonwealth Heritage 
Lists) to identify any items that are currently listed within or adjacent to the Project site. 
 The heritage schedule of the Upper Lachlan LEP for locally listed heritage items that are within or 
adjacent to the Project site. This is the current LEP for the Project site. 
 

6385 Final v2  74   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

In Australia, there are heritage registers protecting places of heritage significance at the Commonwealth, 
State and  local levels.  The results  of the  heritage  searches  listed  above  indicate  that no known  historic 
items or places occur on the site. The results of the heritage searches are shown in Table 5‐16.  
Table 5‐16  Summary of total heritage listings in the Upper Lachlan LGA. 

Name of register  Number of 
listings 
World Heritage  1 
National Heritage List  1 
Commonwealth heritage List  0 
NSW State Heritage Register   5 
NSW State Agency Heritage Register (section 170)  16 
Upper Lachlan Local Environment Plan (LEP) 2010  170 

World heritage 
The southern tip of the Greater Blue Mountains Area falls within the Council area and was inscribed on the 
World Heritage List in December 2003.  
This section of the Blue Mountains is well outside of the study area. 

National heritage  
The southern tip of the Greater Blue Mountains Area falls within the Council area and was inscribed on the 
National Heritage List in May 2007.  
This section of the Blue Mountains is well outside of the study area. 

State heritage 
A search of the NSW SHR within the Upper Lachlan LGA indicated five listings within the register. These 
are; 
1. Catholic Church of Christ the King located on Macarthur Street, Taralga. 
2. Crookwell Railway Station and yard group, Goulburn‐Crookwell Railway, Crookwell. 
3. Gunning Railway Station and yard group, Main southern Railway, Gunning. 
4. The Ben Hall Sites – Bushranger Hotel, Collector. 
5. The Ben Hall Sites – collection, Forbes. 
None of the above items are located close to the study area and would not be impacted. 

Section 170 NSW State agency heritage registers 
A search of places listed by State Agencies under s.170 of the NSW Heritage Act 1977 identified 16 listed 
heritage items in the Council area. These items include courthouses, hospitals, bridges, railway stations 
and police stations.  
All of the items are located well outside of the study area and would not be impacted. 

6385 Final v2  75   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Local heritage 
The majority of local heritage items are within the towns and villages throughout the Council area. Some 
homesteads, shearing sheds, former inns, ruins, bridges, water supply infrastructure, culverts and caves 
are found within the more rural areas of the LGA, however none of these are within close proximity to the 
study area for the solar farm.  

5.6.2 Potential impacts 

Construction and decommissioning 
A number of heritage items were identified from the desktop study. The majority of these items are located 
within the townships and villages of the LGA, and located well outside of the study area. Whilst some items 
are listed within the rural areas of the LGA none of these are within or close to the study area. 
The construction works would not take place within close proximity to any heritage items, but the transport 
of heavy vehicles on roads passing near these items may subject the sites to increased levels of dust and 
vibration and affect the character of the area during this time. The transport of heavy vehicles on roads 
may increase levels of dust and vibration. Dust and vibration are not anticipated to impact upon any historic 
items, due to the capacity of the routes to handle these large loads and the temporary nature of the works. 
Given the site’s distance to the identified heritage items, the capacity of haulage routes to handle large 
loads and the temporary nature of works, dust and vibration generated from heavy trucks is not expected 
to be a significant issue.  
The Project is not considered likely to have a significant impact in accordance with the NSW Heritage Act 
1977, the EP&A Act, or the Commonwealth EPBC Act, in terms of heritage. No impacts are considered likely 
during the construction or decommissioning phases. No heritage approvals are required. 

Operation 
No impacts are considered likely during the operational phase. No heritage approvals are required.  

5.6.3 Environmental safeguards 
To  appropriately  manage  the  historic  heritage  issues  identified  above,  the  following  measures  are 
recommended: 

Construction  
 In the event of an item of heritage significance being uncovered at the Project site after 
works  commence,  the  NSW  Heritage  Division  should  be  contacted  prior  to  further  work 
being undertaken at the site. 
 Construction traffic routes would avoid town centers where possible, particularly the center 
of Goulburn and Crookwell that have the largest concentration of heritage items nearest to 
the study area (over 10kms). 

Operation 
No measures proposed. 

6385 Final v2  76   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

5.7 FIRE AND BUSH FIRE ISSUES AND IMPACTS 

5.7.1 Existing environment 
Bush fire risk at a site relates to fuel quantity and type, topography and weather patterns. It also relates to 
sources of ignition. This can relate to specific infrastructure components, such as substations, or certain 
activities, such as welding. Bush fire presents a threat to human life and assets and can deliver adverse 
ecological impacts.  
The Project site is predominantly cleared of overstorey vegetation. Onsite grazing keeps the understorey 
low and grass dominated. However, scattered trees and wind break plantings occur within the site and 
woodland connecting to large contiguous forest occurs on the periphery of the site. A drainage line on the 
south‐west  of  the  site  and  a  larger  riparian  corridor  on  the  eastern  boundary  are  also  relatively  well 
vegetated. 

   

Figure 5‐9 Windbreaks and low pasture.  Figure  5‐10  Peripheral  woodland  is  well 

connected. 

The  elevated  position  of  the  site  may  increase  the  frequency  of  lightning  strike.  The  locally  steep 
topography surrounding the site and absence of built areas or natural fire breaks such as large water bodies 
may assist the rate of spread of wildfires.  
The bushfire danger period for the Upper Lachlan LGA is generally October to March/April, but can vary 
subject to local conditions. Summer conditions in the Goulburn district can be dry and hot with high wind 
speeds, producing local grass fire hazards.  
Existing  ignition  sources  include  farm  machinery,  hay  storage,  vehicles  stopping  in  long  grass  on  road 
verges,  cigarette  butts  thrown  from  car  windows  and  lightning  strikes.  The  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm 
Substation and several wind turbines are located nearby. Substations represent an ignition risk, but this 
risk is reduced by having gravel surfacing within a fenced compound. Wind turbines and kiosks similarly 
have electrical components that are an ignition risk. All infrastructure is bunded to fully capture any fuels 
and lubricant contained therein. The adjacent wind farm site operates under an operational environmental 
management plan to manage bush fire risks and set out emergency response protocols. 
Rural  Fire  Service  trucks  are  located  nearby  at  Bannister,  Grabben  Gullen,  Crookwell  and  Gunning.  The 
longest response time anticipated to the site is 20 minutes, based on previous correspondence with the 
RFS regarding the Gullen Wind Range Farm site. A Bushfire Management Plan has been prepared for the 
Gullen Range Wind Farm. A similar plan would be prepared for Gullen Solar Farm. 

6385 Final v2  77   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

5.7.2 Potential impacts 

Construction and decommissioning 
Activities associated with Project construction that may cause or increase the risk of bush fire include: 

 Smoking and careless disposal of cigarettes on site. 
 Site maintenance activities such as mowing, slashing and using other petrol powered tools. 
 Welding and soldering activities. 
 Operating a petrol, LPG or diesel powered motor vehicle over land containing combustible 
material. 
 Operating plant fitted with power hydraulics on land containing combustible material. 
 Storage of hazardous materials. 
The NSW Fire Brigade defines hazardous materials as 'anything that, when produced, stored, moved, used 
or  otherwise  dealt  with  without  adequate  safeguards  to  prevent  it  from  escaping,  may  cause  injury  or 
death or damage to life, property or the environment'. The fuels and lubricants required to construct and 
operate the solar farm constitute hazardous materials under this definition. 
Considering the sparse vegetation cover over the proposed site and other factors discussed above, it is 
considered unlikely that Project would pose a significant bush fire risk. Site access would be formalised at 
the beginning of the construction stage during civil works, which would increase the ability to access and 
suppress any fire onsite or on adjoining sites.  
The  bush  fire  hazard  associated  with  the  activities  listed  above  is  considered  highly  manageable.  Risks 
would  be  minimised  through  the  implementation  of  a  construction  environmental  management  plan 
including a Bushfire Management Plan. 
Potential  impacts  from  decommissioning  activities  would  be  similar  to  those  for  construction.  As  for 
construction and operation activities (below), any bush fire risk associated with decommissioning of the 
Project would be highly manageable. 

Operation 
During operation, repairs and maintenance activities during could increase bush fire risk.  
The junction boxes, inverters, step up transformers, switchgear and electrical cabling represent ignition 
risks however, if installed and maintained correctly, this risk is considered low but safe clearances will be 
defined  and  maintained  to  minimise  the  risk.  No  additional  substation  is  required  for  the  Project.  An 
alternative option for 33kV connection to substation is to have a 240m section of the cabling replaced by 
33kV overhead line. 
Certain types of photovoltaic modules may contain cadmium. The type of PV module has not yet been 
selected for the Project. In the case of modules containing cadmium and in the unlikely event of a fire at 
the plant, there could be concerns about inhalation of toxic fumes and vapours if photovoltaic materials 
decompose or vaporise. However, Fthenakis et al. (2004) showed that the glass sheets on either side of the 
CdTe material fuse together during a fire, trapping the cadmium material between them, and the actual 
cadmium loss prior to sealing during fires would be insignificant (<0.04% of the modules cadmium content). 
Given the potential for community sensitivity in relation to toxic substances, planning for the unlikely event 
of fire would include precautionary measures such as post‐fire clean up procedures incorporating the need 
for sampling, where appropriate, to confirm any emissions of cadmium and lead are insignificant. 

6385 Final v2  78   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Bush  fire  risks  during  operation  of  the  solar  farm  and  connection  infrastructure  is  considered  highly 
manageable. Bush fire access would be improved during operation with the formalisation of access and 
internal tracks. 

5.7.3 Environmental safeguards 
Fire risks would be addressed as follows: 

Construction and decommissioning 
 Develop  a  Bush  Fire  Management  Plan  (BFMP),  or  incorporate  Gullen  Solar  Project 
provisions  into  the  existing  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm  BFM,  with  input  from  the  RFS  to 
include: 
o Management of activities  and materials with  a  risk  of fire ignition,  including hot 
works,  flammable  materials  handling  and  storage  as  per  manufacturer’s 
instructions. 
o Management of fuel loads onsite, including grazing or slashing regimes. 
o Storage and maintenance of firefighting equipment, including siting and provision 
of adequate water supplies for bush fire suppression. 
o Emergency response and evacuation measures. 

Operation 
 Adapt the Bush Fire Management Plan for the operational stage of the Project with input 
from the RFS to include: 
o Operational procedures relating to mitigation, access and suppression of bush fire 
relevant to the solar farm. 
o Post‐fire  clean  up  procedures,  including  the  need  for  sampling  for  emissions  of 
cadmium and lead, where appropriate. 

5.8 PHYSICAL IMPACTS 

5.8.1 Existing environment 
Physical impacts assessed in this section include climate, soils and landscape, local hydrology, water and 
air quality. 

Climate 
Data  obtained  from  the  Bureau  of  Meteorology  weather  station  at  Crookwell  indicate  that  the  highest 
mean  maximum  temperature  occurs  in  January  (26.5°C)  and  the  lowest  mean  minimum  occurs  in  July 
(0.4°C). The mean annual precipitation in the Crookwell area is recorded as 852.5 mm, between 1883 and 
2015.  Highest  monthly  rainfall  historically  occurs  from  June  to  August  with  the  lowest  monthly  rainfall 
historically  occurring  from  February  to  April.  Climatic  data  for  the  Goulburn  area  indicates  that  diurnal 
conditions in summer can be dry and hot with high wind speeds. This could be expected to produce dusty 
conditions, particularly in drought where closely grazed paddocks are prone to wind erosion. Although the 
local  topography  of  ranges  and  plateaus  can  result  in  localised  climatic  conditions,  climatic  conditions 
onsite are expected to be similar to that described.  

6385 Final v2  79   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Soils and landscape, local hydrology and water quality 
The Project site is undulating, part of a larger plateau formation. The site slopes down to the north and 
east. Locally steep areas border the site to the south. Gully systems are present to the south in larger areas 
of contiguous forest. 
The Soil Landscapes of the Goulburn 1:250,000 mapsheet (Hird, 1991) indicate the ‘mi’ (Midgee) soil unit 
occurs  at  Pomeroy.  Landscapes  are  rolling  to  low  hills  on  Ordovician  and  Devonian  and  Silurian 
metasediments. Soils are commonly acid stony yellow earths and yellow podsolic soils on side‐slopes and 
crests, in association with lithosols, red podzolic soils and red earths with soloths on lower slopes.  
A preliminary geotechnical investigation was undertaken at the site during the week of November 16, 2015. 
Although the laboratory testing is yet to be fully completed, preliminary results indicate the site is suitable 
for driven pile  foundations.  The  subsurface  conditions  are  fairly  uniform across the  site,  consisting  of a 
shallow  topsoil  layer  above  stiff  to  very  stiff  residual  clays  which  strengthens  into  weathered  rock  (as 
shallow as 1.5m).  The weathered rock was typically a relatively weak siltstone, to the maximum (2m) depth 
of excavation.  
Site inspection identified differences in soil surface conditions:  

 The western two thirds of the site is comprised of heavier clay content soils. These areas 
are  well  grassed  and  stable,  even  where  incised  creeklines  were  present.  Dense  plant 
growth and wetter vegetation (sedges) demonstrates the moisture holding capacity is high. 
These areas showed susceptibility compaction when wet.  
 The eastern third of the site is more stoney and erodible and less fertile. Gully erosion and 
areas of bare stoney soil were more prevalent in this area. Grass growth was less dense. 
Moisture holding capacity is likely lower and erosion risks higher.  
No evidence of soil contamination, including evidence of dumping, landfill or other signs were observed 
during the site inspection. A search of the NSW OEH Contaminated Sites Register on 8 October 2015 did 
not  identify  any  sites  listed  within  the  Upper  Lachlan  LGA  (NSW  Government  2015b).  Additionally,  the 
proposed site does not appear on the List of NSW contaminated sites notified to EPA (NSW Government 
2015a),  as  at  8  October  2015.  It  is  possible  that  a  section  of  the  proposed  works  area  may  contain 
contaminated material as a result of past farm activities. It is noted that although contaminated sites can 
occur  anywhere,  they  are  typically  clustered  in  areas  which  have  been  used  for  activities  including 
chemically  intensive  agriculture.  The  Project  site  has  been  extensively  grazed  historically  and 
contamination is considered a low risk. 
 

6385 Final v2  80   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

   

   

   

Figure 5‐11 Western soils (left), more stable.  Figure  5‐12  Eastern  soils  (right),  stony  and 

erodible. 

 
The  proposed  works  would  occur  within  Hawkesbury  Nepean  LLS,  Crookwell  Subregion  and  within  the 
Sydney Drinking Water Catchment. 
Two 1st order creek lines are present; one in the southern part (Ryans Creek) and the other in the eastern 
part of the site (Sawpit Creek). They join to form a 2nd order creek south east of the site. The southern creek 
line must be crossed to connect cabling to the Gullen Range Wind Farm Substation. Minor drainage lines 
cross the western end of the site, connecting farm dams on and off site. An extensively eroded drainage 
line borders the development envelope to the north and would not be impacted by the development. A 
larger creek and riparian corridor border the eastern edge of the site and would not be impacted by the 
development. 
In all cases water quality appeared good. Water levels were not high in these drainage lines during the site 
inspection  but  would  be  expected  to  be  high  and  fast  flowing  (though  not  persistent),  given  the 
topography, after substantial rain events. 
Local bores are present on nearby properties (refer Figure 5‐13) but are not proposed for use in the Project. 
No new bores are proposed as part of the Project.  

6385 Final v2  81   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Sawpit Creek 

Legend 

Ryans Creek  Site 
        Bore 

 
Figure 5‐13 Local hydrology and bores (NSW Government, 2015c; DPI, 2015). 

Air quality 
The zoning of the site and all surrounding lands is 1 (a) Rural Zone. The site and surrounding lands are used 
for  extensive  agricultural  operations  to  the  west,  north  and  east.  The  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm,  at  the 
Project site’s southern boundary is now fully constructed and operational. Grazing is currently undertaken 
concurrent with operational wind farm activities. Some areas disturbed during construction of the wind 
farm are still in the process or rehabilitation / revegetation. In windy conditions, this may be adversely 
impacting local air quality. The access road to the proposed solar farm and to the existing wind farm is 
unsealed. Wind farm operational traffic, local residential traffic as well as livestock and farm vehicle traffic 
are likely to be adversely impacting local air quality, particularly in dry and in windy conditions. There are 
two  non‐involved  residences  within  1km  of  the  Project  site  (both  have  been  offered  agreements  to 
compensate for potential construction impacts). 

5.8.2 Potential impacts 

Construction and decommissioning 
Climate 

No  climatic  impacts  are  anticipated  as  a  consequence  of  the  construction  activities  for  the  solar  farm. 
Haulage  traffic  and  plant  and  equipment  would  generate  emissions  however, the  short  duration  of the 
work  and  the  scale  of  the  Project  suggests  this  contribution  would  be  negligible  in  a  local  or  regional 
context. Intense storm events with strong winds and/or rain during periods of earthworks increase risk of 
erosion through dust or surface water flows. 
Soils and landscape, local hydrology and water quality 
The site boundaries contain an area of 113 hectares. The development envelope, the area within which 
infrastructure would be located, is mapped as an area of 64 hectares. This is a much larger area than would 

6385 Final v2  82   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

be disturbed by the development of the solar farm, as it includes 2 access and cabling options to the Gullen 
Range Wind Farm Substation and combines 2 indicative layouts, to ensure all areas that may be required 
are included in the assessment.  The constructed layout is expected to comprise approximately 25‐30 ha 
in total. 

The relevant soil unit for the site, ‘Midgee’, has very high erosion potential. As such, managing potential 
erosion and associated landform stability and sediment mobilisation impacts are serious issues during the 
construction and decommissioning phases. Differing conditions will be encountered at the western end of 
the  site  (greater  potential  for  soil  compaction  and  slumping)  than  the  eastern  end  of  the  site  (greater 
potential for erosion and difficulty in revegetating areas). 
Soil compaction, slumping and soil erosion are likely to occur during excavation works (cable trenching in 
steep areas), road works and the transport of machinery. Driving of steel posts supporting the PV modules 
as well as installation of power poles and machinery access for these activities would compact and disturb 
soils.  While  extensive  earthworks  are  not  proposed,  some  land  forming  (including  localised  cut  and  fill 
areas) may be undertaken to achieve more consistent gradients beneath the array. However, the areas of 
disturbance would be rehabilitated and the surrounding groundcover would be retained.  
Cabling and access may be required across a first order creek line (Ryans Creek, shown on Figure 5‐13) to 
connect the wind farm and solar sites. Strict environmental management controls would be required for 
this work. Excavation within waterways can cause notifiable pollution events. The works would follow the 
Guidelines  for  Controlled  Activities  on  Waterfront  Land  and  Current  Recommended  Practices  (refer 
mitigation measures, below). As an alternative to trenching, a short section (240m) of overhead cabling 
may be installed to minimise excavation impacts on the creek and surrounding steep slopes. This would 
lessen  impacts  on  the  creek.  Any  impacts  in  waterways  and  riparian  areas  would  be  subject  to  specific 
rehabilitation and approvals (refer to Section 6.1). 
There are three water bores within 600m of the proposed works (refer to Figure 5‐13). Groundwater has 
been intercepted between depths of 18 to 61m (DPI, 2015). The footings required for transformer / inverter 
pads would be shallow. The steel posts supporting the PV modules would be highly unlikely to intercept 
ground water. Similarly, contamination of groundwater would be highly unlikely given that low levels of 
chemicals  and  fuels  are  needed  and  would  be  appropriately  stored,  and  spills  procedures  would  be 
implemented. Long‐term storage of large volumes of chemicals or fuels is not proposed.  
Clearing of trees can impact on groundwater; saline groundwater can move up through the soil profile if 
there  is  a  reduction  in  water  uptake  and  transpiration  by  trees  in  the  landscape,  exacerbating  salinity 
impacts.  The  Project  is  sited  within  cleared  pasture  and  additional  tree  clearing  proposed  during 
construction is minor.  
Water requirements of the Project during construction are expected to be up to 50,000 litres per day for a 
6 month period. Water will be mostly required for dust suppression of access tracks and potentially during 
trenching, in response to conditions. An onsite dam would be used for this purpose, supplemented by a 
water truck if required. One dam is within the array footprint and would be filled in. The dam is used for 
stock watering and would not be required during the operation of the solar farm. The dam has negligible 
habitat values, as discussed in Section 5.3 of this SEE. 
The Project site is located in an area subject to the following water sharing plans:  

 Greater Metropolitan Region Groundwater Sources 
 Greater Metropolitan Region Unregulated River Water Sources 
No additional water requirement is currently proposed. Any requirement for additional groundwater or 
surface water entitlement would be obtained through purchase and trade in accordance with these plans. 

6385 Final v2  83   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

As  construction  works  would  take  approximately  6  months  to  complete,  impacts  would  be  temporary, 
during the construction period. Impacts of the Project to the local soils, landforms and water quality are 
considered manageable. Mitigation strategies that would be employed during construction to manage the 
potential for adverse environmental impacts are outlined below. 
Air quality  
Dust  and  emissions  are  likely  to  be  generated  during  clearing,  excavation,  road  works  and  during  the 
transport of infrastructure and materials to the site. It is considered that any impacts likely to occur would 
be greatest during the construction and decommissioning phases, both temporary phases, likely to last 
around 6 months each. In addition, the works area would not be static for this period, it would move as 
infrastructure is progressively installed and therefore the impact would not be experienced continuously 
at  any  one  place  during  these  phases.  A  fundamental  mitigation  measure  is  to  limit  the  extent  of  any 
exposed ground at any point in time. 
The works area and location of houses are identified in Figure 2‐1. The distance between the proposed 
activities and the receivers as well as the potential for mitigation suggest that air quality impacts during 
construction and decommissioning would not be high. The impacts of the Project during the construction 
and decommissioning phases are considered manageable with regard to air quality. Mitigation strategies 
that would be employed during these phases to manage the potential for adverse air quality impacts are 
presented,  below.  Additionally,  specific  neighbouring  properties  have  been  offered  agreements  to 
compensate for construction impacts. 

Operation 
Climate 

The Project would make a positive contribution to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by providing 
an alternative to electricity sourced from fossil fuels. This constitutes the chief environmental benefit of 
the Project.  Enough electricity to supply the equivalent of approximately 31605 homes would be provided, 
assisting with the transition from fossil fuel generated electricity to a cleaner more sustainable alternative. 
The Gullen Solar Farm would represent a renewable method of electricity generation to meet increasing 
demand of non‐greenhouse gas producing electricity generation. Given stable demand, every megawatt‐
hour  of  electricity  generated  by  the  solar  farm  could  prevent  one  megawatt‐hour  of  electricity  being 
generated  at  a  coal  fired  power  station,  as  well  as  potentially  preventing  losses  within  the  electricity 
transmission system.  
Reduction in greenhouse gas emission directly contributes to abating the scale of impacts associated with 
climate change including: 

 The increase in extreme weather events 
 Increased demand for water and associated impacts on natural systems, and 
 Economic impacts associated with changing land capability. 
Adverse impacts noted specifically for Australian agricultural communities include an increase in floods, 
droughts  and  forest  fires.  As  a  consequence  of  reduced  local  production  capacity  in  conjunction  with 

                                                             
5 Based on Australia’s average annual electricity consumption per household in 2014, 6,964kWh/hh (Enerdata, 

2015). 

6385 Final v2  84   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

increased production in positively affected northern hemisphere countries, the economic impact of climate 
change is particularly relevant to agricultural economies (AGO, 2003) such as the Goulburn region.  
No adverse impacts to climate related to the operational phase of the solar farm would result.  
Soils and landscape, local hydrology and water quality 

Minimal operational impacts to soils would occur. Maintenance activities and vehicles would be largely 
confined  to  the  formalised  access  tracks.  There  would  remain  a  minor  risk  of  soil  contamination  in  the 
event of a chemical spill (fuels, lubricants, herbicides). This is considered highly manageable. 
Concentrated runoff from the PV modules could lead to increased soil erosion below the modules during 
significant rain events. The western section of the site may be prone to water logging and compaction from 
this effect as the soil moisture will not drain or dissipate rapidly. However, pasture production is high in 
this more fertile area of the site and will be able to utilise the water, assisting to reduce water logging. The 
eastern section of the site may be more prone to erosion from concentrated run off. Retaining vegetation 
cover would assist in reducing potential for erosion from rainfall run‐off. A monitoring program would be 
developed to manage stable ground cover beneath the panels. As the site currently maintains a high level 
of ground cover, this risk is considered highly manageable, with monitoring and adaptive management. 
Water use volumes during operation would be minimal. Water is not required for toilets, as the staff will 
use the wind farm facilities. PV panel cleaning is required. The frequency of cleaning is dependent on the 
amount of soiling and the rain fall experienced. Water would be sourced from a small rainwater tank onsite 
connected to the storage shed and if required, offsite or from rainwater tanks on the wind farm site.  
Air quality 
The operation of the solar farm would require minimal traffic on access tracks. It is expected to be able to 
use some wind farm operational staff, reducing traffic requirements to the site. Additionally, none of the 
solar farm infrastructure would generate emissions that would impact air quality. Therefore, negligible air 
quality impacts are anticipated to be generated during the operational phase of the solar farm. 

5.8.3 Environmental safeguards 
Measures to manage physical impacts are recommended as follows: 

Construction and decommissioning 
Soils and landscape, local hydrology and water quality 

 Works within Ryans Creek, if required, would be done in accordance with the Guidelines 
for  Controlled  Activities  on  Waterfront  Land  (Guidelines  for  instream  works)  and Water 
NSW  Current  Recommended  Practices.  Specific  approvals  would  be  obtained  for  these 
works (refer Section 6.1). 
 A Soil and Water Management Plan would be prepared, implemented and monitored during 
construction in accordance with Landcom (2004), to minimise soil and water impacts. The 
plan would include provisions to: 
o Minimise  the  works  footprint  to  only  that  required  for  the  works;  clearly 
demarcating impact areas from ‘no go’ areas, that would be protected from impact. 
o At the commencement of the works, and progressively during construction, install 
the required erosion control and sediment capture measures. 
o Controls must be regularly inspected, particularly following rainfall. 

6385 Final v2  85   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

oMaintain a register of inspection and maintenance of erosion control and sediment 
capture measures. 
o In all excavation activities, separate subsoils and topsoils and ensure that they are 
replaced in their natural configuration to assist revegetation. 
o On  steep  slopes,  topsoil  would  need  to  be  stabilised  using,  for  example,  jute 
matting.  Any excess subsoil  would  be  removed from  the  site  and disposed  of  at 
facility able to accept the waste. 
o Access tracks would be confined to already disturbed areas, where possible. Tracks 
not needed would be rehabilitated in accordance with a rehabilitation plan. 
o Ensure any discharge of water from the site is managed to ensure ANZECC (2000) 
water quality criteria are met. Procedures for testing, treatment and discharge of 
construction waste water must be as described in the Soil and Water Management 
Plan. 
o Manage works in consideration of heavy rainfall events; if a heavy rainfall event is 
predicted, the site should be stabilised and work ceased until the wet period had 
passed. 
o Concrete washout shall be carried out offsite or all washout removed from site and 
disposed of at a facility able to accept this waste.    
 Spill Response Plan would be developed to prevent contaminants affecting adjacent pasture 
and dams. It would: 
o Manage  the  storage  of  any  potential  contaminants  onsite;  Material  Safety  Data 
Sheets  (MSDS)  for  all  chemical  inventories  would  be  located  on  site  and  readily 
available. 
o Mitigate  the  effects  of  soil  contamination  by  fuels  or  other  chemicals  (including 
emergency response and EPA notification procedures and remediation). 
o All  fuels,  chemicals,  and  liquids  would  be  stored  at  least  50m  away  from  any 
waterways or drainage lines and would be stored in an impervious bunded area.  
o Manage  the  refuelling  of  plant  and  maintenance  of  machinery  in  hardstand  or 
bunded areas.  
o Include provisions for machinery to be checked daily to ensure there is no oil, fuel 
or other liquids leaking from the machinery.  
o All staff would be appropriately trained through toolbox talks for the minimisation 
and management of accidental spills 
 A rehabilitation plan would: 
o Ensure  areas  disturbed  during  construction  (laydown  areas,  additional  track 
widths,  cabling  routes)  are  stabilised  progressively  during  construction  and 
restored back to original condition or re‐vegetated with appropriate species (native 
in native dominated areas) as soon as practical.  
o For  impacted  riparian  areas,  meet  the  requirements  of  the  Guidelines  for 
Controlled Activities on Waterfront Land; Guidelines for Riparian Corridors (where 
relevant), and any additional comments received from NSW Office of Water and 
Water  NSW.  This  may  include  fencing  stock  out  of  riparian  areas  being 
rehabilitated. 
o Detail  appropriate  planting  techniques  for  the  different  areas  of  the  site,  in 
consideration  of  climatic  conditions  (sterile  cover  crops  may  be  required  as  an 
intermediate step). 
o Include monitoring to meet clear targets, regarding ground cover establishment. 

6385 Final v2  86   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Air quality 

 Dust control measures would include: 
o A water cart (or other means) would be utilised to manage dust on all access roads 
and exposed dusty surfaces in response to visual cues and complaints. 
o Stockpiled topsoil and other materials that exhibit significant dust lift off would be 
wet down, stabilised or covered to manage dust. 
o Protocols to guide vehicle and construction equipment use, to minimise emissions.  
 Development of a complaints procedure to promptly identify and respond to complaints. 

Operation 
Soils and landscape, local hydrology and water quality 

 A  Groundcover  Monitoring  Plan  would  be  prepared  to  monitor  and  maintain  stable 
groundcover  beneath  and  between  the  PV  modules.  Adaptive  management  would  be 
undertaken  as  required  to  ensure  ground  surfaces  are  stable  and  resistant  to  erosion, 
compaction and weed ingress. Advice would be sought from an agronomist as required to 
ensure species selection is appropriate to the objective of the plan. 
 A  Spill  Response  Plan  would  be  adapted  for  operational  activities,  to  manage  hazardous 
substances onsite. 
 Drainage to be addressed to deal with any concentrated flows off panels, if required. 
Air quality 
No additional measures are considered warranted. 

5.9 SOCIO ECONOMICS AND COMMUNITY WELLBEING  

5.9.1 Existing environment 

Socioeconomics 
The Upper Lachlan LGA has a population of 7,193 people according to the 2011 Census Quick Stats (ABS, 
2012). ABS (2012) data indicates the main industry of employment is sheep, beef cattle and grain farming, 
involving 23.2 per cent of the population, while the unemployment rate for Upper Lachlan is 3 per cent, 
compared to the national rate of 5.6 per cent.  
The region retains a rural landscape character. The Project site is located near the village of Grabben Gullen. 
Other localities nearby include Kialla, Bannister and Pomeroy. Traditionally, the local economy has been 
reliant on wool production. The area now includes potato production, olive production, alpaca and horse 
enterprises, as well as chicken and fish farms. Renewable energy facilities are co‐located with rural land 
use in the region, including at Taralga, Crookwell, Gullen Range and Gunning Wind Farms (near Gurrundah). 
Other wind farms are also proposed for construction (Collector). 
The Upper Lachlan Shire remains largely agricultural however, tourism and rural residential land uses are 
of  increasing  economic  importance.  Tourism  is  the  third  largest  industry  behind  agriculture  and  retail. 
Tourist activities promoted in the area include historic buildings and bridges, museums, memorials and 
galleries and nature‐based recreation. Crookwell is the administrative centre of the Upper Lachlan Shire. 
Goulburn is a regional service centre. 

6385 Final v2  87   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Community make up and well being 
The make‐up of the local community has previously been summarised as being comprised of families that 
have been in the area for several generations and newer residents attracted by work opportunities or by 
the rural lifestyle. It has been noted that the ‘tree change’ phenomenon, while bringing skills and diversity 
to a community, can also be a source of division by introducing a change in a rural land uses and values 
(the  pace  of  change)  and  by  creating  a  demographic  shift.  Additionally,  the  amalgamation  of  the  local 
government areas in 2004 has been recognised as having had an adverse impact on some aspects of the 
community;  weakened  connections  between  community  groups  and  fuelling  rivalries  (pers.  comm.  M. 
Breen 2004). 
Community  wellbeing  is  related  to  the  quality  of  the  natural  and  urban  surroundings,  socio‐economic 
position, the availability of services and perceptions of safety (Upper Lachlan Shire Council State of the 
Environment  2005‐06).  One  measure  of  ‘community’  is  the  willingness  of  individuals  to  be  involved  in 
volunteer organisations such as the Bush Fire Brigade, Meals on Wheels, the Country Women's Association 
and farmers' associations. Local sports and recreation clubs are also well represented in the region. These 
organisations are based on shared goals and maintained by volunteer efforts. The additional element of 
people who have long associations with the area can strengthen the fabric of the local community. These 
features are present in the local community.  
A Social and Community Plan 2013‐2018 was adopted by the ULSC in June 2013. The plan incorporates 
issues that have an impact on community wellbeing, provides an overview of the community and identifies 
key issues and strategies to address these issues. Key strengths of the community included: 

 Social  connectedness,  evidenced  by  the  extensive  and  diverse  range  of  community 
organisations, covering all age groups. 
 The high level of volunteer activity in community groups. 
 Positive community feelings. Residents described their neighbours and community as assets 
using  positive  terms  including,  ‘pulling  together’,  ‘rallying  around’,  and  ‘choosing  to  live 
here’. 
Economic inequalities noted in the plan include: 

 Lower levels of education and professional employment when compared to other areas in 
NSW. 
 Lower numbers of Aboriginal people with educational attainment beyond Grade 10 and in 
professional  employment,  when  compared  to  non‐Aboriginal  people.  Unemployment  is 
also higher for Aboriginal people. 
 Youth unemployment is higher in the LGA, compared to the NSW average. 
Issues for community wellbeing identified during the State of the Environment 2005‐06 reporting period 
were: 

 Drinking water quality.  
 No options for post‐secondary education within the LGA. 
 Planning for an aging population and mental health issues within the LGA 
 Limited public transport to many residents in the LGA.  
These characteristics are important in considering the impact on a community of a new development. 

6385 Final v2  88   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Attitudes to renewable energy Projects 
Wind  farms  (like  many  other  large  infrastructure  Projects)  have  sometimes  been  seen  as  divisive 
developments in some Australian communities. The Gullen Solar Farm is associated with the Gullen Range 
Wind Farm. Through the assessment, approval, construction and commissioning stages of the Gullen Range 
Wind Farm, this new and large scale development affected the local community and caused concern for 
some members of the community who have demonstrated their opposition to it.  
The Goulburn region has, over the last several years, had several renewable energy generation Projects 
proposed and developed. These have mostly been for relatively large scale wind farms. The local Council 
and  state  government  have  been  the  consent  authority,  variously.  Criticisms  have  been  levelled  at  the 
community consultation processes employed and frustration has been observed in the community related 
to the developers, type of development and the assessment and consent process for both state and council 
approved developments (Twyford Consulting, 2007). 
This history is relevant to the proposed Gullen Solar Farm. Being located adjacent to the wind farm site and 
being proposed by the same proponent, the Project may attract similar ill sentiments from persons who 
oppose the wind farm. On the other hand, supporters of local renewable Projects who favoured the wind 
farm’s construction may similarly support the Gullen Solar Farm, which provides an extension of many of 
the  wind  farm’s  benefits;  the  wind  farm  Project  has  provided  local  construction  and  operational 
employment as well as stimulated local business activity and the solar farm is likely to find general support 
due to these factors.  

5.9.2 Potential impacts 

Socio economics  
The land is currently leased for extensive grazing of cattle by an adjacent landholder. The income stream 
generated  from  the  operation  of  the  solar  farm  is  anticipated  to  be  20  times  higher  than  the  existing 
extensive grazing income. 
The development of rural land uses compatible with agricultural activities, such as solar power generation, 
have  potential  to  provide  increased  economic  security  to  rural  economies  through  diversification  of 
employment  opportunities  and  income  streams.  As  well,  they  provide  a  substitute  for  carbon  emission 
producing  electricity  production  that  is  stable  and  renewable.  Consistent  with  State  and  National 
greenhouse emission reduction objectives. 
Considering  the  local  economy  is  dominated  by  agriculture,  it  is  relevant  to  note  that  projected  global 
warming will increase potential evaporation and water demand, potentially reducing the capacity of the 
arable land. Pittock (AGO, 2003) observed that a significant proportion of Australian exports are agricultural 
products sensitive to global warming impacts. 
Federal Government publications note that failure to adequately mitigate increases in emissions will lead 
to greater costs for adaptation to consequences of climate change.  

Community wellbeing 
While the potential impacts on community wellbeing are most relevant to the operational stage of the 
Project, they can also be viewed as conceptual; more related to the concept of the Project than specific 
site  impacts.  As  such,  earlier  milestones  such  as  submission  of  the  Development  Application  or 
determination of the Project or construction could equally elicit adverse impacts. 

6385 Final v2  89   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Potential adverse impacts on wellbeing that can result from the contrasting viewpoints in the community 
include: 

 Anxiety over change to local development patterns. 
 Disagreement  with  the  changing  local  character  –  not  supportive  of  new  (and  green) 
industries. 
 Community division, as the community becomes polarised over the Project. 
The Project also has a suite of potential benefits to community wellbeing and socio‐economics that for 
many will outweigh adverse impacts. These include: 

 Source of employment during construction (an average of 30 workers will be required onsite 
with a construction peak of approximately 75 workers.  Including offsite requirements, 50 
jobs with a construction peak of approximately 100 jobs are anticipated). Local employment 
would be maximised by developing a registration process on the Project’s website. 
 Stimulation to local economy, during construction  
 Diversification of the local economy, creating greater resilience. 
 Changing  local  character  – being  seen as  progressive  and  supportive of new  (and green) 
industries. 
Public attitudes are critically influenced by the nature of the planning and development process; the more 
open  and  participatory,  the  greater  the  level  of  public  support  (Birnie  et  al.  1999;  Khan  2003,  cited  in 
Warren  et  al.  2005).  Past  experience  with  the  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm  and  other  local  wind  farm 
developments  and  the  assessment  and  approvals  process  have  created  a  history  that  influences  the 
community’s perception of the Gullen Solar Farm.  A relevant mitigation strategy is therefore to engage 
with the community and make the assessment and approval process as transparent as possible. Ways the 
community can participate and benefit from the Project should be made as clear as possible. 

5.9.3 Environmental safeguards 
 Community  consultation  would  be  undertaken  in  accordance  with  the  Project’s  specific 
Community Consultation Plan (Appendix E).  
 Opportunities  for  local  subcontractors  would  be  maximised  by  developing  a  registration 
process  on  the  Project’s  website:  http://www.gullensolarfarm.com/supply‐and‐
subcontracting‐opportunities/ 

5.10 LAND USE 

5.10.1 Existing environment 
For  local  residents  and  visitors  alike,  the  rural  land  use  and  large  land  holdings  in  the  area  create  a 
landscape amenable to recreation (horse‐riding, walking, fishing) and one in which many people seek to 
retire  or  ‘escape’  from  a  more  urban  environment.    The  Bicentennial  National  Trail  occurs  in  the  area, 
located south of Crookwell and travelling south west, east of Gunning. Horse riders and other users of the 
trail are likely to travel along routes used for haulage during construction (Ranges Road) within 3 km of the 
Project site.  The trail passes along Bannister Lane and Kialla Road to Crookwell. 
Specific tourism activities encouraged by Council in the area include tourist drives, farm stays, bed and 
breakfasts, festivals, events and attractions (Upper Lachlan Shire Council Annual Report 2013‐2014). Local 
villages and towns and their surrounds have historic appeal, retaining buildings and other historic features 

6385 Final v2  90   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

of interest to locals and tourists alike. Historic buildings (some of which are registered on local, state or 
federal registers) are scattered across the landscape.  
Mineral  fossicking  has  occurred  around  Grabben  Gullen  along  the  feeder  streams  of  the  Lachlan  River; 
sapphires, garnets, zircons and gold can still be found today. Exploration licences entitle the holders to 
carry  out  exploration  and  prospecting  for  minerals  within  the  specified  area.  As  of  8  October  2015,  no 
mineral,  coal  or  petroleum  titles  or  applications  are  current  for  the  Project  site  (MinView  portal,  NSW 
Department of Industry: Resources and Energy). 
The  land  is  currently  leased  for  extensive  grazing  of  cattle  by  an  adjacent  landholder.  Surrounding 
properties are similarly grazed by cattle or sheep and in some cases cropped (potatoes). Agriculture is the 
main land use in the Upper Lachlan LGA, occupying over three quarters of the total area or about 510,400 
hectares. A shift from grazing to cropping and mixed farming is a recent trend and may be related to the 
drought conditions in the 2000s; this trend has been recognised as having implications for land degradation 
as the land capability is not suited to long‐term cultivation (Upper Lachlan Shire Council 2006).  
The  zoning  of  the  land  on  and  surrounding  the  site  proposed  for  the  Gullen  Solar  Farm  is  RU2  –  Rural 
Landscape. One of the aims of the RU2 zone include to maintain the rural character of the area, provide a 
range of compatible land uses, including extensive agriculture, minimise visual impact of development on 
the rural and existing agricultural landscape character.  

5.10.2 Potential impacts 

Construction and decommissioning impacts 
Construction noise, the generation of dust from vehicles and the increased traffic flow during construction 
and decommissioning  may impact  on  the  lifestyle  values  of the  locality  in the  short term.  This includes 
residents on the haulage route and users of sections of the Bicentennial Trail. This impact would be greatest 
when overlapping increased vehicle traffic in the area, such as for local festivals. 
The  site  is  not  located  on  a  tourist  drive  and  Storriers  Lane  services  a  limited  number  of  residences  in 
addition to the Gullen Range Wind Farm. Impacts would attenuate rapidly with distance from the work 
sites. These impacts would be temporary, occurring over a 6 month period, and would be regulated by 
noise  and  pollution  management  measures.  Due  to  the  temporary  duration  of  the  impact  and  the  low 
population density, this is not expected to generate an unacceptable level of impact.  
During  construction,  no  grazing  would  be  allowable  at  the  site;  stock  would  be  excluded.    The  grazing 
restriction would only apply to the construction period of 6 months. 
At the end of the Project’s life, all above ground infrastructure would be removed from the site and the 
site would return to the pre‐existing land use or an alternative land use. The Project is considered highly 
reversible in this context. 

Operational impacts 
While the operational solar farm would not preclude nearby residential or recreational land uses, the visual 
impacts may adversely affect the experience of those seeking the rural character of the area. Low visual 
impact has been identified for local residences. Noise and traffic impacts are likely to be negligible. These 
impacts are expected to attenuate with distance from the site.  
The site is not situated near formalised nature‐based recreation activities and during operation would have 
no  impact  on  the  historic  landscape;  rural  buildings,  ruins  or  the  Bicentennial  National  Trail.  The  visual 

6385 Final v2  91   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

impact of the site will be restricted and is unlikely to affect the visitor’s experience of the area. Specialist 
reports have quantified and evaluated the visual, noise and traffic impacts of the Project (refer to Sections 
5.1, 5.2, 5.5 , respectively). On the basis of these assessments, the impact on land use during construction 
is not considered likely to extend past the site boundaries. 
The operational  solar  farm  is  not  anticipated  to  affect the  way  that neighbouring  landowners  currently 
manage their agricultural activities. Nor is it anticipated to affect the production capacity of the land, apart 
from  the  loss  of  the  available  grazing  area  taken  up  directly  by  the  foot  print  of  the  Project.  The 
approximate reduction in grazing land is estimated to be 25 hectares. Grazing could potentially be used as 
a ground cover management strategy under and around the array however, this would be more orientated 
to  management  of  the  infrastructure  than  grazing  income.  The  income  stream  generated  from  the 
operation of the solar farm is anticipated to be 20 times higher than the existing extensive grazing income. 
The development is highly reversible. After operation, the above ground infrastructure would be removed 
and  the  land  could  be  returned  to  agriculture  or  an  alternative  land  use  with  negligible  impact  on 
production capacity. Formalised access and internal tracks may benefit future development options. 

5.10.3 Environmental safeguards 

Construction and decommissioning 
 Co‐ordinate construction activities with local events. The Proponent would liaise with the 
local visitor information centres to ensure that construction and decommissioning timing 
and haulage routes are known well in advance of works. 
 Liaison  would  be  undertaken  with  neighbouring  landowners  and  landowners  adjoining 
access  roads,  to  provide  information  about  the  timing  and  routes  to  be  used  during 
construction and decommissioning. This could be in the form of advertising and provision 
of a contact point for further inquiries. The aim would be to reduce the risk of interference 
with agricultural activities on affected roads and road verges. 
 Stock would be restricted from works areas where there is a risk stock injury. For example, 
near excavated trenches and within high traffic areas. 

Operation 
No additional measures are considered to be warranted. 

5.11 RESOURCE USE AND WASTE GENERATION 

5.11.1 Existing environment 
Legal requirements for the management of waste are established under the Protection of the Environment 
Operations  (POEO)  Act  1997  and  the  POEO  (Waste)  Regulation  2005.  Unlawful  transportation  and 
deposition of waste is an offence under section 143 of the POEO Act. Wastes must be reduced by:  

 avoidance of unnecessary resource consumption, 
 resource recovery (including reuse, reprocessing, recycling and energy recovery), 
 disposal. 

6385 Final v2  92   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Lifecycle analysis 
Life  cycle  analysis  (LCA)  assesses  and  quantifies  the  energy  and  material  flows  associated  with  a  given 
process to identify the resource impacts of that process and potential for resource recovery. LCA estimates 
of energy and emissions based on the total life cycle of materials used for a Project, i.e., the total amount 
of  energy  consumed  in  procuring,  processing,  working  up,  transporting  and  disposing  of  the  respective 
materials (Schleisner 2000).  
While the final specification of the panels for the Project will not be determined until a later stage (following 
a tendering process), the assessment below covers the range of currently available panels. The aim of this 
assessment is to consider the resource use impacts and potential waste streams of the development and 
develop ways to minimise them, in accordance with the POEO Act. 
This includes polycrystalline PV panels (commonly used in domestic solar installations and considered the 
most likely option  for  this  Project;  data  sheet  provided  Appendix  A) and CdTe  PV panels.  Although  less 
likely, the CdTe PV panels have higher resource and waste implications and therefore provide a ‘worst case’ 
assessment. This section considers both panel types. 
Polycrystalline PV panels 
A life cycle inventory of polycrystalline PV panels has been undertaken by European and US photovoltaic 
module  manufacturing  companies  over  the  2005/2006  period.    The  ‘energy  payback  time’  for 
polycrystalline PV modules has been estimated at 2 years for a solar installation in Southern Europe. Over 
the panels 30 year lifetime is expected to produce 28g of greenhouse gas per kWh generated (Fthenakis et 
al, 2011). 
The purification of the silicon, which is extracted from quartz, accounts for 30% of the primary energy to 
produce the module. This stage also produces the largest amount of pollutants with the use of electricity 
and natural gas for heating (Fthenakis et al, 2011). The waste produced during production of the modules 
which  can  be  recycled  include  graphite  crucibles,  steel  wire  and  waste  slurry  (silicon  and  polyethylene 
glycol).  However,  silicon  crystals  cannot  be  recycled  during  this  stage  (Fthenakis  et  al,  2011).  The 
production of the frames and other system components including cabling would also produce emissions 
and waste but less than the production of modules. 
CdTe PV panels 
A life‐cycle assessment was conducted by Fthenakis (2003) for CdTe PV panels. The operation of CdTe PV 
modules would not result in any emissions during normal operation. Decommissioning of CdTe is unlikely 
to produce any emissions. The risks to the environment from large scale use of CdTe PV modules are likely 
to  be  low.  The  ‘energy  payback  time’  for  CdTe  PV  modules  has  been  estimated  as  1  year  for  a  solar 
installation in Ohio, USA and at 0.8 years for a solar installation in Germany (Fthenakis et al, 2009).  
Cadmium  telluride  is  manufactured  from  cadmium  and  tellurium,  both  of  which  are  by‐products  of 
smelting  processes  for  other  metals.  Cadmium  is  a  by‐product  of  smelting  zinc  ores  (~80%),  lead  ores 
(~20%) and to a lesser degree copper ores. Zinc is produced in large quantities and therefore large amounts 
of cadmium are produced as a by‐product. The cadmium is either used, concrete encased and stored, or 
disposed of as hazardous waste. Fthenakis (2004) argues that using cadmium in the production of CdTe PV 
modules is a relatively safe option and is preferable to disposal. Tellurium is a rare metal and is generally 
extracted as a by‐product of processing copper, lead, gold and bismuth ores. Recycling of CdTe PV modules 
is another source of tellurium. 
Solar farms energy pay back 

6385 Final v2  93   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

The ratio of energy produced by, in this case, a solar PV system over its lifetime, to the energy required to 
make it is referred to as the system’s ‘energy yield ratio’. PV system energy yield ration in Northern Europe 
was estimated to be more than ten, indicating the system would produce more than ten times the amount 
of  energy  required  to  make  it  (Fraunhofer  ISE,  2015).  This  positive  energy  yield  ratio  also  means  that 
greenhouse gas emissions generated from the production of solar energy systems are more than offset 
over the systems’ life cycle (GA and ABARE 2010). 
Solar  farms  are  favourable  in  a  number  of  aspects  when  compared  to  the  major  electricity  generating 
methods employed in Australia: 

 CO2 emissions generated per kilowatt hour of energy produced. 
 Short energy payback time in comparison to the life span of the Project. 
 Potential to reuse and recycle component parts. 

Resource use  
Various resources would be required to construct the proposed solar farm: 

 Construction materials, including metals, glass, plastics 
 Masonry products, including concrete for slabs, hardstand areas and building elements 
 Materials such as fuels and lubricants associated with operation of machinery and motor 
vehicles 
 Gravel, if required, for access track grading. 

Waste streams 
Solid  waste  is  one  of  the  major  pollutants  caused  by  construction.  A  number  of  different  construction 
activities would produce solid wastes, such as: 

 Packaging materials. 
 Building materials. 
 Scrap metal and cabling materials. 
 Plastic and masonry products, including concrete wash. 
 Vegetation clearing. 

5.11.2 Potential impacts  

Construction and decommissioning  
Resources  
While  tellurium,  one  of  the  key  semiconductor  components  of  the  proposed  modules,  is  a  rare  metal, 
recycling is available for this material. While increasing scarcity of resources and environmental impacts 
are emerging from the use of non‐renewable resources, the supply of the required resources above are 
not  currently  limited  or  restricted.  In  the  volumes  required,  the  Project  is  unlikely  to  place  significant 
pressure on the availability of local or regional resources. The use of the required resources is considered 
reasonable in light of energy pay back periods and benefits of offsetting fossil fuel electricity generation. 
Waste 
In accordance with definitions in the POEO Act and associated waste classification guidelines, most waste 
generated  during  the  construction  and  decommissioning  phases  would  be  classified  as  building  and 
demolition waste within the class general solid waste (non putrescibles). As no toilet facilities are required 

6385 Final v2  94   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

at the solar site, no wastes classified as general solid waste (putrescibles) in accordance with the POEO Act 
would be associated with the Project.  
During decommissioning, all above ground infrastructure and materials would be removed from the site 
and recycled or otherwise disposed of at approved facilities. The Project is considered highly reversible in 
its ability to return to the pre‐existing land use or alternative land use. 

Operation 
Electricity production using photovoltaics emits no pollution, produces no greenhouse gases, and uses no 
finite  fossil‐fuel  resources.  Only  limited  amounts  of  fuels  would  be  required  for  maintenance  vehicles 
during  operation  of  the  solar  farm.  Operational  waste  streams  would  be  very  low  as  a  result  of  low 
maintenance requirements of the solar farm. 
Some balance of system electrical components (e.g., inverters, transformers, electrical cabling) would likely 
need replacement over the proposed life of the solar farm, requiring further use of metal and plastic based 
products. Repair or replacement of infrastructure components would result in some waste during plant 
operations; however, such activities would occur very infrequently and there would be a high potential for 
recycling or reuse of such waste. 

5.11.3 Environmental safeguards 
 A  Waste  Management  Plan  to  cover  construction  and  operation  would  be  developed  to 
minimise  waste  and  maximise  the  opportunity  for  reuse  and  recycling.  Waste  would  be 
disposed of at a facility able to accept the specific wastes. 

5.12 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

5.12.1 Existing environment 
Cumulative  impacts,  for  the  purpose  of  this  assessment,  relate  to  the  combined  potential  effects  of 
different impact areas of the Project (i.e. construction traffic combined with visual impact) as well as the 
potential interaction with other Projects in the local area (e.g. the combined effects of adjacent wind farms, 
during  construction,  operation  and  decommissioning).  Cumulative  impacts  can  occur  concurrently  or 
sequentially.  
Potential for cumulative impacts has been identified in the following areas and are most relevant to the 
existing Gullen Range Wind Farm: 
Visual impact 
The visual impact assessment determined that the overall very low level of visibility will limit potential for 
cumulative visual impacts and specifically those that could result from views toward the existing wind farm 
development.  Additional  infrastructure  works  to  the  wind  farm  substation  are  unlikely  to  be  of  such 
magnitude that any significant change will occur within the wind farm visual environment. 
Noise impact 
The cumulative noise from the operational Gullen Solar Project and Gullen Range Wind Farm facilities was 
found to comply with the amenity criterion for all non‐involved properties. It should be noted that in reality, 
noise emissions from both facilities will vary significantly depending on wind speed, direction, solar load 
etc. and cumulative noise levels are likely to be much lower than that assessed. 

6385 Final v2  95   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Biodiversity 
No cumulative biodiversity impacts were identified for biodiversity. It is noted that the solar farm would 
pose  minimal  operational  risks  to  bird  and  bats.  Offsets  for  tree  hollows  are  proposed  to  address  the 
ongoing decline of hollow bearing trees in agricultural landscapes.  
Traffic impacts 
Cumulative traffic impacts are only relevant to construction where multiple projects may place additional 
pressure  and  contribute  additional  road  hazard  risks  to  the  local  road  network.  No  other  large  scale 
construction  projects  are  known  to  be  planned  for  the  Gullen  Solar  construction  period.  Minimal 
cumulative impacts are anticipated. 
Economic and resource impacts 
The potential for positive cumulative economic effects of the Project is very real during the construction of 
the  Project.  Liaison  will  continue  with  local  economic  development  bodies  to  ensure  this  potential  is 
maximised. 
Social impacts 
Aside from economic impacts, social impacts may result from the solar farm development. The Project may 
exacerbate or reignite unrest regarding the adjacent Gullen Range Wind Farm. While it is certain that not 
all members of the community will view the Project favourably, in some communities, investment in clean 
energy  production  can  become  a  point  of  pride  to  residents.    Mitigation  of  social  impacts  has  been 
discussed in Section 5.9. No further measures are considered to be required. 
Greenhouse gas emissions and air quality impacts 
For each megawatt‐hour of electricity generated by a renewable energy generator, coal fired generation is 
reduced by approximately 1 megawatt‐hour.  Every  megawatt‐hour of electricity  generated  by  the  solar 
farm would prevent one megawatt‐hour of electricity being generated at a coal fired power station, as well 
as preventing losses within the electricity transmission system.  
The cumulative impact of additional renewable energy generator in the region would have positive impacts 
for NSW in terms of provision of electricity to meet increasing demand as well as the reduction of coal fired 
electricity generation with the associated environmental benefits. This is a key benefit of the Project. 

5.12.2 Environmental safeguards 
Mitigation  is  considered  most  appropriate  on  a  project  by  project  basis.  This  SEE  includes  measures  to 
minimise  identified  cumulative  impacts  for  the  Gullen  Solar  Project  (not  duplicated  below,  but  stated 
within Section 5 environmental safeguards, where relevant). In this way cumulative impacts would also be 
reduced for these environmental impacts and any concurrent projects. Additional measures include: 

 Traffic and infrastructure: If an additional Project proposed concurrent construction timing 
on access routes nominated by the Gullen Range wind farm, the Proponent would enter 
into liaison to ensure that additional traffic and transport issues were addressed. 
 Economic:  Liaison  will  continue  with  local  economic  development  bodies  to  ensure  the 
potential for local skill use and manufacturing is maximised during construction. 

6385 Final v2  96   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

5.13 PRINCIPLES OF ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 
The protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 outlines a number of principles of ecologically 
sustainable development (ESD). These are presented below and discussed in relation to the Project. 

5.13.1 The precautionary principle 
According  to  the  precautionary  principle,  if  there  are  threats  of  serious  or  irreversible  environmental 
damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be seen as a reason not to protect the environment. The 
use of the precautionary principle implies that Projects should be carefully evaluated to identify possible 
impacts and assess the risk of potential consequences. 
The precautionary principle has been applied in assessing conservation values and environmental threats 
and impacts associated with works proposed throughout this assessment. The development of mitigation 
measures and safeguards to manage impacts aims to reduce the risk of serious and irreversible impacts on 
the environment. 
Generally, throughout this assessment, there has been found to be a low level of uncertainty in regard to 
the factors assessed. 

5.13.2 Inter‐generational equity 
The  principle  of  inter‐generational  equity  requires  the  present  generation  to  ensure  that  the  health 
diversity  and  productivity  of  the  environment  are  maintained  or  enhanced  for  the  benefit  of  future 
generations. 
The impacts of the proposed works are likely to be localised and temporary, and would not significantly 
diminish resources and nature conservation values available for the use by future generations. At the end 
of the Project, removal of infrastructure ensures the Project is highly reversible with very minor impact on 
the agricultural productivity or alternative land use for the site. In addition, the Project provides significant 
environmental  benefit  by  producing  sustainable  energy  which  is  an  important  part  of  addressing 
intergenerational equity. 

5.13.3 Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity 
Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity are a fundamental consideration of ESD. 
An assessment of the existing local environment has been undertaken in order to identify and manage any 
potential impacts of the Project on local biodiversity. The impacts of the Project on local populations of 
threatened species, threatened communities and their habitats have been assessed in detail in Appendix 
C and Section 5.3. The Project is not considered to have a significant impact on biological diversity and 
ecological integrity. 

5.13.4 Appropriate valuation of environmental factors 
This  principle  requires  that  “costs  to  the  environment  should  be  factored  into  the  economics  costs  of  a 
Project”. This REF has examined the environmental consequences of the Project and identified mitigation 
measures for factors which have the potential to experience adverse impacts. Requirements imposed in 
terms  of  implementation  of  these  mitigation  measures  would  increase  both  the  capital  and  operations 
costs of the Project. This signifies that environmental resources have been given appropriate valuation.

6385 Final v2  97   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SUMMARY  

6.1 LICENSES AND APPROVALS REQUIRED 
The following additional licenses / permits / approvals have been identified for the Project. These would 
sought prior to any construction impacts: 
Road works  

 Approval from the road authority (Upper Lachlan Shire Council) would be required under 
section 138 of the Roads Act to erect a structure or carry out a work in, on or over a public 
road. The proponent would seek an agreement with council, whereby council will “close” 
the crown road used for access, and the Project will take on responsibility for upgrade and 
maintenance of the road for the life of the solar farm, until decommissioning. 
Waterways and catchments 

 If  it  becomes  the  preferred  cable  route,  trenching  across  Ryans  Creek  would  require  a 
Controlled  Activity  Approval  from  NSW  Office  of  Water,  pursuant  to  the  Water 
Management Act.  
 The Project occurs within the greater Sydney water supply system. The Project would be 
classed as a Module 5 development by the authority and requires concurrence under SEPP 
(DWC) 2011 from Water NSW. 
Aboriginal heritage 

 An Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) is required prior to impacting identified sites. 
The permit application was submitted to OEH in November 2015.  

6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMEWORK 
The environmental risks associated with the proposed solar farm would be managed by implementing a 
project‐specific suite of mitigation measures detailed in Section 5 and summarised below in section 6.3.  
All  measures  would  be  managed  through  the  implementation  of  a  Project  Environmental  Management 
Plan  (PEMP),  consisting  of  a  Construction  Environmental  Management  Plan  (CEMP),  an  Operation 
Environmental  Management  Plan  (OEMP)  and  a  Decommissioning  Environmental  Management  Plan 
(DEMP). These plans would be prepared sequentially, prior to each stage of works or operations. 
These plans would detail the environmental management responsibilities of specific staff roles, reporting 
requirements,  monitoring  requirements,  environmental  targets  and  objectives,  auditing  and  review 
timetables,  emergency  responses,  induction  and  training,  complaint  response  procedures  and  adaptive 
management mechanisms to encourage continuous improvement.  

6385 Final v2  98   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

6.3 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES 
Note:  measures  may  apply  to  several  headings  but  are  included  at  the  first  mention  only  and  not 
duplicated. They are ordered as they appear in the SEE but identified by the phase of the Project to which 
they apply: 
C  Construction (or pre‐construction / detailed design phase)   
O  Operation  
D  Decommissioning 
 
Mitigation measures  C  O  D 
Visual amenity, Section 5.1 
During the design phase, consider:  Pre     
 Further refinement in the design and layout which may assist in the mitigation  C 
of bulk and height of proposed structures. 
 Selection and location for replacement tree planting which may provide partial 
screening or backdrop setting for constructed elements. 
 A review of materials and colour finishes for selected components including the 
use of non‐reflective finishes to structures where possible. 
During construction, consider:  C     
 Minimisation of tree removal where possible. 
 Protection of mature trees within the proposed solar farm site where retained. 
 Avoidance  of  temporary  light  spill  beyond  the  construction  site  where 
temporary lighting is required.  
 Rehabilitation of disturbed areas. 
During operation, consider:    O   
 Ongoing maintenance and repair of constructed elements. 
 Replacement of damaged or missing constructed elements. 
 Long term maintenance (and replacement as necessary) of tree planting within 
the solar farm site to maintain visual filtering and screening of external views 
where appropriate. 
Noise and vibration, Section 5.2 
During detailed design:  Pre    
 Where possible, the final layout would maximise the available offset distance  ‐ C 
from  the  inverters  to  PW5.  Predicted  noise  emissions  from  the  final  layout 
should also be reviewed to ensure compliance with applicable noise criteria. 

6385 Final v2  99   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Mitigation measures  C  O  D 
During construction:  C     
 All  construction  works  are  to  be  undertaken  under  EPA’s  standard  daytime 
construction periods (i.e 7.00am to 6.00 pm Monday to Friday and 8.00 am to 
1.00 pm on Saturdays). 
 During Piling works:  
 Use of less noise‐intensive equipment, where reasonable and feasible. 
o Where  practicable,  install  localised  acoustic  hoarding  around 
significantly noise generating items of plant. This would be expected to 
provide  between  5  dB  and  10  dB  of  additional  noise  attenuation  if 
adequately  constructed  to  ensure  line‐of‐sight  between  all  receivers 
and the construction equipment is broken. 
o Planning of the higher Noise Management Level exceedance activities / 
locations  to  be  undertaken  predominantly  during  less  noise‐sensitive 
periods  (i.e.  away  from  early  morning  /  late  afternoon  periods  when 
residents are home from work), where available and possible.  
o Briefing of the work team in order to create awareness of the locality of 
sensitive receivers (in particular PW5) and the importance of minimising 
noise emissions.  
o Use of respite periods during highly noise intrusive works. 
 Additionally, noise minimisation will be undertaken with reference to AS 2436‐
2010  “Guide  to  Noise  and  Vibration  Control  on  Construction,  Demolition  and 
Maintenance  Sites”  which  sets  out  numerous  practical  recommendations  to 
assist in mitigating construction noise emissions. 
Biodiversity, Section 5.3 
Prior to construction:  C     
 Complete final targeted surveys (reptile tile survey checks and Golden Sun Moth 
traverses).  If  either  of  these  species  are  detected,  further  assessment  and 
development of mitigation strategies would be undertaken in consultation with 
OEH. 
 Vegetation clearing and disturbance will be minimised to the extent required to  C     
complete the works. In particular, works are to avoid impacts to mature eucalypts 
wherever  possible.  Wherever  practicable,  excavations  and  vehicle/machinery 
movements will occur outside the canopy dripline of large eucalypts, and avoid 
impacts  within  the  adjacent  woodland  patches  that  are  to  be  retained  to  the 
south of the development site.  Tree protection standards should comply with 
Australian  standard  AS4970‐2009  Protection  of  trees  on  development  sites 
(Standards Australia, 2009). 
 Existing areas of disturbance will be preferentially used for vehicle and machinery  C     
access, materials laydown, stockpiling of cleared vegetation and the deposition 
and retrieval of spoil whenever practicable.  
 Areas disturbed by the construction / decommissioning phase would be stabilised  C    D 
and rehabilitated progressively during works. Seeding and replanting would be 
with  species  appropriate  to  the  areas  of  impact;  native  in  native‐dominated 
areas.  
 Works will be avoided during, and immediately following heavy rainfall events to  C     
protect soils and vegetation at the site from compaction, where practical. 

6385 Final v2  100   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Mitigation measures  C  O  D 
 A  weed  management  plan  would  be  developed  for  the  site  including  but  not  C    D 
limited to the following outcomes; 
o The control of noxious weeds recorded on the site 
o Preventative measures for the spread or introduction of weeds. 
o Monitoring of control and preventative measures and ongoing adaptive 
management to suppress weeds 
o Laydown  sites  for  excavated  spoil,  equipment  and  construction 
materials would be weed‐free or treated for weeds prior to use;  
o Sediment control materials would be weed free such as weed free hay 
bales or geotextiles; and  
o Imported materials such as sand and gravel would be sourced from sites 
which  do  not  show  evidence  of  noxious  weeds  or  Phytophthora 
infection. 
 The  space  between  the  solar  panel  rows  would  be  adequate  to  allow  a  small  C     
vehicle (such as an ATV) to access the site for ongoing weed control and pasture 
renovation if required.  
 Aquatic habitat to be retained will be protected by installation and monitoring of  C     
site specific sediment erosion controls in accordance with Landcom 2004. 
 Any  aquatic  habitats  to  be  removed  (i.e.  draining  and  in‐filling  of  farm  dams)  C     
would include a protocol for inspection of the dams by an ecologist immediately 
after draining to capture and relocate any stranded aquatic fauna (such as frogs 
and turtles). 
 Any hollow‐bearing trees to be removed would be removed in accordance with a  C     
tree felling protocol, to minimise impacts to resident fauna.  
 All hollows removed would be offset; one nest box per hollow, specific to the type  C  O   
of  hollow  removed.  Monitoring  would  verify  the  hollows  remain  intact  for  a 
period of two years post installation.  
 Rock and log habitat removed during the construction phase will be relocated to  C     
immediately  adjacent  sites,  outside  of  the  development  footprint,  to  retain 
habitat values in the area. 
 Construction materials should not be stockpiled on site for extended periods of  C     
time as local fauna may take up residence and be injured when the materials are 
moved.  
 Trenches should be backfilled as soon as possible to minimise the chance of fauna  C     
becoming trapped. 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 (dependent 
on the size of trench needed). 
 Vehicles would be speed limited onsite, to reduce risk of collision with fauna.  C  O   

6385 Final v2  101   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Mitigation measures  C  O  D 
 A Groundcover Management Plan would be developed that would include regular    O   
monitoring  of  vegetation  cover  and  composition  and  allow  for  adaptive 
management. The aim of the plan is to retain vegetation cover under the panels, 
to resist erosion and weed infestation. The plan would include as a minimum: 
o A  monitoring  protocol  to  routinely  assess  vegetation  cover  and 
composition to allow for adaptive management 
o Suitable grazing strategies to promote native perennial groundcover 
o Measures for the establishment of a shade tolerant native groundcover 
where  necessary  to  address  the  potential  for  soil  erosion  and  weed 
ingress.  Provision  for  advice  from  an  agronomist  (or  other  suitably 
qualified  person)  in  relation  to  preferred  species/varieties, 
establishment  methods  of  alternative  pastures  and  best  practice 
management  would  be  included.  Onsite  trials  would  be  considered  if 
information is lacking. 
 Weed  monitoring  and  treatment  would  continue,  to  suppress  noxious  weeds    O   
onsite during operation. 
 A flora and fauna management plan would be prepared to manage removal of      D 
infrastructure  from  the  site  and  rehabilitation  of  areas  disturbed  during 
decommissioning. 
Aboriginal archaeology, Section 5.4 
Prior to construction  C     
 A management strategy of active conservation to be implemented in regard to 
GRSF 14, GRSF 16 and the terrace east of GRSF 2 as a form of impact mitigation 
to off‐set overall development impacts. If conservation is not feasible, salvage 
excavation  should  be  undertaken  in  order  to  mitigate  development  impacts. 
Salvage  excavation  would  occur  after  Development  Consent  (and  an  AHIP)  is 
granted and prior to construction.  
 A Cultural Heritage Management Plan would be developed for the appropriate  C     
management and mitigation of development impacts during any further planning 
and project construction. The development of an appropriate Cultural Heritage 
Management  Plan  should  be  undertaken  by  the  Project  archaeologist  in 
consultation  with  the  proponent,  registered  Aboriginal  parties  and  the  NSW 
Office  of  Environment  and  Heritage.  It  would  include  an  unexpected  finds 
protocol. 
 The Cultural Heritage Management Plan would be prepared to guide the process  C     
for the management and mitigation of impacts to Aboriginal cultural heritage and 
to  set  out  procedures  relating  to  the  conduct  of  additional  archaeological 
assessment, if required, and the management of any further Aboriginal cultural 
heritage values which may be identified.  
During construction:  C     
 Personnel involved in the construction phase of the Project would be trained in 
procedures  to  implement  recommendations  relating  to  cultural  heritage,  as 
necessary.  

 Cultural heritage would be included within any environmental audit of impacts  C     
proposed to be undertaken during the construction phase of the development.  
 No construction works would take place until an AHIP is obtained from the NSW  C     
OEH.  
Traffic, transport and road safety, Section 5.5 

6385 Final v2  102   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Mitigation measures  C  O  D 
Prior to construction, preparation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan to include:  C     
 Confirmation of the haulage route in consultation with local roads authorities. It 
is  noted  that  planning  for  the  wind  farm  construction  established  routes  and 
preferred travel times within Goulburn and Crookwell town areas which are more 
suitable  for  the  passage  of  large  numbers  of  heavy  vehicles.  These  routes  and 
times  should  be  considered  again  in  conjunction  with  the  road  authorities  as 
preferred routes for all truck transport to the solar farm site. 
 In  terms  of  route  selection  for  heavy  vehicles,  it  is  recommended  that  traffic 
management planning should direct heavy vehicle traffic to the Crookwell Road / 
Kialla Road route in preference to the Range Road route. Range Road, because of 
its  shorter  distance  from  Goulburn  to  the  Pomeroy  site,  experienced  a  large 
increase in traffic during wind farm construction.  
 Consideration of potential conflicts with school buses and mitigation measures 
where required. 
 Provision  for  carpooling  and/or  bus  transport  for  workers  from  Goulburn  and 
Crookwell to minimise the number of vehicles in the peak periods particularly on 
Range Road. 
 Provision  for  dust  suppression,  monitoring  of  pavement  condition  and  regular 
maintenance to reduce potholes and corrugations. Consideration would be given 
to bitumen sealing the Storriers Lane route (1.0km of Bannister Lane and 1.2km 
of  Storriers  Lane)  to  minimise  long  term  maintenance  costs  (this  would  have 
benefits for dust generation to nearby residents). 
During decommissioning:      D 
 Decommissioning  traffic  impacts  would  be  addressed  in  a  Decommissioning 
Environmental Management Plan.  
Historic heritage, Section 5.6 

During construction:  C     
 In the event of an item of heritage significance being uncovered at the Project 
site after works commence, the NSW Heritage Division should be contacted prior 
to further work being undertaken at the site. 
 Construction traffic routes would avoid town centers where possible, particularly  C     
the  center  of  Goulburn  and  Crookwell  that  have  the  largest  concentration  of 
heritage items nearest to the study area (over 10kms). 
Fire and bush fire issues and impacts, Section 5.7 

Prior to construction:  C     
 Develop  a  Bush  Fire  Management  Plan  (BFMP),  or  incorporate  Gullen  Solar 
Project provisions into the existing Gullen Range Wind Farm BFM, with input from 
the RFS, to include: 
o Management  of  activities  and  materials  with  a  risk  of  fire  ignition, 
including hot works, flammable materials handling and storage as per 
manufacturer’s instructions. 
o Management of fuel loads onsite, including grazing or slashing regimes. 
o Storage and maintenance of firefighting equipment, including siting and 
provision of adequate water supplies for bush fire suppression. 
o Emergency response and evacuation measures. 

6385 Final v2  103   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Mitigation measures  C  O  D 
Prior to operation:    O   
 Adapt the Bush Fire Management Plan for the operational stage of the Project 
with input from the RFS to include: 
o Operational procedures relating to mitigation, access and suppression 
of bush fire relevant to the solar farm. 
o Post‐fire  clean  up  procedures,  including  the  need  for  sampling  for 
emissions of cadmium and lead, where appropriate 
Physical impacts, Section 5.8 

Soil and water  C     
Prior to construction: 
 Works  within  Ryans  Creek,  if  required,  would  be  done  in  accordance  with  the 
Guidelines for Controlled Activities on Waterfront Land (Guidelines for instream 
works)  and  Water  NSW  Current  Recommended  Practices.  Specific  approvals 
would be obtained for these works (refer Section 6.1).  
 A  Soil  and  Water  Management  Plan  would  be  prepared,  implemented  and  C     
monitored during construction in accordance with Landcom (2004), to minimise 
soil and water impacts. The plan would include provisions to: 
o Minimise the works footprint to only that required for the works; clearly 
demarcating impact areas from ‘no go’ areas, that would be protected 
from impact. 
o At  the  commencement  of  the  works,  and  progressively  during 
construction, install the required erosion control and sediment capture 
measures. 
o Controls must be regularly inspected, particularly following rainfall. 
o Maintain  a  register  of  inspection  and  maintenance  of  erosion  control 
and sediment capture measures. 
o In all excavation activities, separate subsoils and topsoils and ensure that 
they are replaced in their natural configuration to assist revegetation. 
o On steep slopes, topsoil would need to be stabilised using, for example, 
jute matting. Any excess subsoil would be removed from the site and 
disposed of at facility able to accept the waste. 
o Access  tracks  would  be  confined  to  already  disturbed  areas,  where 
possible. Tracks not needed would be rehabilitated in accordance with a 
rehabilitation plan. 
o Ensure  any  discharge  of  water  from  the  site  is  managed  to  ensure 
ANZECC  (2000)  water  quality  criteria  are  met.  Procedures  for  testing, 
treatment  and  discharge  of  construction  waste  water  must  be  as 
described in the Soil and Water Management Plan. 
o Manage  works  in  consideration  of  heavy  rainfall  events;  if  a  heavy 
rainfall event is predicted, the site should be stabilised and work ceased 
until the wet period had passed. 
o Concrete  washout  shall  be  carried  out  offsite  or  all  washout  removed 
from site and disposed of at a facility able to accept this waste.    

6385 Final v2  104   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Mitigation measures  C  O  D 
 Spill  Response  Plan  would  be  developed  to  prevent  contaminants  affecting  C     
adjacent pasture and dams. It would: 
o Manage  the  storage  of  any  potential  contaminants  onsite;  Material 
Safety  Data  Sheets  (MSDS)  for  all  chemical  inventories  would  be 
located on site and readily available. 
o Mitigate the effects of soil contamination by fuels or other chemicals 
(including  emergency  response  and EPA  notification  procedures and 
remediation). 
o All  fuels,  chemicals,  and  liquids  would  be  stored  at  least  50m  away 
from  any  waterways  or  drainage  lines  and  would  be  stored  in  an 
impervious bunded area.  
o Manage  the  refuelling  of  plant  and  maintenance  of  machinery  in 
hardstand or bunded areas.  
o Include provisions for machinery to be checked daily to ensure there is 
no oil, fuel or other liquids leaking from the machinery.  
o All staff would be appropriately trained through toolbox talks for the 
minimisation and management of accidental spills 
 A rehabilitation plan would:  C     
o Ensure areas disturbed during construction (laydown areas, additional 
track  widths,  cabling  routes)  are  stabilised  progressively  during 
construction and restored back to original condition or re‐vegetated 
with appropriate species (native in native dominated areas) as soon as 
practical.  
o For impacted riparian areas, meet the requirements of the Guidelines 
for Controlled Activities on Waterfront Land; Guidelines for Riparian 
Corridors  (where  relevant),  and  any  additional  comments  received 
from NSW Office of Water and Water NSW. This may include fencing 
stock out of riparian areas being rehabilitated. 
o Detail appropriate planting techniques for the different areas of the 
site, in consideration of climatic conditions (sterile cover crops may be 
required as an intermediate step). 
o Include  monitoring  to  meet  clear  targets,  regarding  ground  cover 
establishment. 
Air quality  C     
During construction: 
 Dust control measures would include: 
o A water cart (or other means) would be utilised to manage dust on all 
access roads and exposed dusty surfaces in response to visual cues and 
complaints. 
o Stockpiled topsoil and other materials that exhibit significant dust lift 
off would be wet down, stabilised or covered to manage dust. 
o Protocols  to  guide  vehicle  and  construction  equipment  use,  to 
minimise emissions.  
 Development of a complaints procedure to promptly identify and respond to  C     
complaints. 

6385 Final v2  105   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Mitigation measures  C  O  D 
Soil and water    O   
During operation: 
 A  Spill  Response  Plan  would  be  adapted  for  operational  activities,  to  manage 
hazardous substances onsite. 
 Drainage  to  be  addressed  to  deal  with  any  concentrated  flows  off  panels,  if 
required. 
Socio economics and community wellbeing, Section 5.9 

Prior to construction and through the life of the project:  C  O  D 
 Community consultation would be undertaken in accordance with the Project’s 
specific Community Consultation Plan (Appendix E).  
Prior to construction:  C     
 Opportunities  for  local  subcontractors  would  be  maximised  by  developing  a 
registration  process  on  the  Project’s  website: 
http://www.gullensolarfarm.com/supply‐and‐subcontracting‐opportunities/ 
Land use, Section 5.10 

During construction and decommissioning:  C    D 
 Co‐ordinate construction activities with local events. The Proponent would liaise 
with  the  local  visitor  information  centres  to  ensure  that  construction  and 
decommissioning timing and haulage routes are known well in advance of works. 
 Liaison  would  be  undertaken  with  neighbouring  landowners  and  landowners  C    D 
adjoining access roads, to provide information about the timing and routes to be 
used  during  construction  and  decommissioning.  This  could  be  in  the  form  of 
advertising and provision of a contact point for further inquiries. The aim would 
be to reduce the risk of interference with agricultural activities on affected roads 
and road verges. 
 Stock would be restricted from works areas where there is a risk stock injury. For  C    D 
example, near excavated trenches and within high traffic areas. 
Resource use and waste generation, Section 5.11 
Prior to construction and operation:   C  O   
 A  Waste  Management  Plan  to  cover  construction  and  operation  would  be 
developed  to  minimise  waste  and  maximise  the  opportunity  for  reuse  and 
recycling.  Waste  would  be  disposed  of  at  a  facility  able  to  accept  the  specific 
wastes. 
Cumulative impacts, Section 5.12 
During construction:  C     
 Traffic  and  infrastructure:  If  an  additional  Project  proposed  concurrent 
construction timing on access routes nominated by the Gullen Range wind farm, 
the  Proponent  would  enter  into  liaison  to  ensure  that  additional  traffic  and 
transport issues were addressed. 
 Economic:  Liaison  will  continue  with  local  economic  development  bodies  to  C     
ensure  the  potential  for  local  skill  use  and  manufacturing  is  maximised  during 
construction. 

   

6385 Final v2  106   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

7 CONCLUSION 
The proposed Gullen Solar Farm would be situated to the north of the Pomeroy precinct boundary of the 
Gullen Range Wind Farm. The site covers an area of approximately 113 hectares. This area of land has been 
acquired by Gullen Solar Farm Pty. Ltd. 
This SEE assesses a broad envelope to allow flexibility in the final infrastructure layout of the proposed 
solar farm. The assessed development envelope is 64 hectares. A smaller final construction footprint of 
around 25‐30 hectares is anticipated, ensuring this assessment has assessed all areas that may be impacted 
by  the  development.  The  siting  of  the  Project  within  the  development  envelope  will  seek  to  further 
minimise the Project’s impact, where possible. 
Development  of  the  Gullen  Solar  Farm  would  make  use  of  existing  infrastructure  and  contribute  to 
Australia’s transition to a low emission energy generation economy. The potential for the Gullen Solar Farm 
and the Gullen Range Wind Farm to share facilities increases the value of the Project. Key existing facilities 
proposed to be shared between that the Gullen Solar Farm and the Gullen Range Wind Farm include the 
330/30kV Gullen Range Wind Farm Substation, control room, grid connection, operation and maintenance 
facility, as well as addition equipment, vehicles and personnel. 
The Project can be considered a sustainable primary industry that extracts renewable energy (a natural 
resource) and is complementary to surrounding land uses. It adds diversity to the natural resource base. It 
is highly reversible upon decommissioning, having minimal impact on the productive capacity of the site. 
The key environmental risks have been investigated through specialist investigations: 

 Visual impact – low height infrastructure will minimise the view shed of the Project. Impacts 
are considered low. 
 Noise  impacts  –  predicted  construction  exceedances  (for  one  receiver)  will  be  managed 
carefully. Design measures will ensure that no operational or cumulative exceedances are 
predicted. 
 Biodiversity impacts – impacts to areas of conservation significance would be minimised. 
Areas disturbed during construction will be rehabilitated and operational shading impacts 
under the array will be monitored and addressed if required. Tree hollows to be removed 
would be offset. 
 Aboriginal  heritage  impacts  –  impacts  would  be  managed  under  a  Cultural  Heritage 
Management Plan.  No construction  impacts  would  occur  before  obtaining  an Aboriginal 
Heritage Impact Permit. 
A  suite  of  management  measures  have  been  developed  to  address  environmental  impacts  and  risks  to 
these and other physical, social and environmental impact areas. Key management strategies centre on 
management plans and protocols minimise impacts and manage identified risks. 
The  impacts  and  risks  identified  are  considered  manageable  with  the  effective  implementation  of  the 
measures stipulated in the SEE. Impacts are considered justifiable and acceptable. 
 

   

6385 Final v2  107   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

8 REFERENCES 
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC). (2000). National Water 
Quality Management Strategy: Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water 
Quality. 
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2012). 2011 Census QuickStats: Upper Lachlan Shire LGA (A) 
LGA17640. Accessed October 2015 from 
http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/LGA1764
0?opendocument&navpos=220 
Australian  Greenhouse  Office  (AGO).  (2003).  Climate  change:  An  Australian  Guide  to  the  Science  and 
Potential Impacts. Australian Greenhouse Office, edited by B Pittock, 2003. 
Bega Duo Designs. (2008). Gullen Range Wind Farm Traffic Impact Study.  
Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). (2015). Climate Statistics for Crookwell Post Office. Accessed October 
2015, from http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_070025.shtml 
Boot, P. (1994). Recent Research into the Prehistory of the Hinterland of the South Coast of New South 
Wales. In Sullivan, M, Brockwell, S. and Webb, A. (eds) Archaeology in the North: Proceedings of 
the 1993 Australian Archaeological Association Conference. NARU: Darwin. 
Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC). (2009a). Interim Construction Noise Guideline. 
Sydney: Department of Environment and Climate Change. 
Department  of  Environment,  Climate  Change  and  Water  (DECCW).  (2010).  Aboriginal  cultural  heritage 
consultation requirements for proponents. 
Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC). (2005). Draft Guidelines for Aboriginal Cultural 
Heritage Impact Assessment and Community Consultation. 
Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). (2005). Guidelines for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage 
Impact Assessment and Community Consultation 
Department  of  Industry.  (2015).  MinView.  Resources  and  Energy.  Accessed  October  2015  from 
http://minview.minerals.nsw.gov.au/mv2web/mv2 
Department of Primary Industries (DPI). (2015). Groundwater Real Time Data – Bores. NSW Office of 
Water. Accessed 2 October 2015 from 
http://realtimedata.water.nsw.gov.au/water.stm?ppbm=GROUND_WATER&gw&3&gwkm_url 
Eades, D. (1976). The Dharawal and Dhurga Languages of the New South Wales South Coast. Canberra: 
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. 
Enerdata. (2015). Average Electricity Consumption per Electrified Household. Accessed 21 October 2015, 
from https://www.wec‐indicators.enerdata.eu/household‐electricity‐use.html 
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). (2000). NSW Industrial Noise Policy. Sydney: EPA. 
Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE). (2015). Photovoltaics Report. Accessed 26 November 
2015, from https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/downloads/pdf‐files/aktuelles/photovoltaics‐
report‐in‐englischer‐sprache.pdf 
Fthenakis, V.M. (2003). Life cycle impact analysis of cadmium in CdTe PV production Renewable & 
Sustainable Energy Reviews No. 8, pp. 303‐334. 

6385 Final v2  108   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Fthenakis, V.M., Fuhrmann, M., Heiser, J. And Wang, W. (2004). Experimental Investigation of Emissions 
and Redistribution of Elements in CdTe PV Modules During Fires, 19th European PV Solar Energy 
Conference, Paris, France, June 7‐11, 2004; Paper 5BV.1.32, viewed online, accessed October 2015 
from http://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/abs_176.pdf 
Fthenakis, V., Kim, H.C., Held, M., Raugei, M. and Krones, J. (2009). Update of PV Energy Payback Times 
and Life‐Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions 24th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, 21‐
29 September 2009, Hamburg, Germany. 
Fthenakis, V., Kim, H.C., Frischknecht, R., Raugei, M., Sinha, P., Stucki, M. (2011). Life Cycle Inventories and 
Life  Cycle  Assessment  of  Photovoltaic  Systems,  International  Energy  Agency  (IEA)  PVPS  Task  12, 
Report T12 ‐ 02:2011.    
Geoscience Australia and ABARE (GA and ABARE) (2010). Australian Energy Resource Assessment, 
Canberra. 
Hird, C. (1991). Soil landscapes of the Goulburn 1:250,000 sheet. Soil Conservation Service of New South 
Wales, Sydney. 
Landcom. (2004). Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils & Construction (Volume 1).NSW Government. 
Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. (2013). Guidelines for 
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (3rd ed.). 
MacKay, D.J.C. (2009). Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air. UIT, Cambridge. Accessed October 2015, 
from http://www.withouthotair.com  
Marshall Day Acoustics (MDA). (2008). Gullen Range Wind Farm Noise Impact Assessment. 
NSW Archaeology. (2015). Gullen Solar Farm Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report. 
NSW  Government.  (2015a).  Contaminated  sites  notified  to  EPA.  Accessed  8  October  2015,  from 
http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/clm/publiclist.htm 
NSW  Government.  (2015b).  NSW  OEH  contaminated  site  register.  Accessed  8  October  2015,  from 
http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/prclmapp/searchregister.aspx 
NSW Government. (2015C). SIXmaps. Accessed October 2015, from https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/ 
Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). (2011). Guide to investigating, assessing and reporting on 
Aboriginal cultural heritage in NSW. 
RMS. 2012. Annual Average Daily Traffic. 
Upper Lachlan Shire Council (ULSC). (2006). State of the Environment Report 2005‐06. 
Upper Lachlan Shire Council (ULSC). (2013). Upper Lachlan Shire Council Social and Community Plan 2013‐
2018. Accessed October 2015, from http://www.upperlachlan.local‐e.nsw.gov.au/council/other‐
public‐documents/social‐community‐plan‐0 
Upper Lachlan Shire Council (ULSC). (2014), Annual report 2013‐2014. Accessed October 2015 from 
http://www.upperlachlan.local‐e.nsw.gov.au/council/other‐public‐documents/annual‐reports 
Upper Lachlan Shire Council (ULSC). (2015). Sydney Drinking Water Catchment. 
Schleisner L. (2000). Life cycle assessment of a wind farm and related externalities Renewable Energy, vol. 
20, pp. 279‐288.  
SLR. (2015). Gullen Solar Farm Construction and Operational Noise Impact Assessment. 

6385 Final v2  109   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Tindale, N. (1974). Aboriginal Tribes of Australia. ANU Press, Canberra. 
Twyford Consulting. (2007). Interview with Local Stakeholders. A Research Report for Epuron Pty. Ltd. 
Warren, C.R., Lumsden, C., O’Dowd, S. and Birnie, R.V. (2005). ‘Green on Green: Public Perceptions of Wind 
Power in Scotland and Ireland’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, vol 48, No. 
6, 873‐875. 
Western  Australian  Planning  Commission.  (2007).  Visual  Landscape  Planning  in  Western  Australia:  a 
Manual  for  Evaluation,  Assessment,  Siting  and Design.  Environment  and  Sustainability  Directorate, 
Department for Planning and Infrastructure and Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth WA. 
 
 
 

6385 Final v2  110   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

APPENDIX A INFRASTRUCTURE SPECIFICATIONS 
The following data sheets provide an example of the infrastructure component specifications likely to be 
installed  at  the  Gullen  Solar  Farm.  The  final  selection  of  components  will  be  determined  through  a 
competitive tendering process.  
 
 

6385 Final v2  A‐I   
 2012 © Conergy
Subject to technical changes
Conergy_Mounting_Systems_SF_GER_2012-06-01
Securely planned. Quickly installed.

Available from: Mounting systems

for solar energy systems
Conergy AG
Anckelmannsplatz 1
20537 Hamburg
Germany
info@conergy.com

www.conergy.com

O U R W O R L D I S F U L L O F E N E R G Y.
Why Conergy mounting systems?
Because we're absolutely precise.
Just like you.
Anyone who has ever watched acrobatics or even taken part knows that the extraordinary performances
of the man right at the top will not be enough for the gold medal if the man supporting the bottom
makes a mistake. This supporting role is carried out by mounting technology in solar energy systems.
It secures the powerful Conergy solar modules come rain or shine. This has an immediate effect on the
durability of the system. That's why we at Conergy set the highest standards when it comes to
mounting solutions. Thus the expectations of our customers rightfully remain where they should be:
right at the top.

Durable mounting solutions. Completely secure. Simple planning.

Conergy mounting systems stand for maximum durability With safety.
and consistent safety – with fast and cost-effective
| Software-supported planning right
installation. As a pioneer of photovoltaics, we know how to
up to the complete parts list
sustainably fulfil the high quality requirements of our
customers. The consequence: our systems are amongst the | Stability and static calculation
most-installed across the globe. With good reason. Our based on local standards with the
patented technology and high-quality materials give solar Conergizer planning software*
modules the best possible support. Even in snow and storm, | Optimised storage thanks to
on a pitched roof, flat roof or free-field. product-spanning standardised
components

Our experience. Your benefit. Simple installation.

Around the world, installers and system operators trust in In record time.
equal measure in the proven quality of the Conergy
| Pre-assembled components for
installation technology. Because practice makes perfect. Our
light handling as far as possible
unique experience is a result of tens of thousands of installed
systems, from a small solar system on a family home to the | Use of a maximum of one to two
largest solar parks. It is nice that quality is asserting itself. tools for simple installation
| Conergy QuickFix technology for
tool-free one-man installation
| Reduced installation effort through
time saving

* You can find more information on planning software at: www.conergizer.com

Conergy mounting systems 2|3

Certified quality does not come by chance.
It comes from Conergy.
Everything that enters and leaves our factory is carefully and repeatedly checked, from individual raw materials to finished
components. We never compromise on quality. Only when there is nothing left to check are we happy to say that everything
meets Conergy's premium quality standards.

No one's quality control is more Top quality.

rigorous. Typically German. Without compromises.
Our customers appreciate the quality
| Development and production
of our mounting systems. To ensure it
according to German quality
stays this way, the Conergy quality
standards
tests belong to the most comprehensive
in the industry. Meticulous testing – for | Exclusively high-quality materials
example, the driving rain, wind tunnel such as steel and aluminium
and fire protection test – as well as | Certified manufacturing processes
independent quality certificates confirm according to ISO 9001
our claim to be a world champion when
it comes to quality. | Static test of all installation solutions
before delivery (DIN 1055)
| 10-year product warranty*

Driving rain test Fire protection test Wind tunnel test

* The warranty conditions of Conergy AG are valid for Conergy installation technology

Conergy mounting systems 4|5

Conergy pitched roof mounting systems.
From universal genius. To trapeze artist.
Pitched roofs vary even due to differing roof structures, roof slopes and roof
covering. A good job that after installing more than 10,000 solar energy systems
across the world, we have encountered all sorts of requirements. You benefit
directly from this. In the most popular form of photovoltaics installation, the high
level of installation comfort and the sustainable quality are the most convincing
factors.

For pitched roofs. Positively optimum.

Regardless whether for a traditional tiled roof or for a functional trapezoidal roof,
Conergy offers the best-possible on-roof solution for every pitched roof. This
means system operators benefit from a mounting system of the very highest
stability and maximum service life. Come rain or shine.
"Thanks to the time-saving installation of Conergy
pitched roof solutions, I can offer my customers
the highest quality at a fair price. Now the sun is
shining for all of us."
Karsten Möhlmann, solar installer

Conergy SunTop QF
Accomplished design. Perfect look.

As elegant as an in-roof system. Thanks to high-quality noir design, minimal module clearances and precisely fitting telescopic
end brackets, the Conergy SunTop QF gives the roof an elegant look. The solar modules are fitted without tools thanks to
the patent pending Conergy QuickFix technology. Integrated channels for cable routing additionally simplify the installation.
The system is exclusively available as part of the Conergy Complete 300 solar system solution.

Overview: Conergy SunTop QF

NEU
Areas of use NEW
| Pitched roofs for on-roof mounting
| A
 ll conventional roof coverings
up to 60° roof pitch

Installation
| Tool-free module installation
| No cutting to size mini-telescope technology
| To the portrait installation of the modules
| For framed modules (type Conergy PowerPlus)

Benefits
| One-man installation possible
| Saves time and installation effort
| Elegant look

Conergy mounting systems 6|7

Conergy SunTop
World-renowned universal solution. For all pitched roofs.

One of the most regularly installed mounting systems is Conergy SunTop. After all, it can be used on almost every
conceivable roof covering. The rail length can be adjusted with a very clever telescopic technology. This saves custom
cutting and reduces effort. Especially with the patented Conergy QuickStone technology.

Overview: Conergy SunTop

Areas of use
| Pitched roofs for on-roof mounting
| A
 ll conventional roof coverings
up to 60° roof pitch

Installation
| No cutting thanks to telescopic technology
| P
 ortrait and landscape installation of framed
standard modules
| H
 eight-adjustable base rails for uneven
roof surfaces

Benefits
| One-tool installation
| Saves time and installation effort

Conergy SunTop Trapeze

Quick installation. Whether portrait or landscape.

On no other roof can solar modules be so easily and inexpensively installed as on a trapezoidal roof. The SunTop Trapeze
on-roof system can be installed in record time. Cleverly designed brackets are attached to the sides of the crest of the
trapezoidal sheet, the rails are simply attached by hooking them in. This saves time – and, above all, costs.

Overview: Conergy SunTop Trapeze

Area of use
| Trapezoidal sheet roofs up to 20° roof slope

Installation
| For framed and unframed modules
| Both portrait and landscape installation
| M
 inimal number of components, simple
to attach to the bracket
| Height-adjustable

Benefits
| Installation in record time
| Inexpensive
| A
 djustment of uneven roof surfaces
up to 15 mm

Conergy mounting systems 8|9


"I want a visually pleasing
energy transition. The roof integration
by Conergy more than convinced me."
Cornelia Haag,
home owner
Conergy SolarRoof LM
Tested technology. With an elegant look.
Conergy SolarRoof LM was developed for the leveled integration of solar energy systems with frameless modules into the
roof skin. Frameless modules are installed onto the system like lamellas. This ensures a watertight, durable installation. The
show-stopper, however, is that instead of time-consuming screw connections, a patented rail click system is used. The
solution is available as the Conergy Complete 200 system – aesthetically ambitious with a refined noir look. In other words,
all visible components of the system including the module are black.
Overview: Conergy SolarRoof LM
Areas of use
| Pitched roofs from as little as 16°
inclination angle
| In-roof installation
Installation
| Patented rail click system
| F
 or frameless modules
(type Conergy PH xxxPL)
| Both portrait and landscape installation
Benefits
| Elegant look
| Simple and fast installation
| R
 eliably watertight – without additional
roof substructure
Conergy in-roof solutions. Conergy SolarDelta
Simply elegant. Without rails. With substructure.
Conergy SolarDelta is the first mounting system to get by without continuous rails. Framed modules can be installed especially
Repeatedly approved. simply and quickly thanks to the renowned QuickStone technology. Thanks to its substructure, the Conergy SolarDelta
protects against both wind and rain, just like a conventional roof. Special adapters lead to optimum ventilation.
Overview: Conergy SolarDelta
Areas of use
This will please even the most demanding home-owners: a solar energy system
| Pitched roofs from as little as 16°
that is integrated into the roof, both directly and flush. The result - clean electricity inclination angle
and a clean look. A good reason for all sunseekers to decide on this especially | For roof integration
elegant solution. Ideally from the quality champion.
Installation
| Just one tool required for roof
installation
A new roof. Just along the way. | S
 imple installation without rails for the
first time
With Conergy in-roof installation solutions, photovoltaics modules can easily be
| For framed modules
integrated into roofs of new and old buildings with any roof covering. This means
that with a new solar energy system you also get a new roof – without a great Benefits
deal of extra costs. The tried and tested principle: instead of the pre-existing roof | Elegant look thanks to leveled
covering, the in-roof mounting system is installed directly onto the rafters. It is as in-roof installation
weather-resistant as a conventional roof. | Time saving thanks to pre-assembled parts
| R
 eliably watertight – with additional roof
substructure
Conergy mounting systems 10 | 11
Conergy flat roof mounting system. Conergy SolarFamulus
Installed in no time. Row by row.

Easily installed. Perfectly aligned to the sun. If you are looking for the perfect solution for load-carrying flat roofs, then look no further. The mounting system can not only
be quickly and securely installed with foot brackets or ground rails, but also allows an optimum tilt angle. Be it 20°, 25° or 30°
– only a few movements are required.

Overview: Conergy SolarFamulus

Experts know that flat roofs were practically made for photovoltaics. The modules
can simply be stood up and optimally align to the sun. Add to this the enormous Areas of use
potential of often unused, therefore even larger flat roof surfaces. This primarily | All conventional flat roofs

includes all commercial and industrially used roofs. Conergy’s innovative solutions
Installation
more than measure up to this potential. | Pre-assembled components
| Foldable for transportation
| Three different tilt angles
In defiance of the wind. To the benefit of the yield.
| P
 ositioning with foot brackets or
The special challenge with this type of system is the wind pressure-secure ground rails
elevation of the modules in an optimum tilt angle. In order to meet individual "Next to revenue, durability and safety are what
requirements, we have developed two solutions. One for load-carrying flat roofs count for me in my solar energy system. Benefits
as well as a self-supporting, aerodynamically optimised version for statically That‘s why I have chosen Conergy quality." | Simple transportation
demanding flat roofs. | Simple and fast assembly
Oliver Wiesenthal, entrepreneur

Conergy SolarFamulus Air

Minimum ballast. Maximum aerodynamics.

From aeroplane engineer to system installer: roofs with low load-carrying capability require new thinking and creative solutions.
That's why an expert in aerodynamics was in charge of the development of the Conergy SolarFamulus Air. What was created
was a future-oriented solution. A mounting system with the aerodynamic principles of aeroplane wings – without roof penetration.

Overview: Conergy SolarFamulus Air

Areas of use
| Flat roof light weight constructions
| Foils and bitumen roofs

Installation
| Low number of individual components
| M
 inimum ballasting of the ends of the
system rows
| For framed modules

Benefits
| No penetration of the roof
| Aerodynamic design
| G
 reat stability even with very high
wind pressure

Conergy mounting systems 12 | 13

Conergy free-field systems.
Extra efficient. Extraordinarily flexible.
Whether hilly or flat terrain, whether pasture or previously unused fallow land, solar
energy systems can be optimally adjusted and aligned to the sun in open land.
This makes operational sense. Those already calculating profits during installation
should select a solution that is particularly quickly and safely installed – ours! After
all, every manhour counts. The fewer you need, the better.

For the greatest demands. With clever additional uses.

As with all Conergy mounting systems, our free-field versions are also made "My ecological double effect?
exclusively from high-quality aluminium and stainless steel. For the greatest The Conergy free-field mounting system
demands on durability and stability. Furthermore, the land can easily be farmed allows me to also use the area to graze
my flock of sheep. Simply great."
and maintained even with a solar energy system. The module edge of Conergy
free-field systems is approx. 1 m above the ground. Gerhard Keufel, farmer

Conergy SolarGiant
Maximum area. Minimum effort.

The name says it all: up to 45 m² installable module area per unit means the
Conergy SolarGiant system lives up to its name. Considering its size and high
efficiency, the installation effort remains surprisingly minimal. Typical Conergy.

Overview: Conergy SolarGiant

Area of use
| Open areas

Installation
| Simple, foundation-based installation
with high degree of pre-assembly
| For framed and unframed modules
| Portrait and landscape module installation

Benefits
| More installable module area
per system unit
| T
 ime and cost savings thanks to
pre-assembled parts

Conergy mounting systems 14 | 15

Conergy SolarLinea Single
Fundamentally fast. Without foundations.

The Conergy SolarLinea Single is one of the most competitively priced and quickest to assemble mounting systems on the
market. Why? Uneven ground does not have to be levelled at potentially great cost. Up to 10° height difference is evened
out by the system through the flexibility of the base rails and connectors. It securely stands on ram piles – without any
foundations.

Overview: Conergy SolarLinea Single

Area of use
| All open land with up to 10°
fall of ground

Installation
| Installation at working height
| No cutting or drilling
| For framed and unframed modules
| Portrait or landscape installation

Benefits
| Inexpensive use without earthworks
| F
 ast installation thanks to renowned
QuickStone module fastener

Conergy SolarLinea Double

Any option. On any terrain.

SolarLinea Double is an especially flexible system. Thanks to three different mounting options, optimum stability is reached
depending on the soil conditions. Unevenness in the ground is compensated for by clever height adjustments. And, for an
optimum use of space, the modules can be installed in either portrait or landscape.

Overview: Conergy SolarLinea Double

Area of use
| Open areas

Installation
| Alternative mounting with ram posts,
foundations or ground studs
| C
 hoice between QuickStone technology
or clamps
| For framed and unframed modules
| Installation
 with up to two portrait module
rows or five landscape module rows over
one another

Benefits
| Maximum surface utilisation
| High flexibility
| Short installation time
| Low costs

Conergy mounting systems 16 | 17

Better performance. Less effort.
With Conergy services. 20 50
100

Anyone who's been in business as long as we have knows when good service really starts: long before installation. For
example, installers love taking advantage of the top-class, easy-to-use planning features of our Conergizer tool. We Conergizer
also know when good service should stop: never. Solar power is, after all, the energy of the future. And it‘s developing System and mounting structure planning.
day after day. Just like Conergy services. We are simplifying the ordering process, making installations more efficient
and future-proofing our customers' investments. All with one objective in mind: to "make it easy" – for our partners, for Our online tool, the Conergizer, makes planning quicker,
completely satisfied customers. easier and more professional then ever. You choose the
mounting system and the Conergizer configures everything
precisely in accordance with the specified roof battens –
from roof hooks through to base rails and module clamps.
Including a static calculation. And by the time you‘ve
finished your planning, the Conergizer has already put
together a parts list of all the components used.
Customer acquisition
Conergy training
We make you fit for the job.
Our team of expert trainers and engineers, with extensive
experience in the field, is ready to boost your skills with
specialised practical training sessions, such as „Installation
training for mounting systems“ to help you work more
efficiently and quickly.
Find out more information from your customer consultant.
There's a comprehensive programme of training sessions
focusing on products, technology and sales, just waiting
to be discovered.

Planning &
quoting

20 50
100

Financing
Planning comes to life in 3D: all elements of the mounting system
are displayed in different colours. This enables you to plan the
Warranties configuration down to the very finest detail, and check right from
the beginning how the system will look later.

More information on all Conergy services

can be found in our latest service brochure.
We make it easy.

Conergy
Ordering service offer
Ask us for one, or send an e-mail with your
company details to info@conergy.com.

System operation

Delivery
Installation

Conergy mounting systems 18 | 19

Conergy solar energy systems.
Complete solutions from one source.
Combine Conergy mounting systems with other Conergy products to form a Conergy solar energy system. Solar modules
Every component from one source. Every component with Conergy quality. What more could you ask for?
Our high-performance modules, in different sizes and
power classes, all have something in common – an
insatiable appetite for sunlight. Guaranteed for 25 years.
High yield reliability, innovative connection technology
and easy installation make for more than satisfied
customers, all around the globe.
Storage solution
The Conergy sun storage solution increases the share
of own consumption to over 70 % or more. The simple
principle: the solar power produced by a photovoltaic
system is stored and can be used at any time, even
during the night. Customers are therefore more
independent in the event of electricity price hikes and
power cuts. The Conergy storage solution is currently in
the test operation.

ulting and ser vices

Cons

Inverters & accessories Complete systems

Conergy string and central inverters supply solar power Conergy Complete Systems are complete solar energy
to the electricity grid with almost no losses. Top class systems, developed with typical applications in mind.
ies MPP tracking also ensures high electricity yields during Complete systems can be planned at the touch of a
s or So
c es la
rm variable cloud coverage. And there's more: thanks to button through www.conergizer.com and are easy to
ac
Conergy monitoring technology, system operators can install. They provide all-round hassle-free peace of mind
od
&
rs

ul

fully exploit the potential of their solar energy systems. for both installer and system operator.
es
te
er

p l e te s y s te m
Inv

om
C

s
St

em
or

st
ag

sy

so
e

g
lu
tio n tin
ns
M ou

Overview of other brochures – available to download from www.conergy.com

Because high quality pays for itself.

Conergy solar modules

Partner information Specialist partner information

High efficiency. Impressive comfort. Conergy solar system solutions. Easy to use. Complete. Better. Conergy solar system solutions. Simple. Complete. Better.

Inverters Conergy Complete Conergy Complete

and accessories for private homes for companies

Conergy mounting systems 20 | 21

 Conergy solar systems.
Globally in use. Successful worldwide.
Over the last 14 years we have advised more than 10,000 customers around the globe and provided more than
2 gigawatts of solar module capacity. We have learned a lot in the process – about sun, wind and weather on all five
continents. And about the high standards required by our international customers. Today, we can offer any private
customer, enterprise and investor all-round peace of mind and perfection. Here’s a small selection of our solar projects.

Thüngen Photovoltaic System Bad Dürrheim Photovoltaic System Gran Canaria Photovoltaic System

Output: 18.7 MWp Output: 4.20 kWp Output: 1.75 MWp

Location: Thüngen, Germany Location: Bad Dürrheim, Germany Location: Gran Canaria (Aqüimes), Spain
Year built: 2010 Year built: 2007 Year built: 2011

Puyricard Photovoltaic System Saint-Aunès Photovoltaic System Drama Photovoltaic System

Output: 2.96 kWp Output: 1.1 MWp Output: 5 MWp

Location: Puyricard, France Location: Saint-Aunès, France Location: Drama, Greece
Year built: 2007 Year built: 2008 Year built: 2010

Conergy mounting systems 22 | 23

Linea II
Linea II
Linea I

Small footprint – big yield

The Linea I cleverly combines the advantages of a single-pole system with the well-known advantages of the Sigma II. The
single-pile Linea I, with its reduced surface footprint can help reduce the amount of site preparation required while still
providing excellent configuration versatility.

Outstanding adjustability
The Linea I employs a new, proprietary "Pi" rail. The improved structural strength provided by this new rail, along with
aggressive material design optimization allows the Linea I to adapt easily to either portrait or landscape module
orientation. Mounting Systems' patented Quickstone technology makes module installation fast and easy. With standard
tilt angles from 20° to 35°, the Linea I provides outstanding versatility for any ground mount project.

Significant savings
The Linea I is designed for cost savings. It’s simple, functional design, reduced component count, extensive preassembly and
minimal tool requirements translate directly into faster assembly, reduced installation times and lower pr oject costs.

Maximum service life

The rugged durability of the Linea II contributes to its long service life. The combination of marine-grade
aluminum, high-grade stainless steel and heavy galvanizing assure long-term corrosion resistance and maximum
reliability.

Gentle on the Earth

The use of driven piles which eliminate the need for concrete piers or foundations minimizes the impact of the Linea I
on the natural conditions of the site. Driven piles also make for easier and more complete site reclamation when
required. And, of course, the entire structure is recyclable to minimize the impact on our environment.
1 Other on request
2 For terms and conditions please refer to the Conergy warranty

Subject to change without notice

MV POWER STATION
2200SC / 2500SC-EV
MVPS 2200SC / MVPS 2500SC-EV

Flexible Robust Easy to Use Cost-effective

• For 1,000 VDC and 1,500 VDC system • Station and all individual • Full plug & play • Easy planning and installation
voltages components type-tested • Completely pre-assembled for easy • High power density per m³ for
• For all medium-voltage grids from • 5-year statutory warranty set-up and connection maximum profitability
6.6 kV to 33 kV • Optimally suited to extreme • Pre-installed and mechanically • Transported worldwide in standard
• Various options ambient conditions protected cabling 20 foot container

MV POWER STATION 2200SC / 2500SC-EV

Turnkey system solution with the new Sunny Central inverter
The MV Power Station is a globally deliverable turnkey solution that features the robust new Sunny Central inverter and
matching medium-voltage components. It represents the ultimate in compactness with 1,000 VDC (2,200 kW) or 1,500 VDC
(2,500 kW). Being the ideal choice for large-scale PV power plants, the integrated 20 foot container station is quick to
assemble and commission as well as easy and cost-effective to transport. The compact station itself (IEC 62271-202) and
all its components are type-tested. The MV Power Station combines rigorous plant safety with maximum energy yield and
minimized operating risk. The MV Power Station’s components are completely pre-installed and commissioned to speed up
station commissioning as much as possible.
MV POWER STATION
2200SC / 2500SC-EV

Technical Data1 MV Power Station 2200SC MV Power Station 2500SC-EV

Input (DC)
Max. input voltage 1,000 V (1,100 V IEC) 1,500 V
MPP voltage range 570 V - 1,000 V 840 V - 1,500 V
Max. input current (@ 25 °C / @ 50 °C) 4,110 A / 3,960 A 3,000 A / 2,700 A
Number of DC inputs 24 24
Max. fuse size 630 A 450 A
Integrated zone monitoring ○ ○
Output (AC) on the medium-voltage side
AC power at cos φ = 1 (@ 25 °C / @ 40 °C / @ 50 °C) 2,200 kVA / 2,080 kVA / 2,000 kVA 2,500 kVA / 2,350 kVA / 2,250 kVA
Typical nominal AC voltage 6.6 ... 33 kV 6.6 ... 33 kV
AC power frequency 50 Hz / 60 Hz 50 Hz / 60 Hz
Transformer vector group Dy11 / YNd11 ●/○ ●/○
Transformer type ONAN / KNAN sealed transformer5
Max. output current at 20 kV 64 A 73 A
Transformer no-load losses2 1.595 kW 1.76 kW
Transformer load losses2 19.8 kW 22 kW
Max. total harmonic distortion < 3% < 3%
Power factor at rated power / displacement power factor adjustable 1 / 0.8 overexcited to 0.8 underexcited
Feed-in phases / connection phases 3/3 3/3
Inverter efficiency3
Max. efficiency 98.6 % 98.4 %
European efficiency 98.3 % 98.1 %
CEC weighted efficiency 98.0 % 98.2 %
Protective devices
Input-side disconnection point DC load-break switch
Output-side disconnection point AC circuit breaker
DC overvoltage protection Type II surge arrester
DC ground-fault monitoring / remote ground-fault monitoring ○/○ ○/○
DC insulation monitoring ○ ○
Galvanic isolation ● ●
Arc fault resistance (according to IEC 62271-202) IAC A 20 kA 1 s IAC A 20 kA 1 s
General data
Dimensions (W/H/D) 6.058 m / 2.591 m / 2.438 m 6.058 m / 2.591 m / 2.438 m
Weight < 16 t < 16 t
Operating temperature range -25°C to +40°C / +55°C ●/○ ●/○
Self-consumption (at rated operation)4 / self-consumption (stand-by)4 < 8,100 W / < 300 W < 8,100 W / < 300 W
Internal auxiliary power supply for inverter self-consumption 8.4 kVA transformer 8.4 kVA transformer
Degree of protection according to IEC 60529 Control room IP23D, inverter IP54
Degree of protection according to IEC 60721-3-4 (4C1, 4S2 / 4C2, 4S2) ●/○ ●/○
Application / use in chemically active environment In unprotected outdoor environments / ○
Maximum permissible value for relative humidity 15 % ... 95 % 15 % ... 95 %
Max. operating altitude above mean sea level 1,000 m / >1,000 m to 3,000 m ●/○ ●/○
Fresh air consumption (inverter) 6,500 m³/h 6,500 m³/h
Features
DC terminal Ring terminal lug or busbar Ring terminal lug or busbar
AC connection, MV side Outer-cone angle plug Outer-cone angle plug
Display HMI touch display (10.1“)
Communication protocols / SMA String-Monitor Ethernet, Ethernet/IP, Modbus
SC-COM / Communit ●/○
Station enclosure color RAL 7004 / RAL 9016
Transformer for external loads 2 / 10 / 20 / 30 kVA ○
Medium-voltage switchgear ○
Oil containment ○
Standards (more available on request) IEC 62271-202, IEC 62271-200, IEC 60076, IEC 61439-1

● Standard features  ○ Optional features  — Not available

Type designation MVPS 2200SC MVPS 2500SC-EV
1) Preliminary values
2) At 20 kV
3) Efficiency measured at inverter
4) Data based on inverter
5) ONAN = Oil-natural, air-natural cooling; KNAN = Biodegradable ester, air-natural cooling

SYSTEM DIAGRAM

DESIGN NOTES

Inverter compartment
The air outlet for the Sunny Central inverter is located on the narrow side of the MV Power Station. DC connections are made from below
in the inverter’s DC connection compartment. The transformer compartment and inverter compartment are sealed with seaworthy covers for ocean shipping.

Transformer compartment
Outdoor transformer optimized for PV without active fan for reduced maintenance. The side panels are equipped with protective grids. The transformer is
connected directly to the inverter by a highly efficient three-phase busbar. This cuts costs, reduces losses and allows a highly compact design.

Medium-voltage compartment
The following features are installed:
Medium-voltage switchgear with three feeders, including two cable feeders with load-break switch and one transformer feeder with circuit breaker. For optimal
user protection, the medium-voltage switchgear is type approved for IAC AFL 20 kA 1s according to IEC 62271-200. Internal arc pressure relief is directed
to the transformer compartment. As a result, the MV Power Station can be set up without feet.
Transformers with EMC filtering devices in 2, 10, 20 and 30 kVA power classes can be installed to support additional communications and control functions
and to operate tracker motors.
A low voltage meter can be optionally added to the station subdistribution panel with the circuit breakers for the control unit.
In addition, communication components such as Communit can be integrated. Various options for the medium-voltage switchgear allow the MV Power Station
to be perfectly adapted to local grid conditions.
www.SMA-Solar.com 
SMA Solar Technology
MVPS2200SC-2500SC-EV-DEN1520-V10 SMA and Sunny Central are registered trademarks of SMA Solar Technology AG. Printed on FSC paper.
All products and services described as well as technical data are subject to change, even for reasons of country-specific deviations, at any time without notice. SMA assumes no liability for typographical or other errors. For the latest information, please visit SMA-Solar.com.
 Maximum Yields – Stable Grids

The SMA Power Plant Controller offers smart and flexible

solutions for managing PV power plants in the megawatt
range. It controls inverters in centralized and in distributed
PV power plant architectures.

By offering quick and direct control, the Power Plant Control-

Power Plant Controller
Intelligent Park Control for PV Power Plants
ler allows grid and PV plant operators to maintain target
values for responding to requirements from the PV power
plant and the grid. The SMA Power Plant Controller controls
the PV power plants to ensure that they adapt to the require-
ments from the grid or the grid operator in every operating
phase. Thanks to extremely fast implementation of control
commands, it ensures the highest possible system availabil-
ity at all times.

The SMA Power Plant Controller can be used to obtain

precise data on the behavior and design of a PV power
plant before it is even commissioned. Parameterization and
configuration are easily done via remote access. With easy
expandability for new communication protocols, standards
for individual connections and a modular design, the SMA
Power Plant Controller is well suited to meet the future re-
quirements of PV power plants worldwide.

Sonnenallee 1
34266 Niestetal, Germany
PPC-AEN122210

Tel.: +49 561 9522 0

Fax: +49 561 9522-100
E-mail: Powerplants@SMA.de
Q@night and Reactive Power on Demand
Providing reactive power is one of the greatest features of
PV plants in terms of integrating them into global grids. The
SMA Power Plant Controller, together with SMA inverters,
manages all necessary parameters that are necessary for
a permanent and sustainable stability of grids.
The SMA Power Plant Controller measures the voltage, fre-
quency and phase angle and manages the system accord-
ing to preset curve values. It controls the inverters in the PV
field in such a manner that they can accurately respond
to all requirements from the grid or the PV power plant at
any time.
PV plants can also provide reactive pow-
er at night. Constant or dynamic values
are preset.
New target values for reactive power or
the power factor are implemented in a
matter of seconds.
Predefined values for reactive power or
the power factor are received and then
implemented on time.
Constant reactive power or a power fac-
tor are made available on a permanent
basis or by request.
Dynamically specified values for reactive
power or power factor are managed at
the grid connection point.
Easy to Expand Central Control Unit in PV Power Plants

Short response times and fast data exchange are essential • Efficient controller for the entire PV system with intelligent
for efficient and flexible PV plant control. algorithms and fast communication

Data exchange via open interfaces, standard protocols or
analog and digital I/Os.
• Modbus/TCP, Modbus/UDP
• IEC 60870-5-104, IEC 61850 (later release)
• OPC
• Future-proof thanks to easy expandability with new
protocol stacks, etc.
• Modular expandibility of any number of I/Os
Function block-oriented programming (IEC6 1131-3) offer-
ing a simple way to make individual adjustments.
Convenient web interface
• Remote operation, monitoring and diagnosis of PV plant
control and included components
• Display of critical online data and status information
• Simple system configuration and parameterization
• Control dynamic significantly under 1 second
• Central hub for recording, evaluating and implementing
measurements
• Receiver for all internal and external control and regula-
tion commands
• Central control unit and coordinator for all inverters in
the PV field
• Real-time recording of all conditions in the grid (V, f, Q)
and in the PV power plant
• Provision of open interfaces and standard protocols
• Flexible connection of external I/Os for recording and
forwarding data

Hardware

Connection-ready switch cabinet with open hardware plat-

form, including:
• Integrated and modularly expandable PLC and I/Os
• Managed switches with optical fiber converters
• Uninterruptible power supply, fuses and terminals
• Various options such as an internet router and remote
measuring transducers
• Redundancy concept for increased availability currently
in planning
Energy flow
SD card for data logging and configuration Communication and control
• 10.4“ TFT touch display (optional)
Grid connection point
SMA Plant Control System The PPC Manages your Profit

Thanks to intelligent monitoring algorithms, the SMA Power

Plant Controller is capable of easily managing PV power
plants in the multi-megawatt range.

So investing in PV power plants with super effective and

innovative technology from the global market leader SMA
provides a secure, sustainable and profitable investment in
the future.

Your Benefits

Higher returns due to

• Optimized power plant design with lower costs
• Smooth operation with fast and accurate control features
• Less downtime and hence lower risk

Grid operators benefit from

• Stable grids thanks to predictable PV plant behavior
• PV power plants that can easily be connected to trans-
mission lines
• Stability through highly flexible control functions

Developers can successfully plan their projects with

• SMA experts that assist in PV farm design
• Easy commissioning and parameterization
• Flexible options for all PV plant topologies
• Uncomplicated authorization and reliable processing for
grid connection
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

APPENDIX B SECTION 79C MATTERS 
Matters for consideration under 79C Evaluation of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 
1979: 

 the provisions of any environmental planning instrument  
Local planning provisions are addressed in Section 4.1. The Gullen Solar Farm would be generally 
consistent with the objectives of the zone.  

 the provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument   
No  draft  environmental  planning  instrument  has  been  identified  as  being  of  relevance  to  the 
proposed works. 

 the provisions of any development control plan 
No development control plans have been identified as being of relevance to the proposed works. 

 the  likely  impacts  of  that  development,  including  environmental  impacts  on  both  the 
natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality 
Section 5 addresses all physical, biological, chemical and social impacts anticipated to be associated 
with the Project. Management measures have been developed specific to the nature and extent of 
predicted impacts. 

 the suitability of the site for the development 
The Gullen Solar Farm would be compatible with surrounding land uses, as discussed in Section 5.10. 
Planning and management measures would ensure the Project is consistent with the objectives of 
preserving  environmentally  sensitive  areas  and  maintaining  areas  of  high  conservation  value 
vegetation  and  of  protecting  waterways  and  catchments  would  be  compatible  with  surrounding 
land uses and planning and management measures would ensure the Project is consistent with the 
objectives of preserving environmentally sensitive areas and maintaining areas of high conservation 
value vegetation and of protecting waterways and catchments 

 any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations 
This SEE would comply with a public exhibition period. All submissions made by members of the 
public or agencies would be addressed by the proponent. 

 the public interest 
Community wellbeing and socio‐economic impacts are considered in Section 5.9. While community 
wellbeing impacts can be subjective, management measures have been included to maximise public 
understanding and acceptance for the Project, and economic benefits of the Project. 

6385 Final v2  B‐1   
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

GULLEN
SOLAR FARM
VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Prepared for:

GULLEN SOLAR
FARM PTY LTD
Prepared by:

GREEN BEAN DESIGN

landscape architects

GREEN BEAN DESIGN PTY LTD

PO Box 3178 Austral NSW 2179
Principal: Andy Homewood BSc (Dual Hons), DipLM, DipHort, Registered Landscape Architect, AILA
(ABN: 86 603 575 702)

December 2015

1
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

DOUCMENT CONTROL

ITEM DETAIL
Project Name: Gullen Solar Farm
Report Title: Visual Impact Assessment
Project Number: 15-203
Version Number: v2
Status: Final
Andrew Homewood, Registered Landscape Architect, AILA
Author: Graduate Diploma Landscape Management, Bachelor Science (Dual Honours)
Landscape Design and Archaeology, National Diploma Horticulture
Date 11 December 2015

Green Bean Design – Capability statement

Green Bean Design (GBD) was established as a landscape architectural consultancy in 1999 and has
specialised in landscape and visual impact assessment over the past 10 years. As an independent
consultancy, GBD provide professional advice to a wide range of commercial and government clients
involved in large infrastructure project development.
GBD owner, and principal landscape architect Andrew Homewood, is a registered landscape architect
and member of the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects and the Environmental Institute of
Australia and New Zealand. Andrew has over 22 years continuous employment in landscape consultancy
and has completed numerous landscape and visual impact assessments for a variety of large scale and
state significant infrastructure, including mines, transmission lines/substations, wind farms and solar
power developments.

2
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Contents
Executive summary 6

Section 1 Introduction and report structure

1.1 Introduction 9
1.2 Report structure 9
Section 2 Methodology
2.1 Methodology 11
2.2 VIA objectives 11
2.3 Tasks 11
2.4 Desktop study 11
2.5 Fieldwork and photography 11
2.6 Assessment of visual impact 12
2.7 Mitigation measures 12
Section 3 Project location and description
3.1 Project location 13
3.2 Site description 13
3.3 Project description 13
3.4 Infrastructure layout 14
3.5 Transmission 14
3.6 Proposed tree removal 14
Section 4 Legislative and planning frameworks
4.1 Legislative and planning frameworks 15
Section 5 Panoramic photographs
5.1 Panoramic photographs 16
Section 6 Landscape character assessment and VAC
6.1 Landscape character area 17
6.2 Landscape character assessment 17
6.3 Visual Absorption Capability 21
Section 7 Viewshed
7.1 Viewshed 22
Section 8 Significance of visual impact
8.1 Introduction 23
8.2 Sensitivity of visual receivers 23
8.3 Magnitude of visual effects 24
8.4 Residential visual significance matrix 26
8.5 Visual impact summary 33
3
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Contents Page

8.6 Views from local roads 33

8.7 Views from agricultural areas 33
Section 9 Cumulative assessment
9.1 Cumulative Impact Assessment 35
Section 10 Photomontages
10.1 Photomontages 36
Section 11 Sunglint, glare and lighting
11.1 Introduction 37
11.2 Sunglint 37
11.3 Glare 37
11.4 Assessment 37
11.5 Lighting 38
Section 12 Pre-construction and construction
12.1 Potential visual impacts 39
Section 13 Mitigation measures
13.1 Mitigation measures 40
13.2 Detail design 40
13.3 Construction 40
13.4 Operation 40
Section 14 Conclusion
14.1 Summary 41

4
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Figures
Figure 1 Location Plan

Figure 2 Royalla Solar Farm

Figure 3 Photo locations

Figure 4 Photo sheet 1

Figure 5 Photo sheet 2

Figure 6 Photo sheet 3

Figure 7 Photo sheet 4

Figure 8 Photo sheet 5

Figure 9 Photo sheet 6

Figure 10 Photo sheet 7

Figure 11 Viewshed

Figure 12 Distance and visual effect

Figure 13 Receiver locations

Figure 14 Photomontage 1

Figure 15 Photomontage 1 Detail

Figure 16 Photomontage 2

Figure 17 Photomontage 2 Detail

Figure 18 Photomontage 3

Figure 19 Photomontage 3 Detail

5
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Glossary
This Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has adopted and adapted the following definitions from the
Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (2013).

Term Definition

Cumulative effects The summation of effects that result from changes caused by a
development in conjunction with other past, present or reasonably
foreseeable actions.

Magnitude A combination of the scale, extent and duration of an effect.

Mitigation Measures, including any processes, activity or design to avoid, reduce,

remedy or compensate for adverse landscape and visual effects of a
development project.

Photomontage Computer simulation or other technique to illustrate the appearance of

(Visualisation) a development.

Sensitivity Susceptibility of a receiver to a specific type of change.

Visibility A relative determination at which the proposal can be clearly discerned

and described.

Visual amenity The value of a particular area or view in terms of what is seen.

Visual Absorption The degree to which a particular landscape character type or area is
Capability able to accommodate change without unacceptable adverse effects on
its character.

Visual Impact Assessment A process of applied professional and methodical techniques to assess
and determine the extent and nature of change to the composition of
existing views that may result from a development.

View location A place or situation from which a proposed development may be visible.

Visual receiver Individual and/or defined groups of people who have the potential to
be affected by a proposal.

Visual significance A measure of the importance or gravity of the visual effect culminating
from the degree of magnitude and receiver sensitivity.

6
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Executive summary
Green Bean Design Pty Ltd (GBD) was commissioned by Gullen Solar Farm Pty Ltd (the Proponent) to
undertake a Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) for the proposed Gullen Solar Farm and associated development
infrastructure. The Gullen Solar Farm would include a range of infrastructure covering an area of
approximately 25 hectares.

This VIA has determined that the landscape surrounding the solar farm site, as well as landscape in the
broader viewshed, has a low visual sensitivity to change and a relatively high visual absorption capability.

The landscape has been significantly modified from pre European settlement and incorporates rural residential
and agricultural features common to the regional landscape. The local landscape also incorporates the Gullen
Range Wind Farm with a number of wind turbines forming distinct and visible features within and beyond the
solar farm site viewshed. This VIA has determined that the existing landscape characteristics are generally
robust. The degree to which the landscape may accommodate the solar farm will not significantly alter existing
landscape character.

This VIA has determined that the visual impact of the solar farm is likely to be very low (and predominantly
negligible) for residential dwellings and publicly accessible locations (roads) and that the Gullen Solar Farm:

• will have a no visual impact on the principal rural townships within the surrounding landscape;

• will result in no significant impact on views from local roads;

• will result in no significant cumulative visual impacts, and

• will result in no significant visual impact from scenic areas or public reserves.

This VIA identified a total of 20 residential dwellings located within an approximate 2 kilometre viewshed
surrounding the Gullen Solar Farm site. One dwelling (B11) also accommodates the Bannister Hall. This VIA
determined that:

• 19 of the residential dwellings would experience a negligible visual impact; and

• 1 residential dwelling (PW34 owned by Goldwind Pty Ltd) would experience a high-moderate visual
impact.

This VIA determined one residential dwelling (PW34) that would be subject to a high-moderate visual impact.
Dwelling PW34 is associated with the wind/solar farm operator. The dwelling, unoccupied at the time of the
solar farm VIA site inspection, may be occupied during the solar farm construction stage and/or rented by the
wind/solar farm owner. Whilst determined as a high-moderate visual impact, the dwellings direct association
to wind farm and solar farm sites will mitigate the high-moderate visual impact to low.

The determination of negligible visual impact for the majority of residential dwellings surrounding the solar
farm site reflect the high degree of localised screening provided by the low undulating landform extending

7
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

across this section of the Great Dividing Range, as well as the occurrence of tree screening alongside local
road corridors and within surrounding agricultural land.

This VIA also determined that the Gullen Solar Farm would only have a low (and mostly negligible) visual
impact for motorists with views being largely indirect and for a very short duration. Views from surrounding
local roads would also be screened and/or partially filtered by tree planting alongside road corridors.

The cumulative assessment determined that the overall very low level of visibility will limit potential for
cumulative visual impacts and specifically those that could result from views toward the existing wind farm
development. Proposed electrical infrastructure works within the wind farm substation are unlikely to be of
such magnitude to result in any noticeable change to the existing visual environment associated with the wind
farm development.

The majority of proposed electrical connection works within the Gullen Solar Farm site would be located
underground. A short section (around 240 metres) of overhead 33 kilovolt (kV) powerline may be constructed
in the south west portion of the solar farm project site. This VIA has determined that the overhead 33kV
powerline would not be visible from surrounding receiver locations including residential dwellings. The final
detail design may also result in the proposed overhead powerline being installed underground.

This VIA determined that the opportunities for sunglint and glare would be limited due to the properties and
characteristics of the solar panels, which are designed to absorb light rather than reflect it, as well as the lack
of direct visibility and line of sight from surrounding sensitive receiver locations including residential dwellings.
The potential for sunglint impacting motorists travelling along local roads would be largely mitigated by
existing tree alongside road corridors, and where visible, sunglint would tend to be indirect relative to the
direction of travel and very short term in duration.

Whilst this VIA has determined an overall very low level visual impact, mitigation measures may be considered
appropriate to minimise any residual or localised visual impacts. Additional mitigation measures would largely
address the selection of appropriate materials, finishes and colours for proposed infrastructure and some
limited landscape treatments to address any specific and/or localised views from private property.

8
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Introduction and report structure Section 1

1.1 Introduction
GBD has prepared this VIA on behalf of the Proponent to inform the assessment of the Gullen Solar Farm
project site for suitability for a solar farm development, as well as accompanying a Statement of
Environmental Effects (SEE) which is being prepared to support a Development Application (DA) to be lodged
with the Upper Lachlan Shire Council.

1.2 Report structure

This VIA report been structured into 14 parts as follows:

Table 2 – Report structure

Report section Description

1 – Introduction and report structure This section provides an introductory section that
describes the intent and purpose of the VIA and
description of the report structure

2 – Methodology This section sets out the methodology employed in the

VIA preparation

3 – Project location and description This section describes the locality and key visible
components of the solar farm

4 – Viewshed This section identifies the area of land surrounding the

solar farm which may be potentially affected by the
proposed solar farm project

5 – Legislative and planning frameworks This section sets out the legislative and planning issues
relevant to the solar farm visual assessment.

6 – Panorama photographs This section illustrates the VIA with panorama

photographs taken during the site inspection. The
panorama photographs are provided to illustrate the
general appearance of typical landscape characteristics
that occur within and surrounding the solar farm site.

7 – Landscape Character Assessment and This section describes the physical characteristics of
VAC the landscape surrounding the solar farm site and
determines the overall sensitivity of the landscape to

9
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Table 2 – Report structure

Report section Description

the development.

8 – Significance of visual impact This section describes and determines the potential
visual effect of the solar farm on key receiver locations
within the solar farm viewshed.

9 – Cumulative assessment This section describes the potential impact of alternate

existing and/or known infrastructure developments
within proximity to the solar farm site.

10 – Photomontages This section presents preliminary photomontages to

illustrate potential views toward the proposed solar
farm from surrounding public view locations

11 – Sunglint, glare and lighting This section describes the potential effects of sunglint,
glare and lighting on surrounding receiver locations.

12 – Pre-construction and construction This section identifies potential visual impacts which
may occur during pre-construction and construction
stages of the project.

13 – Mitigation measures This section considers the application of mitigation

measures to minimise potential visual impact

14– Conclusion Conclusions are drawn on the overall impact of the

proposed solar farm within the surrounding viewshed.

10
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Methodology Section 2
2.1 Methodology
The methodology employed for this VIA has been based on existing guidelines identified in Section 5 of this
VIA. The methodology is also based on the assessment of multiple renewable energy projects undertaken by
GBD within New South Wales. The key objectives and tasks incorporated into the VIA methodology are
identified below.

2.2 VIA objectives

The primary objective of this VIA is to determine the potential visual significance of the proposed solar farm on
people living and working in, or travelling through the landscape within and surrounding the proposed solar
farm site. This VIA has also been undertaken to:
• assess the existing visual character within the project site as well as the surrounding landscape;
• determine the extent and nature of the potential visual significance of the proposed solar farm on
surrounding areas; and
• identify measures to mitigate and minimise any potential visual impacts.

2.3 Tasks

This VIA included the following tasks and activities:

• desktop study addressing visual character and identification of view locations within the surrounding
area;

• fieldwork and photography;

• assessment and determination of visual significance; and

• determination of potential mitigation measures.

2.4 Desktop study

A desktop study was carried out to identify an indicative viewshed for the proposed solar farm. This was
carried out by reference to 1:25,000 scale topographic maps and aerial photographs of the project site and
surrounding landscape.

Topographic maps and aerial photographs were also used to identify the locations and categories of potential
receiver locations that could be verified during the fieldwork component of the assessment. The desktop study
also outlined the visual character of the surrounding landscape including features such as landform, elevation,
landcover and the distribution of residential dwellings.

2.5 Fieldwork and photography

The fieldwork involved:

• a site inspection to determine and confirm the potential extent of visibility of the proposed solar farm
and ancillary structures; and
11
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

• determination and confirmation of the various view location categories and locations from which the
proposed solar farm structures could potentially be visible.

2.6 Assessment of visual significance

The visual significance of the proposed solar farm on surrounding residential view locations will result primarily
from a combination of the potential visibility of the solar farm infrastructure and the characteristics of the
landscape between, and surrounding, the view locations and the solar farm site. The potential degree of
visibility and resultant visual significance will be partly determined by a combination of factors including:

• distance between receiver location and various proposed elements within the proposed solar farm;

• duration of view from receiver locations toward various constructed elements within the proposed solar
farm;

• predicted magnitude of the solar on existing visual amenity; and

• visual sensitivity of receiver locations from which views toward the proposed solar farm exist.

The determination of a visual significance is also subject to a number of other factors which are considered in
more detail in this VIA.

2.7 Mitigation measures

Mitigation measures have been determined to assist in the reduction and, where possible, remediation of any
significant adverse effects on surrounding receiver locations that may arise from the proposed solar farm.

12
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Project location and description Section 3

3.1 Project location
The proposed Gullen Solar Farm site is located in the Southern Tablelands of New South Wales, approximately
12 km south of Crookwell and 28km northwest of Goulburn.

The project site is situated to the north of the operational Gullen Range Wind Farm and extends across an area
of approximately 113 hectares (ha). The proposed development envelope within which infrastructure may be
located would be approximately 64 ha, with the final constructed footprint around 25 to 30 ha.

The solar farm site has been acquired by the Proponent and set-aside for the construction and operation of
the solar farm. The Gullen Solar Farm site is located within the Upper Lachlan Local Government Area (LGA).
The location of the proposed Gullen Solar Farm is illustrated in Figure 1.

3.2 Site description

The proposed solar farm site is predominantly cleared grazing land. Livestock keep the understorey low and
grass dominated. However, scattered trees and evergreen (predominantly pine tree) wind break plantings
occur within the site in a north south alignment. Woodland occurs on the periphery of the site and connects to
large contiguous forest areas beyond the site.

The landscape morphology of the proposed solar farm site is undulating and forms part of a larger plateau
formation within the Great Dividing Range. The proposed solar farm site slopes down to the north and east.
Locally steep areas border the site to the south. Gully systems are present to the south in larger areas of
contiguous forest. Most of the site drains to the east, to Sawpit Creek.

The proposed works would occur within the Wollondilly River sub catchment of the Hawkesbury Nepean
catchment and is within the Sydney Drinking Water Catchment. Two 1st order creek lines are present; one in
the southern part and the other in the eastern part of the site. They join to form a 2nd order creek south east
of the site.

An unoccupied residential dwelling is located on the proposed solar farm site. The dwelling, owned by the
Gullen Range Wind Farm operator, may be occupied or utilised during the construction stage and/or rented
during the operation of the project.

Land use within the local area is dominated by rural activities on large holdings. Population density is low.
Adjoining lands are privately owned and are predominantly cleared grazing lands.

The operational Gullen Range Wind Farm is located south, southwest and northeast of the Gullen Solar Farm
site.

3.3 Project description

The key infrastructure components of the project would include:

• solar panels (approximately 40,000 solar PV panels at around 3 to 4 metres high);

13
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 QLD

NSW

SA

Sydney

Canberra Gullen Solar Farm

VIC

GULLEN SOLAR FARM -

LOCATION PLAN, STATE CONTEXT (Not to scale)
Source: Copyright Department of Lands Panorama Avenue Bathurst 2795 (www.lands.nsw.gov.au)

CROOKWELL

GRABBEN GULLEN

GULLEN
SOLAR FARM

GOULBURN

GULLEN SOLAR FARM -

LOCATION PLAN, REGIONAL CONTEXT (Not to scale) Figure 1
Location Plan

Gullen Solar Farm Pty Ltd

GULLEN SOLAR FARM

 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

• electrical connections/inverters (5 to 10 inverter stations of each 1 – 2MW capacity);;

• collection circuits, 33kV underground cables for connection to the existing substation (approximately
3km);

• access tracks, access tracks to and from site, to substation and around arrays (up to 8m wide);

• safety fencing, fencing of the entire facility with 2.4m high chain mesh fence; and

• 33/330kV transformer and switchgear infrastructure at the existing wind farm substation.

3.4 Infrastructure layout

The proposed solar farm layout comprises groups of panels on level ground or north facing slopes. These are
all located on the Gullen Solar Project site. Inverters would be located centrally to groups of panels. The
transformer and switchgear would be installed within the existing substation located on the Gullen Range
Wind Farm site. Materials laydown areas would be required during construction and would be located within
the solar farm site.

3.5 Transmission

The solar farm project would be connected to the electricity grid via the existing wind farm substation and
TransGrid Gullen Range 330kV switching station. Additional cabling to connect the solar arrays will be
underground. A short section of 33kV overhead powerline would extend for approximately 250 metres
connecting underground cables between the solar farm and wind farm substation locations.

3.6 Proposed tree removal

The solar farm project would require the removal of some existing tree planting on the site. This would largely
involve removal of existing pine tree wind breaks located in a north south alignment on the north facing slopes
of the project site. The removal of the wind breaks would be required to assist constructability and to remove
potential shadows cast by the wind breaks across the proposed solar panels. Whilst the wind breaks provide
some differentiation in pattern, form and colour across the site, as a landscape characteristic they are well
represented and reasonably common within the surrounding landscape.

The operational Royalla Solar Farm includes solar panels similar to the type and size for the proposed Gullen
Solar Farm. Views toward solar farm infrastructure at the Royalla Solar Farm are illustrated in Figure 2.

14
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 Refer image 2 detail below

Image 1 - View looking toward the operational Royalla Solar Farm (approximate view distance 300 metres)

Image 2 - Detail view looking toward the operational Royalla Solar Farm PV panels Image 3 - PV panel detail view
Figure 2 - Royalla Solar Farm

GULLEN SOLAR
Gullen Solar Farm - Visual Impact Assessment FARM PTY LTD
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Legislative and planning frameworks Section 4

4.1 Legislative framework

There are no Federal, New South Wales State Government or Local Government Authority planning policies,
guidelines or standards that apply to the VIA prepared for this Project. Notwithstanding the lack of policies,
guidelines or standards, this VIA has been prepared with regard to pertinent industry standards including
those such as:

• Visual Landscape Planning in Western Australia (Western Australian Planning Commission, November
2007);

• The Environmental Impact Assessment Practice Note – Guideline for Landscape Character and Visual
Impact Assessment EIA–N04 (practice note EIA-N04); and

• Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Ed. (Landscape Institute and Institute of
Environmental Management and Assessment, 2013).

15
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Panoramic photographs Section 5

5.1 Panoramic photographs

A series of individual and panorama digital photographs were taken during the course of the fieldwork to
illustrate existing views in the vicinity of a number of view locations inspected and assessed as part of this VIA.

Photographs were taken from the within the proposed solar farm site looking beyond the site, and from areas
beyond the proposed solar site toward it. This provided a range of views which assisted in the determination
of the viewshed and the identification of areas from which the proposed solar farm may be visible.

The panorama photographs also illustrate the extent to which existing tree planting and surrounding landform
screen views toward the proposed solar farm site.

The panorama photographs were digitally stitched together to form a segmented panorama image to provide
a visual illustration of the existing view from each photo location.

The panoramic photographs presented in this VIA have been annotated to identify local features within and
beyond the proposed solar farm site.

The panoramic photograph locations are illustrated in Figure 3, and the panoramic photographs illustrated in
Figures 4 to 11.

16
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 G21
G20 Legend

Photo location (on-site)

Ra
ng
e
Photo location (off-site)

Ro
ad
Photo & Photomontage location

G19 Dwelling
G16 B46

B10 Other structure

B11

B20 G13 G12

B45
Gullen Solar Farm
G17 B35 G10 site boundary
B21 B54 G11
B47 B49
B48
Solar Farm panels

Lane
B38 indicative layout

Storriers
B38a

Ra Existing overhead
3km ng transmission line
eR
oa
2km d

1km Proposed overhead

power line (indicative)
G18 PW6
G14
G8

G15 PW5
G9
PW3

PW36
G6 G7
G3
PW34 G4
G2 G5 PW35

PW4 G1

PW29
1km

2km

PW7

3km

0m 1km

Figure 3 Photo locations

GULLEN SOLAR
Gullen Solar Farm - Visual Impact Assessment FARM PTY LTD
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Landscape character assessment and visual absorption capability Section 6

6.1 Landscape character area
As part of the VIA process it is important to understand the nature and sensitivity of different components of
landscape character, and to assess them in a clear and consistent process. For the purpose of this VIA,
landscape character is defined as ‘the distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occur consistently in a
particular type of landscape’ (The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage 2002). The pattern of
elements includes characteristics such as landform, vegetation, landuse and settlement.

For the purposed of this VIA, the landscape character surrounding the proposed solar farm site has been
determined as a singular landscape unit which generally occurs within the 2 kilometre viewshed of the
proposed solar farm site. The landscape unit represents an area that is relatively consistent and recognisable in
terms of its key landscape elements and physical attributes; which include a relatively limited combination of
topography/landform, vegetation/landcover, land use and built structures (including settlements and local
road corridors).

For the purpose of this VIA the predominant landscape unit within and surrounding the project site has been
identified as gently sloping and undulating modified agricultural land.

6.2 Landscape character assessment

An understanding of a particular landscape’s key characteristics and principal visual features is important in
defining a regional distinctiveness and sense of place and to determine its sensitivity to change. The criteria
applied in the determination of landscape character assessment and the ability of a landscape to
accommodate change is outlined in Table 3.

These criteria are based on established industry good practice employed in the assessment of developments
and have been adopted for numerous VIA assessments across Australia. The criteria are detailed in the
Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition, Landscape Institute and Institute of
Environmental Management & Assessment, 2013 – Chapter 5 Assessment of landscape effects.

Landscape sensitivity is a relative concept, and landscape values of the surrounding environment may be
considered of a higher or lower sensitivity than other areas in the Southern Tablelands region.

Whilst landscape character assessment is largely based on a systematic description and analysis of landscape
characteristics, this VIA acknowledges that some individuals and other members of the local community may
place higher values on the local landscape.

These values may transcend preferences (likes and dislikes) and include personal, cultural as well as other
parameters.

17
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Table 3 – Criteria for the assessment of landscape character

Landscape Character Assessment Criteria

Characteristic Aspects indicating lower sensitivity to ↔ Aspects indicating higher sensitivity to

the solar farm development the solar farm development

Landform and scale: • Large scale landform ↔ • Small scale landform

patterns, complexity and
consistency • Simple • Distinctive and complex

• Featureless • Human scale indicators

• Absence of strong topographical • Presence of strong topographical

variety variety

Landcover: patterns, • Simple ↔ • Complex

complexity and consistency
• Predictable • Unpredictable

• Smooth, regular and uniform • Rugged and irregular

Settlement and human • Concentrated settlement pattern ↔ • Dispersed settlement pattern

influence
• Presence of contemporary structures • Absence of modern development,
(e.g. utility, infrastructure or industrial presence of small scale, historic or
elements) vernacular settlement

Movement • Prominent movement, busy ↔ • No evident movement, still

Rarity • Common or widely distributed ↔ • Unique or limited example of

example of landscape character area landscape character area within a
within a regional context regional context

Intervisibility with adjacent
landscapes
• Limited views into or out of landscape
• Neighbouring landscapes of low
sensitivity
• Weak connections, self contained
area and views
↔ • Prospects into and out from high
ground or open landscape
• Neighbouring landscapes of high
sensitivity
• Contributes to wider landscape

• Simple large scale backdrops • Complex or distinctive backdrops

The landscape sensitivity assessment criteria set out in Table 4 have been evaluated for the landscape
character area by applying a professionally determined judgement on a sliding scale between 1 and 5.

A scale of 1 indicates a landscape characteristic with a lower sensitivity to the solar farm development (and will
be more likely to accommodate the solar farm development). A scale of 5 indicates a landscape characteristic
with a high level of sensitivity to the solar farm development (and less likely to accommodate the solar farm
development).

The scale of sensitivity for the landscape character area is outlined in Table 4 and is set out against each
characteristic identified in Table 3.

18
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

The overall landscape sensitivity for the landscape character area is a summation of the scale for each
characteristic identified in Tables 4.

The overall scale is expressed as a total out of 30 (i.e. 6 characteristics for the landscape character area with a
potential top scale of 5). Each characteristic is assessed separately and the criteria set out in Table 3 are not
ranked in equal significance. The overall landscape sensitivity for the landscape character area has been
determined as either:

High (Scale of 23 to 30) – key characteristics of the landscape character area will be impacted by the proposed
project, and will result in major and visually dominant alterations to perceived characteristics of the landscape
character area which may not be fully mitigated by existing landscape elements and features. The degree to
which the landscape may accommodate the proposed project development will result in a number of
perceived uncharacteristic and significant changes.

Medium (Scale 15 to 22) – distinguishable characteristics of the landscape character area may be altered by
the proposed project, although the landscape character area may have the capability to absorb some change.
The degree to which the landscape character area may accommodate the proposed project will potentially
result in the introduction of prominent elements to the landscape character area, but may be accommodated
to some degree.

Low Rating (Scale of 7 to 14) – the majority of the landscape character area characteristics are generally
robust, and will be less affected by the proposed project. The degree to which the landscape may
accommodate the solar farm will not significantly alter existing landscape character.

Negligible Rating (Up to 6) the characteristics of the landscape character area will not be impacted or visibly
altered by the proposed project.

Table 4 – Landscape character area assessment

Lower Sensitivity ↔ Higher Sensitivity

Low Low to Med Medium Med to High High

Rating 1 2 3 4 5

Landform and Scale 3

The gently inclined and undulating agricultural land within, and neighbouring,
the project site represents a very small portion of the district landscape,
located in Southern Tablelands. The landform and morphology of the
landscape within and surrounding the project site is gently sloping and
undulating across the top of the plateau landscape to the south of the project
site. There is an overall medium scale to the landscape defined by field
patterns and extensive forested areas adjoining and beyond the project site.
Landscape features and recognisable topographical elements are located

19
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Table 4 – Landscape character area assessment

Lower Sensitivity ↔ Higher Sensitivity

Low Low to Med Medium Med to High High

Rating 1 2 3 4 5
within and beyond the project site; however, in a regional context landform
and scale are relative to surrounding areas.

Landcover 2

Landcover is both simple and predictable across the site and surrounding
landscape areas. European settlement established an agricultural presence
and defines much of the contemporary livestock areas across the project site
and beyond. Cropping and pastoral fields create a regular and uniform
appearance throughout the seasonal and repetitive operations associated
with agricultural production.

Settlement and human 3

influence
Settlement is generally dispersed beyond the project site and surrounding
landscape and consists largely of farmsteads and individual dwellings. There
are limited examples of small scale, historic or vernacular structures within
the landscape. The project site is dissected by an existing transmission line,
with a regular arrangement of supporting pylon structures extending in a
north east to south west alignment across the landscape.

Movement 2

Movement beyond the proposed solar farm project site is generally restricted
to local vehicular movements, including cars and trucks travelling along Range
Road and more occasional vehicles travelling along unsealed access roads.
Occasional agricultural vehicles are seen within surrounding fields.

Rarity 2

The project site and adjoining landscape are considered to be a relatively

common landscape type within a regional context which extends across the
Southern Tablelands district.

Intervisibility 2

Views from the southern and elevated portion of the site provide distant

20
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Table 4 – Landscape character area assessment

Lower Sensitivity ↔ Higher Sensitivity

Low Low to Med Medium Med to High High

Rating 1 2 3 4 5
views to the north across rural agricultural land. Views are reasonably
extensive to a visually simple and broad backdrop. The majority of views from
the site, at mid and lower sections, are relatively confined by undulating
landform to the north west, south and north east. Tree covered hills and
sloping ground contain views within the east portion of the proposed solar
farm site, limiting visual connectivity to the landscape beyond.

Overall Sensitivity
Rating Score 14 out of 30
In consideration of the existing landscape characteristics, the landscape within
and surrounding the project site is determined to have a low sensitivity to the
solar farm development. The majority of the landscape character area
characteristics are generally robust, and will be less affected by the proposed
project. The degree to which the landscape may accommodate the solar farm
will not significantly alter existing landscape character.

6.3 Visual absorption capability

Visual Absorption Capability (VAC) is a classification system used to describe the relative ability of the
landscape to accept modifications and alterations without the loss of character or deterioration of visual
amenity. VAC relates to the physical characteristics of the landscape that are often inherent and quite static in
the long term. In essence the VAC indicates the ability of a landscape setting to absorb development.

The VAC of a landscape is largely determined by inherent physical factors which include:

• the degree of visual penetration (view distance without obstruction) through surrounding landscape,
landform and tree cover; and

• the complexity of the landscape defined through scale, form and line.

Landscapes with a low visual penetration will have higher visual absorption capability values. Complex
landscapes which include a mix of scale, form and line (together with some degree of vegetative screening) will
also have high visual absorption capability values.

The VAC of the landscape surrounding the proposed solar farm generally exhibits a high VAC as a result of
locally undulating landforms and significant areas of tree cover within and surrounding the proposed solar
farm site.

21
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Viewshed Section 7
7.1 Viewshed

For the purpose of this VIA the viewshed is defined as the area of land surrounding and beyond the solar farm
site which may be potentially affected by the solar farm. In essence, the viewshed defines this VIA study area.
The overall viewshed for the proposed solar farm has been determined at a distance of 3 kilometres extending
across the landscape away from the solar farm site. Subsets of the viewshed have also been illustrated at 1
kilometre and 2 kilometre intervals on various figures within this VIA. The distance of the viewshed can vary
between solar farm projects, and may be influenced and informed by a number of criteria including the area of
the solar farm together with the nature, location and height of landform that may limit visibility.

It is important to note that the solar panels may be visible from some areas of the landscape beyond the 3
kilometre viewshed; however, within the general parameters of normal human vision, a solar panel at a
maximum height of 3 metres would occupy a relatively small proportion of a person’s field of view from
distances in excess of 3 kilometres and result in a relatively low level of perceived visual significance. The
relationship between the proposed Gullen Solar Farm viewshed and existing dwellings is illustrated in Figure
11.

22
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 Legend

Ra
ng
e
Ro
ad
Dwelling

Gullen Solar Farm

site boundary
B46
B10 B11 Solar farm PV panels
indicative layout
B20
B45 B47
B21 B35 B49
Existing overhead
B54 transmission line
B48
B38

Lane
B38a

Storriers
Proposed overhead
power line (indicative)
3km Ra
ng
2km
eR
oa
d
1km Slope and/or ridgeline
landform with screening
PW5 potential
PW6

Tree and/or forested areas

PW3 with screening potential

PW36
PW34 PW35 Wind break and/or tree
planting with screening
PW4 PW29 potential

Indicative area from which the

1km Gullen Solar Farm may be
visible (within 3km of proposed
site)

2km
PW7

3km

0m 1km

Figure 11 Viewshed

GULLEN SOLAR
Gullen Solar Farm - Visual Impact Assessment FARM PTY LTD
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Significance of visual impact Section 8

8.1 Introduction

The overall determination of visual impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Gullen Solar
Farm will result primarily from a combination of receiver sensitivity and the magnitude of visual effects.

A determination of visual impact from the combination of receiver sensitivity and the magnitude of visual
effect is a well established methodology and has been applied extensively on VIA in New South Wales and
across Australia. The standard methodology is set out in industry and best practice guidelines including the
Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition, Landscape Institute and Institute of
Environmental Management & Assessment, 2013 – Chapter 6 Assessment of visual effects.

8.2 Sensitivity of visual receivers

Judging the sensitivity of visual receivers needs to take account of the occupation or activity of people
experiencing the view at particular locations and the extent to which their attention or interest is focussed on
views within and surrounding the solar farm site.

The sensitivity of visual receptors has been determined and described in this VIA by reference to:

• the location and context of the view point;

• the occupation or activity of the receptor; and

• the overall number of people affected.

For the purpose of this VIA the following table sets out various categories of receivers and their relative
sensitivity.

Table 5 – Receiver sensitivity

Criteria Definition

High Sensitivity People with a proprietary interest and prolonged viewing

opportunities such as those in dwellings or visitors to
(e.g. Residential dwellings, visitors to scenic
attractive and/or well-used recreational facilities. Views
areas or National Parks)
from a regionally important location whose interest is
specifically focussed on the landscape e.g. from lookouts or
areas within National Parks.

Moderate Sensitivity People with an interest in their environment e.g. visitors to

(e.g. recreational spaces, outdoor pursuits) State Recreation Areas, bush walkers and horse riders
etc…those travelling with an interest in their surroundings

23
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Table 5 – Receiver sensitivity

Criteria Definition

Low Sensitivity People with a passing interest in their surroundings e.g.

those travelling along local roads between townships, or
(e.g. local roads, rural employment)
people whose interest is not specifically focussed on the
wider landscape e.g. service providers or commuters.

Very Low People with no specific interest in their surroundings or

those with occasional and transient views travelling at
(e.g. highways, business or industrial areas)
speed along highways or from a place of work where
attention may not be focussed on surrounding views.

8.3 Magnitude of visual effects

Judging the magnitude of the visual effects needs to take account of:

• the scale of the change in the view with respect to the loss or addition of features in the view and
changes in its composition, including the proportion of the view occupied by the proposed solar farm;

• the degree of contrast or integration of any new features or changes in the landscape with the existing or
remaining landscape elements and characteristics in terms of form, scale and mass, line height, colour
and texture; and

• the nature of the view of the proposed solar farm, in terms of the relative amount of time over which it
will be experienced and whether views will be full, partial or glimpses.

The proportion of view occupied by the solar panels is illustrated in Figure 12. For the purpose of this VIA the
following table sets out various categories of receivers and their relative sensitivity.

Table 6 - View Location Assessment Criteria

Criteria Definition

View Distance:
Long > 2,000 metres
Medium 1,000 metres – 2,000 metres
Short 500 metres – 1,000 metres
Very short <500 metres

View Duration:
High > 2 hours
Moderate 30 minutes to 2 hours
Low 10 – 30 minutes
Very low <30 minutes

24
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Table 6 - View Location Assessment Criteria

Criteria Definition

Magnitude:

High (H) Total loss or major change to pre-development view or

introduction of elements which are uncharacteristic to the
existing urban landscape features.

Medium (M) Partial loss or alteration to pre-development view or

introduction of elements that may be prominent but not
necessarily uncharacteristic with the existing urban
landscape features.

Low (L) Minor loss or alteration to pre-development view or

introduction of elements that may not be necessarily
uncharacteristic with the existing urban landscape features.

Negligible (N) Very minor loss or alteration to pre-development view or

introduction of elements which are not uncharacteristic
with the existing urban landscape features (resulting in a no
change situation).

The combination of sensitivity and magnitude will provide the rating of visual impact for receiver locations.
Table 7 sets out the relative visual impact grading values which combines issues of sensitivity and magnitude
for the Gullen Solar Farm project.

Table 7 Visual impact grading matrix

Scale or magnitude of visual effects

High Moderate Low Very low

High High impact High-moderate Moderate Moderate-low

Moderate
Sensitivity

High-moderate Moderate Moderate-low Low

Low Moderate Moderate-low Low Very low

Very low Moderate-low Low Very low Negligible

25
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

8.4 Residential visual impact matrix

Table 8 sets out the assessment process and determination of visual impact from residential dwellings up to
and just beyond 2 km from the proposed solar farm site. The locations of residential dwellings included in this
VIA are illustrated in Figure 13.

Whilst the assessment includes a determination of impacts from dwellings, it also takes into account any
curtilage surrounding each dwelling which may be considered an extension to the dwelling for domestic or
social activities. The criteria set out in Tables 5 and 6 are noted against each dwelling, with a visual impact
determined against the grading matrix in Table 7. The assessment and determination of visual impacts are also
informed by the site inspection works, photographic records and figures prepared for this VIA.

26
Gullen Solar Project, Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final December 2015
 Legend
B46
Dwelling

B10
B11
Other structure
Rang
B20 B45 e Roa
d
Gullen Solar Farm
B54 B35 site boundary
B21

B47 B49
B48 Solar Farm panels
indicative layout

ane
B38

L
Storriers
Existing overhead
B38a transmission line

Proposed overhead
2km power line (indicative)

1km

PW6

PW5

PW3

PW36

PW34 PW35

PW4
500m

PW29
1km

2km

PW7
0m 500m

Figure 13 Receiver locations

GULLEN SOLAR
Gullen Solar Farm - Visual Impact Assessment FARM PTY LTD
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Table 8 – Residential visual significance matrix (Refer Figure 13 for residential receiver locations)

SENSITIVITY MAGNITUDE

Receiver Category of receiver Approximate Potential Extent of visibility Overall magnitude Description Visual impact
location location and distance to duration of grading
sensitivity grading solar farm site effect
(metres)

B10 Non associated 2,168 High Very low Negligible Views looking south east toward the proposed Negligible
residential dwelling (negligible) solar farm site will be blocked by tree screening
surrounding and beyond the dwelling as well as
Sensitivity: High
the gently undulating plateau landform extending
south east of the residential dwelling.

B11 Bannister 1,923 High Very low Negligible Views looking south east toward the proposed Negligible
community (negligible) solar farm site will be blocked by tree screening
hall/dwelling surrounding and beyond the hall/dwelling
including trees along Leahy Road and tree
Sensitivity: High
planting within agricultural land between the
dwelling and site.

B20 Non associated 2,213 High Very low Negligible Views looking south east toward the proposed Negligible
residential dwelling (negligible) solar farm site will be blocked by tree screening
surrounding and beyond the dwelling, as well as
Sensitivity: High
the gently undulating plateau landform extending
south east of the residential dwelling.

27
Gullen Solar Farm Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final Issue, December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Table 8 – Residential visual significance matrix (Refer Figure 13 for residential receiver locations)

SENSITIVITY MAGNITUDE

Receiver Category of receiver Approximate Potential Extent of visibility Overall magnitude Description Visual impact
location location and distance to duration of grading
sensitivity grading solar farm site effect
(metres)

B21 Non associated 2,264 High Very low Negligible Views looking south east toward the proposed Negligible
residential dwelling (negligible) solar farm site will be blocked by tree screening
surrounding and beyond the dwelling as well as
Sensitivity: High
the gently undulating plateau landform extending
south east of the residential dwelling.

B35 Non associated 1,506 High Very low Negligible Views looking south toward the proposed solar Negligible
residential dwelling (negligible) farm site will be blocked by tree screening
surrounding the dwelling as well tree planting
Sensitivity: High
alongside Storriers Lane.

B38 Non associated 1,653 High Very low Negligible Views looking south west toward the proposed Negligible
residential dwelling (negligible) solar farm site will be blocked by landform and
tree screening surrounding the dwelling.
Sensitivity: High

B38a Non associated 1,354 High Very low Negligible Views looking south west toward the proposed Negligible
residential dwelling (negligible) solar farm site will be blocked by landform rising
to the south of the dwelling.
Sensitivity: High

28
Gullen Solar Farm Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final Issue, December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Table 8 – Residential visual significance matrix (Refer Figure 13 for residential receiver locations)

SENSITIVITY MAGNITUDE

Receiver Category of receiver Approximate Potential Extent of visibility Overall magnitude Description Visual impact
location location and distance to duration of grading
sensitivity grading solar farm site effect
(metres)

B45 Non associated 1,672 High Very low Negligible Views looking south toward the proposed solar Negligible
residential dwelling (negligible) farm site will be blocked by tree screening
surrounding the dwelling and tree planting along
Sensitivity: High
Walkoms Lane.

B46 Non associated 2,092 High Very low Negligible Views looking south toward the proposed solar Negligible
residential dwelling (negligible) farm site will be blocked by tree screening
surrounding the dwelling and tree planting along
Sensitivity: High
Range Road.

B47 Associated 1,734 High Very low Negligible Views looking south west toward the proposed Negligible
residential dwelling (negligible) solar farm site will be blocked by landform and
tree screening surrounding the dwelling.
Sensitivity: High

B48 Associated 1,625 High Very low Negligible Views looking south west toward the proposed Negligible
residential dwelling (negligible) solar farm site will be blocked by landform and
tree screening surrounding the dwelling.
Sensitivity: High

B49 Non associated 1,702 High Very low Negligible Views looking south west toward the proposed Negligible
residential dwelling solar farm site will be blocked by landform and

29
Gullen Solar Farm Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final Issue, December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Table 8 – Residential visual significance matrix (Refer Figure 13 for residential receiver locations)

SENSITIVITY MAGNITUDE

Receiver Category of receiver Approximate Potential Extent of visibility Overall magnitude Description Visual impact
location location and distance to duration of grading
sensitivity grading solar farm site effect
(metres)
(negligible) tree screening surrounding the dwelling.
Sensitivity: High

B54 Non associated 1,917 High Very low Negligible Views looking south east toward the proposed Negligible
residential dwelling (negligible) solar farm site will be blocked by ridgeline and
undulating landform and tree planting beyond
Sensitivity: High
the dwelling.

PW3 Non associated 2,100 High Very low Negligible Views looking east toward the proposed solar Negligible
residential dwelling (negligible) farm site will be blocked by landform.

Sensitivity: High

PW4 Non associated 1,930 High Very low Negligible Views looking north east toward the proposed Negligible
residential dwelling (negligible) solar farm site will be blocked by landform.

Sensitivity: High

PW5 Non associated 275 High Very low Negligible Views looking east toward the proposed solar Negligible
residential dwelling (negligible) farm site will be blocked by landform and a tree
windbreak to the east of the dwelling.
Sensitivity: High

PW6 Non associated 1,774 High Very low Negligible Views looking south west toward the proposed Negligible

30
Gullen Solar Farm Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final Issue, December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Table 8 – Residential visual significance matrix (Refer Figure 13 for residential receiver locations)

SENSITIVITY MAGNITUDE

Receiver Category of receiver Approximate Potential Extent of visibility Overall magnitude Description Visual impact
location location and distance to duration of grading
sensitivity grading solar farm site effect
(metres)
residential dwelling (negligible) solar farm site will be blocked by tree planting
beyond the dwelling.
Sensitivity: High

PW7 Non associated 1,440 High Very low Negligible Views looking north east toward the proposed Negligible
residential dwelling (negligible) solar farm site will be blocked be tree planting
and landform beyond the dwelling.
Sensitivity: High

PW29 Non associated 1,471 High Very low Negligible Views looking north east toward the proposed Negligible
residential dwelling (negligible) solar farm site will be blocked be tree planting
and landform beyond the dwelling.
Sensitivity: High

PW34 Associated 30 High High-moderate High-moderate Views looking north and north west beyond the High-
residential dwelling (negligible) Goldwind owned residential dwelling toward the moderate
proposed solar farm would be screened by
Sensitivity: High
landform and tree cover. Views would extend
toward the southern extent of solar panels and
associated infrastructure within the eastern
portion of the project area.

PW35 Non associated 1,268 High Very low Negligible Views looking west toward the proposed solar Negligible

31
Gullen Solar Farm Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final Issue, December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Table 8 – Residential visual significance matrix (Refer Figure 13 for residential receiver locations)

SENSITIVITY MAGNITUDE

Receiver Category of receiver Approximate Potential Extent of visibility Overall magnitude Description Visual impact
location location and distance to duration of grading
sensitivity grading solar farm site effect
(metres)
residential dwelling (negligible) farm site will be blocked by tree planting beyond
the dwelling.
Sensitivity: High

PW36 Non associated 692 High Very low Negligible Views looking east toward the proposed solar Negligible
residential dwelling (negligible) farm site will be blocked by landform.

Sensitivity: High

32
Gullen Solar Farm Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final Issue, December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

8.5 Visual impact summary

This VIA identified a total of 20 residential dwellings located within an approximate 2 kilometre viewshed
surrounding the Gullen Solar Farm site. One dwelling (B11) also accommodates the Bannister Hall. This VIA
determined that:

• 19 of the residential dwellings would experience a negligible visual impact; and

• 1 residential dwelling (PW34 owned by Goldwind Pty Ltd) would experience a high-moderate visual
impact.

This VIA determined one residential dwelling (PW34) that would be subject to a high-moderate visual impact.
Dwelling PW34 is associated with the wind/solar farm operator. The dwelling, unoccupied at the time of the
solar farm VIA site inspection, may be occupied during the solar farm construction stage and/or rented by the
wind/solar farm owner. Whilst determined as a high-moderate visual impact, the dwellings direct association
to wind farm and solar farm sites will mitigate the high-moderate visual impact to low.
The determination of negligible visual impact for the majority of residential dwellings surrounding the solar
farm site reflect the high degree of localised screening provided by the low undulating landform extending
across this section of the Great Dividing Range, as well as the occurrence of tree screening alongside local
road corridors and within surrounding agricultural land.

8.6 Views from local roads

There are a small number of local roads which connect localities and residential dwellings within the
surrounding landscape surrounding the proposed solar farm site. Views from local roads were photographed
and assessed during the site inspection. The roads from which views may extend toward the proposed solar
farm site include:

• Range Road;

• Walkoms Lane;

• Bannister Lane;

• Leahy Road; and

• Storriers Lane.

Available views toward the proposed solar farm site from surrounding local roads will be tend to be indirect
and of a very short duration from moving vehicles. The majority of road corridors also support a significant
amount of tree planting, including tree planting along proximate road locations such as Bannister Lane and
Storriers Lane which will generally block and/or filter views toward the proposed solar farm site.

8.7 Views from agricultural land

This VIA acknowledges that the proposed solar farm project may have the potential to impact people engaged
in predominantly farming activities, where views toward the solar project occur from surrounding and non-

33
Gullen Solar Farm Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final Issue, December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

associated agricultural areas. Ultimately the level of impact would depend on the type of activities engaged in
as well as the location of the activities together with the degree of screening provided by local vegetation
within individual properties. Whilst views toward the solar farm could occur from surrounding rural
agricultural land, this VIA has determined that the sensitivity of visual impacts is less for those employed or
carrying out work in rural areas compared to potential views from residential dwellings; however the
sensitivity of individual view locations will also depend on the perception of the viewer.

34
Gullen Solar Farm Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final Issue, December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Cumulative assessment Section 9

9.1 Cumulative assessment
A cumulative visual impact could result from elements of the proposed solar farm being constructed in
conjunction with other existing or proposed developments which could be either associated or separate to it.
Separate developments could also occur or be located within a local context where visibility is dependent on a
journey between each site or within the solar farm viewshed.
The proposed solar farm would be located within the viewshed of the operational Gullen Range Wind Farm.
Constructed elements associated with the proposed solar farm would be dissimilar in scale, line and form to
existing infrastructure associated with the wind farm development.

The potential for an associated cumulative impact between the proposed solar farm and operational wind
farm infrastructure (and specifically the wind turbines) will be minimised by the visual relationship between
the proposed and existing works, with the proposed solar farm unlikely to result in a visual extension of
existing wind farm infrastructure. Where visible the proposed solar farm would be viewed as a standalone
visual element.
The proposed solar farm is considered to have limited potential to increase the significance of cumulative
visual impact with regard to existing large scale visual elements located beyond the proposed solar farm site.
This is also largely due to visual screening surrounding the proposed solar farm site for the majority of receiver
locations and the location of proposed constructed elements relative to existing infrastructure.

35
Gullen Solar Farm Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final Issue, December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Photomontages Section 10
10.1 Photomontages
The photomontages locations were selected by GBD to illustrate a range of viewpoints toward the proposed
solar farm. The three photomontages locations are illustrated in Figure 4 and the photomontages are
presented in Figures 14 to 19.
The photomontage locations were selected from accessible sections of surrounding road corridors. They
represent typical viewpoint locations and illustrate the potential influence of both distance and existing tree
cover on visibility. The locations include:
• Photomontage 1 from photo location G13 looking south from the Walkoms Lane road corridor. The
photomontage illustrates proposed and potential indirect views toward the proposed solar farm from the
Walkoms Lane corridor;
• Photomontage 2 from photo location G16 looking south from Bannister Lane road corridor. The
photomontage illustrates proposed and potential indirect views toward the proposed solar farm from the
Bannister Lane corridor; and
• Photomontage 3 from photo location G20 looking south from Range Road corridor. The photomontage
illustrates proposed and potential indirect views toward the proposed solar farm from the Range Road
corridor.
The photomontages demonstrate that the overall visual bulk and scale of proposed solar farm will not be
visually significantly in the landscape following completion of the construction works.

36
Gullen Solar Farm Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final Issue, December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Sunglint, glare and lighting Section 11

11.1 Introduction
This VIA has considered a number of issues concerned with the potential for reflectivity of sunlight from the PV
panels. Sunlight reflection is often perceived as a significant issue in relation to solar facilities; however, a
primary function for the PV panels is to absorb sunlight energy rather than reflect it. The technical process in
manufacturing PV panels includes an anti reflection coating to the solar cell wafers within each panel that
minimises potential for sunlight reflection. The proposed PV panels utilise high transmission, low iron glass,
which absorbs greater amounts of light and produces less reflectance than standard glass.
Primarily sunlight reflection would be visible as either ‘sunglint’ or ‘glare’.

11.2 Sunglint
Sunglint is a phenomenon that results from the direct reflection of sunlight (also known as specular reflection)
from a reflective surface that would be visible when the sun reflects off the surface of the PV panels at the
same angle that a person is viewing the PV panel surface.

11.3 Glare
Sunlight reflection from the polycrystalline structure of the individual PV panels may also result in glare (also
known as diffuse reflection). Glare from a reflective surface occurs where sunlight is reflected at many angles
rather than a single angle observed as sunglint.
There are a number of factors that determine both intensity and extent of sunglint and glare and include:
• the distance and orientation of the PV panels relative to surrounding view locations;

• the offset horizontal angle of the PV panels;

• time of day and seasonal variations defining position and angle of sunlight;

• the occurrence of cloud cover;

• the amount of particulate matter in the atmosphere (moisture, dust, smoke etc…) which may diffuse
sunlight; and

• the presence of screening vegetation relative to view locations.

11.4 Assessment
The measure of how strongly various materials can reflect light from sources such as the sun (the ‘albedo’) has
been measured (Power Engineers 2010 and Sunpower Corporation 200) and determined as a reflected energy
percentage. These studies have shown that common materials utilised within rural/agricultural environments,
including steel, standard glass and plexiglass can have higher reflected energy percentages than materials
employed for PV glass panels.
Based on the results of previous assessments for PV solar power projects and studies carried out in a number
of countries, the potential for sunglint and glare would not be expected to have a significant impact on
residential dwellings surrounding the proposed Gullen Solar Farm, or upon motorists or people travelling
through or over the surrounding landscape.

37
Gullen Solar Farm Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final Issue, December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

This VIA has noted the relatively significant amount of vegetation in the landscape surrounding the proposed
project site, as well as the screening influence of local topography. Given the vast majority of residential
dwellings will not have a line of sight toward the proposed solar panels, the potential for sunglint to create a
significant visual impact is considered to be low.

11.5 Lighting

The proposed solar farm does not propose to incorporate lighting into the project site, therefore night time
lighting will not give rise to potential visual impacts.

38
Gullen Solar Farm Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final Issue, December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Pre-construction and construction Section 12

12.1 Potential visual impacts

There are potential visual impacts that may occur during both pre-construction and construction phases of the
proposed solar farm. The key pre-construction and construction activities that may be visible from areas
surrounding the Project include:

• ongoing detailed site assessment including technical investigations;

• various minor civil works at access points;

• construction facilities, including portable structures and laydown areas;

• various construction and directional signage;

• excavations and earthworks; and

• various construction activities including erection of solar panels with associated electrical infrastructure
works.

The majority of pre-construction and construction activities, some of which would result in physical changes to
the landscape are generally temporary in nature and for the most restricted to various discrete areas within or
beyond the immediate proposed site.

While extensive earthworks are not proposed, some land forming (including localised cut and fill areas) may be
undertaken to achieve more consistent gradients beneath the array. However, the areas of disturbance would
be rehabilitated and the surrounding groundcover would be retained.

The majority of pre-construction and construction activities would be unlikely to result in an unacceptable
level of visual impact for their duration and temporary nature.

39
Gullen Solar Farm Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final Issue, December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Mitigation measures Section 13

13.1 Mitigation measures
While the overall visual impact of the proposed solar farm has been determined as very low for surrounding
receiver locations, mitigation measures should be considered to minimise the level of residual visual impacts
during construction and operation.

The mitigation measures generally involve reducing the extent of visual contrast between the visible portions of
the proposed structures and the surrounding landscape, and/or screening direct views toward the proposed
solar farm where possible.

13.2 Detail design

Mitigation measures during the detail design process should consider:

• further refinement in the design and layout which may assist in the mitigation of bulk and height of
proposed structures;

• consideration in selection and location for replacement tree planting which may provide partial screening or
backdrop setting for constructed elements; and

• a review of materials and colour finishes for selected components including the use of non reflective
finishes to structures where possible.

13.3 Construction
Mitigation measures during the construction period should consider:

• minimise tree removal where possible;

• avoidance of temporary light spill beyond the construction site where temporary lighting is required;

• rehabilitation of disturbed areas; and

• protection of mature trees within the proposed solar farm site where retained.

13.4 Operation
Mitigation measures during the operational period should consider:

• ongoing maintenance and repair of constructed elements;

• replacement of damaged or missing constructed elements; and

• long term maintenance (and replacement as necessary) of tree planting within the solar farm site to
maintain visual filtering and screening of external views where appropriate.

40
Gullen Solar Farm Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final Issue, December 2015
 GREEN BEAN DESIGN landscape architects

Conclusion Section 14
14.1 Summary
This VIA concludes that overall the construction, activities and operations associated with the proposed Gullen
Solar Farm will have a very low visual impact on the majority of people living in or travelling through the
landscape surrounding the proposed solar farm.

The proposed solar farm will form a low key and partially visible element within the surrounding landscape but is
unlikely to constitute any marked effect on existing views.

The proposed solar farm will generally complement the scale, landform and pattern of the surrounding
landscape and will not create a noticeable deterioration in the existing view. Any potential residual visual effect
would be positively mitigated through a range of appropriate measures at detailed design, construction and
operational stages.

The overall visual magnitude of the proposed solar farm will result in no significant loss or alteration to pre-
development views and the introduction of constructed elements will not be uncharacteristic with existing
landscape features.

The existing site viewshed is not expected to increase to any significant measure as a result of the proposed solar
farm and will continue to be defined and visually contained by surrounding undulating landform and tree cover.

The character of the existing landscape surrounding the proposed solar farm results in a relatively high VAC and
will tend to readily absorb the expected changes to the visual environment associated with the proposed solar
farm works.

Views toward the proposed solar farm site will continue to be visually filtered and partially screened by existing
tree planting adjoining the proposed site as well as by trees within adjoining properties and alongside road
corridors.

No significant level of sunglint or glare is anticipated to occur at surrounding residential dwellings. The potential
for sunglint to impact surrounding residential dwellings is considered to be very low to negligible due to
intervening landform and/or the presence of tree screening surrounding existing dwellings

41
Gullen Solar Farm Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment v2 Final Issue, December 2015
 Gullen Solar Farm

Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment

Report Number 640.10935-R1

14 January 2016

Goldwind

Version: Revision 3
Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 2

Gullen Solar Farm

Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment

PREPARED BY:

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

ABN 29 001 584 612
Suite 6, 131 Bulleen Road
Balwyn North VIC 3104 Australia

T: +61 3 9249 9400 F: +61 3 9249 9499

melbourne@slrconsulting.com www.slrconsulting.com

This report has been prepared by SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd
with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, and taking account of the
timescale and resources allocated to it by agreement with the Client.
Information reported herein is based on the interpretation of data collected,
which has been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid.

This report is for the exclusive use of Goldwind.

No warranties or guarantees are expressed or should be inferred by any third parties.
This report may not be relied upon by other parties without written consent from SLR.
SLR disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others
in respect of any matters outside the agreed scope of the work.

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Reference Status Date Prepared Checked Authorised

640.10935-R1 Revision 3 14 January 2016 Ima Fricker Gustaf Reutersward Gustaf Reutersward
640.10935-R1 Revision 2 17 December 2015 Ima Fricker Gustaf Reutersward Gustaf Reutersward
640.10935-R1 Revision 1 15 December 2015 Ima Fricker Gustaf Reutersward Gustaf Reutersward
640.10935-R1 Revision 0 11 November 2015 Ima Fricker Gustaf Reutersward Gustaf Reutersward

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 3

Executive Summary

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd (SLR) was commissioned by NGH Environmental Pty Ltd on behalf
of Goldwind (Australia) Pty Ltd, to undertake a Construction and Operation Noise Impact Assessment
for the proposed 11 MW Gullen Solar Plant located in Bannister, southeast NSW.

Goldwind are seeking to build the development to complement existing electricity generation and
distribution infrastructure located on site as part of the existing operational Gullen Wind Farm. Whilst
full details of the project are not currently available, general information regarding construction staging,
operational requirements and site layout are available and sufficient to undertake the required
assessments.

The results of the noise impact assessment indicate that noise during the various construction and
operational phases of the facility will result in minimal noise impacts to the surrounding community.

As the final layout of the solar plant has not been finalised, it is possible that noise emissions from the
site will vary depending on the siting of the inverter stations throughout the facility. Consequently,
where possible, it is recommended that the offset distance from any inverters to the closest dwelling to
the west of the site be maximised. The final layout should also be reviewed to ensure compliance with
applicable noise criteria.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 4

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION 6
1.1 Objectives 6
1.2 Relevant Guidelines 6

2 PROJECT OVERVIEW 6
2.1 Project Location 6
2.2 Proposed Layout 8
2.3 Proposed Infrastructure for Solar Farm 8
2.3.1 Power generation 9
2.3.2 Transmission 9
2.4 Construction 9

3 NSW REGULATORY GUIDELINES 10

3.1 NSW Construction Noise Guidelines 10
3.2 Operational Noise 12
3.2.1 Assessing Intrusiveness 12
3.2.2 Assessing Amenity 12
3.2.3 INP Project Specific Criteria 14
3.3 Consideration of Prevailing Weather Conditions 15
3.3.1 Wind 15
3.3.2 Temperature Inversion 16
3.3.3 Noise Modelling Parameters for Meteorological Conditions 16
3.4 Additional EPA Noise Assessment Information 17

4 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT 18

4.1 Existing Industry / Consideration of Cumulative Noise Impacts 19

5 PROJECT SPECIFIC NOISE EMISSION CRITERIA 20

5.1 Construction Noise 20
5.2 Operational Noise 20
5.3 Sleep Disturbance 21

6 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ASSESSMENT 22

6.1 Construction Stages 22
6.2 Construction Noise Modelling Parameters 23
6.3 Construction Noise Modelling Results 24
6.4 Discussion 26
6.5 Construction Noise Summary 27
6.6 Construction Noise Control Measures 28

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 5

Table of Contents

7 OPERATIONAL NOISE ASSESSMENT 29

7.1 Methodology 29
7.2 Equipment Sound Power Levels 30
7.3 Operational Noise Modelling Results 30
7.4 Discussion 31
7.5 Review of Cumulative Noise from Wind Farm and Solar Farm 31

8 CONCLUSION 33
8.1 Construction Noise 33
8.2 Operational Noise 33

TABLES
Table 1 ICNG - Quantitative NML Criteria for Construction Noise at Residences 11
Table 2 INP Amenity Criteria – Recommended LAeq noise levels from industrial noise
sources 13
Table 3 Modification to Acceptable Noise level (ANL)* 14
Table 4 Noise Impact Assessment Methodology 14
Table 5 Meteorological Parameters for Noise Modelling 17
Table 6 Ambient Background noise levels for Receptor Catchment Areas 19
Table 7 Construction Noise Management Levels – Noise Affected 20
Table 8 Project Specific Noise Criteria 20
Table 9 Construction Scenarios 22
Table 10 Construction Noise Predictions 24
Table 11 Equipment Sound Power Levels 30
Table 12 Operational Noise Assessment 31
Table 13 Assessment of Cumulative Noise Emissions from Both Projects 32

FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Overview – Solar Farm Location relative to Existing Wind Farm Infrastructure 7
Figure 2 Indicative Layout of Gullen Solar Farm 8
Figure 3 Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations 18

APPENDICES
Appendix A Acoustics Terminology
Appendix B SMA Technologies White Paper BU-U0018
Appendix C Construction Noise Modelling Results – Neutral / Calm Propagation Conditions
Appendix D Construction Noise Modelling Results – Worst Case Propagation Conditions
Appendix E Map 1 - Operational Noise Modelling Results – Neutral Propagation Conditions
Appendix E Map 2 - Operational Noise Modelling Results – Worst Case Propagation
Appendix F General Noise Management / Mitigation Measures

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 6

1 INTRODUCTION

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd (SLR Consulting) has been retained by NGH Environmental Pty Ltd
(NGH) on behalf of Goldwind Australia Pty Ltd (Goldwind) to prepare a Construction and Operational
Noise Impact Assessment of the proposed Gullen Solar Farm in southeast New South Wales.

Specific acoustic terminology is used within this report. An explanation of common terms is included
in Appendix A.

1.1 Objectives

The objectives of this study were to:

1. Establish noise level design goals (criteria) for environmental noise emissions at potentially noise
affected sensitive receivers surrounding the site.
2. Determine all acoustically significant plant required for the construction and operation of the facility
to predicted noise at the nearest potentially affected noise sensitive receivers within the vicinity of
the solar plant.
3. From results of the noise predictions, assess noise levels from proposed construction and future
operations relative to the noise criteria at the nearest potentially affected receivers.

1.2 Relevant Guidelines

The noise and vibration guidelines for construction and operations are based on the publications
managed by the New South Wales (NSW) Environment Protection Authority (EPA). The EPA
guidelines applicable to this assessment include:
 Construction Noise – Interim Construction Noise Guideline (DECC 2009).
 Operational Noise – Industrial Noise Policy (OEH 2000).

2 PROJECT OVERVIEW

The proposed 11 MW (AC) solar farm is anticipated to produce approximately 22,000 MWh per annum
which is enough to supply electricity for approximately 3,160 homes.

The solar plant has been specifically sited to make use of existing electricity generation and
transmission infrastructure associated with the operational Gullen Range Wind Farm.

Wind and solar energy generation profiles are seen as extremely compatible as wind farms often
generate a greater percentage of energy at night with the associated substations often having spare
capacity. This fits well with solar generation which is a better match to daytime electricity
requirements, especially in summer when electricity usage peaks due to air-conditioning demand.

2.1 Project Location

The development site is at No.: 131 Storriers Lane, Bannister (1/DP119622) which is located to the
north of the Pomeroy precinct boundary for the Gullen Range Wind Farm project; approximately 12 km
south of Crookwell, and 15 km northwest of Goulburn. Figure 1 on the following page shows the site
of the proposed solar plant relative to the existing wind farm power generation and distribution
infrastructure and surrounding residential dwellings. It is noted that the naming convention used for
the assessment of the Gullen Range Wind Farm has been used to maintain consistency.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 7

Figure 1 Site Overview – Solar Farm Location relative to Existing Wind Farm Infrastructure

Bannister Site

Pomeroy West Site

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 8

2.2 Proposed Layout

The Gullen Solar Farm is anticipated to occupy approximately 25 hectares. This area of land has been
acquired by Goldwind and earmarked for the construction and operation of the solar farm.

It is noted that the final infrastructure layout and components for the solar plant have not yet been
determined. However, for the purpose of undertaking the required feasibility studies an indicative
layout has been provided as presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Indicative Layout of Gullen Solar Farm

Note: Image from document NGH drawing Ref: 6385 2-3 v3, dated 15 December 2015

2.3 Proposed Infrastructure for Solar Farm

A description of the likely infrastructure required for the operation of the solar plant is provided in the
Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) document prepared by NGH.

The key infrastructure components of the proposal include:

 Approximately 40,000 solar panel (photovoltaic / PV) modules (indicative module size 992 mm by
1956 mm), standing up to 3 m to 4 m high.
 Panel support frames, supported by posts either driven or concreted into the ground.
 1 kV to 1.5 kV junction boxes.
 5 to 10 x 1 MW – 2 MW inverters and step up transformers (to allow for a total capacity of
11 MW), to convert direct current (DC) electricity produced by the solar panel modules into
alternating current (AC) capable of being connected to the existing electrical substation.
 Up to 3 km of 33 kV underground reticulation (cabling to the existing substation).

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 9

 33 kV switchgear (to allow connection to the existing substation).

 Minor earthworks.
 Access roads up to 8 m wide, north of the site and allowing access to the substation, south-west
of the site.
 A central control and monitoring system.

2.3.1 Power generation

The PV modules would be connected in series to form strings and then the strings would be
connected together in parallel into inverters. The inverters convert DC output from the PV modules
into AC. Medium voltage transformers step up the AC output from the inverters, and then the power
would be transmitted to the project substation (existing as part of the wind farm development). At the
substation an existing high voltage transformer would step up the voltage to 330 kV, for connection
into the grid.

2.3.2 Transmission

The project would be connected to the electricity grid via the existing Wind Farm substation and
Transgrid Gullen switching station.

2.4 Construction

Construction of the proposed solar farm would be completed in the following stages:
 Pre-construction and site investigations, such as geotechnical assessment to inform how the
panels are mounted and secured
 Detailed design and procurement of materials
 Site establishment and preparation for construction, including fencing, earthworks, set out and
construction of access roads and sediment and erosion controls
 Delivery of materials and equipment
 Installation of the foundations or driven piles
 Installation of underground cabling
 Assembly of the panel frames and mounts
 Installation of the Inverter / transformer units
 Installation of low voltage cabling.
 Substation works to connect the solar farm to the existing substation (these occur within the
switch room with no additional visible external substation infrastructure required)
 Testing and commissioning of the solar farm
 Removal of temporary construction facilities and completion of restoration works

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 10

3 NSW REGULATORY GUIDELINES

3.1 NSW Construction Noise Guidelines

Noise from construction works in NSW is subject to the provisions of the NSW EPA (formerly the
Department of Environment & Climate Change (DECC)) document ‘Interim Construction Guideline’,
dated July 2009 (ICNG).

The main objectives of the guideline are stated in Section 1.3, a portion of which is presented below:
 Promote a clear understanding of ways to identify and minimise noise from construction works.
 Focus on applying all ‘feasible’ and ‘reasonable’ work practices to minimise construction noise
impacts.
 Encourage construction to be undertaken only during the recommended standard hours unless
approval is given for works that cannot be undertaken during these hours.

The guideline sets out Noise Management Levels (NMLs) at residences, and how they are to be
applied, as presented in Table 1.

This approach intends to provide respite or residents exposed to excessive construction noise outside
the recommended standard hours whilst allowing construction during the recommended standard
hours without undue constraints.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 11

Table 1 ICNG - Quantitative NML Criteria for Construction Noise at Residences

Time of Day Management How to Apply

Level
LAeq1(15minute)
Recommended Noise affected The noise affected level represents the point above which there may be some
standard hours: RBL2 + 10 dBA5
34 community reaction to noise.
Where the predicted or measured LAeq(15minute) is greater than the noise
Monday to Friday affected level, the proponent should apply all feasible and reasonable work
7.00 am to 6.00 pm practices to minimise noise.
The proponent should also inform all potentially impacted residents of the nature
Saturday of works to be carried out, the expected noise levels and duration, as well as
contact details.
8.00 am to 1.00 pm
Highly noise affected The highly noise affected level represents the point above which there may be
75 dBA strong community reaction to noise.
No work on Sundays or
public holidays Where noise is above this level, the proponent should consider very carefully if
there is any other feasible and reasonable way to reduce noise to below this
level.
If no quieter work method is feasible and reasonable, and the works proceed, the
proponent should communicate with the impacted residents by clearly explaining
the duration and noise level of the works, and by describing any respite periods
that will be provided.
Outside recommended Noise affected A strong justification would typically be required for works outside the
standard hours RBL + 5 dBA recommended standard hours.
The proponent should apply all feasible and reasonable work practices to meet
the noise affected level.
Where all feasible and reasonable practices have been applied and noise is
more than 5 dBA above the noise affected level, the proponent should negotiate
with the community.

1 LAeq The A-weighted equivalent continuous noise level. It is defined as the steady sound level that contains
the same amount of acoustical energy as the corresponding time-varying sound (typically over a
15 minute period). The parameter is commonly used to quantify and assess noise impacts.
2 RBL Rating Background Level, the overall single-figure background level representing each assessment
period (day/evening/night) over the whole monitoring period (as opposed to over each 24-h period used
3
for the Assessment Background Level (ABL ), The RBL is the level used for assessment purposes. It is
defined as the median value of all the ABL’s for the assessment period.
3 ABL Assessment Background Level, the single-figure background level representing each assessment
4
period. It is defined as the lower tenth percentile of the background LA90 noise levels measured during
the assessment period for each day.
4 LA90 The A-weighted noise level exceeded for 90% of the sample period. This noise level is described as the
average minimum background sound level (in the absence of the source under consideration), or simply
the background level.
5 dBA The overall level of a sound is usually expressed in terms of dBA, which is measured using a sound level
meter with an “A-weighting” filter. This is an electronic filter having a frequency response corresponding
approximately to that of human hearing.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 12

3.2 Operational Noise

Responsibility for the control of noise emission in New South Wales is vested in Local Government
and the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). The Industrial Noise Policy (INP) which was
released in January 2000 provides a framework and process for deriving noise criteria for consents
and licences that will enable the EPA to regulate premises that are scheduled under the Protection of
the Environment Operations Act, 1997.

The specific policy objectives are to:

 To establish noise criteria that would protect the community from excessive intrusive noise and
preserve amenity for specific land uses.
 To use the criteria as the basis for deriving project specific noise levels.
 To promote uniform methods to estimate and measure noise impacts, including a procedure for
evaluating meteorological effects.
 To outline a range of mitigation measures that could be used to minimise noise impacts.
 To provide a formal process to guide the determination of feasible and reasonable noise limits for
consents or licences that reconcile noise impacts with the economic, social and environmental
considerations of industrial development.
 To carry out functions relating to the prevention, minimisation and control of noise from the
premises scheduled under the Act.

3.2.1 Assessing Intrusiveness

For assessing intrusiveness, the background noise level must be measured to determine the resultant
RBL for each period. The intrusiveness criterion essentially means that the equivalent continuous
noise level (LAeq) from the source should not be more than five decibels above the measured
background noise level (RBL) at the sensitive location.

3.2.2 Assessing Amenity

The amenity assessment is based on noise criteria specific to land use and associated activities. The
criteria relate only to industrial-type noise and do not include road, rail or community noise.

Where there is no existing noise from industry in the receiver area the applicable amenity criteria are
determined based on the Acceptable Noise Level (ANL) for the receiver type in accordance with INP
methodology (see Table 2 on the following page).

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 13

Table 2 INP Amenity Criteria – Recommended LAeq noise levels from industrial noise sources
1
Type of Receiver Indicative Noise Time of Day Recommended LAeq(Period)2
Amenity Area Noise Level (dBA)
Acceptable Recommended
Maximum
Residence Rural Day 50 55
Evening 45 50
Night 40 45
Suburban Day 55 60
Evening 45 50
Night 40 45
Residence Urban Day 60 65
Evening 50 55
Night 45 50
Urban/Industrial Interface Day 65 70
(for existing situations only)
Evening 55 60
Night 50 55
School classrooms All Noisiest 35 40
- internal 1 hour period
when in use
Hospital wards All
- internal Noisiest 35 40
- external 1 hour period 50 55
Place of worship All When in use 40 45
- internal
Area specifically reserved for All When in use 50 55
passive recreation
(eg National Park)
Active recreation area (eg All When in use 55 60
school playground, golf
course)
Commercial premises All When in use 65 70
Industrial premises All When in use 70 75
Note 1: Daytime 7.00 am - 6.00 pm; Evening 6.00 pm - 10.00 pm; Night-time 10.00 pm - 7.00 am, On Sundays and Public
Holidays, Daytime 8.00 am -6.00 pm; Evening 6.00 pm - 10.00 pm; Night-time 10.00 pm - 8.00 am.
Note 2: The LAeq index corresponds to the level of noise equivalent to the energy average of noise levels occurring over a
measurement period.

If noise from the existing industry approaches the ANL, then noise from new industries needs to be
designed so that the cumulative level does not significantly exceed the criterion.

Applicable amenity criteria are determined based on the ANL and the existing levels of industry noise
in accordance with Table 3.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 14

Table 3 Modification to Acceptable Noise level (ANL)*

Total Existing LAeq noise level from Industrial Noise Maximum LAeq Noise Level for Noise
Sources from New Sources Alone, dBA
 Acceptable noise level plus 2 dBA If existing noise level is likely to decrease in future
acceptable noise level minus 10 dBA
If existing noise level is unlikely to decrease in
future existing noise level minus 10 dBA
Acceptable noise level plus 1 dBA Acceptable noise level minus 8 dBA
Acceptable noise level Acceptable noise level minus 8 dBA
Acceptable noise level minus 1 dBA Acceptable noise level minus 6 dBA
Acceptable noise level minus 2 dBA Acceptable noise level minus 4 dBA
Acceptable noise level minus 3 dBA Acceptable noise level minus 3 dBA
Acceptable noise level minus 4 dBA Acceptable noise level minus 2 dBA
Acceptable noise level minus 5 dBA Acceptable noise level minus 2 dBA
Acceptable noise level minus 6 dBA Acceptable noise level minus 1 dBA
< Acceptable noise level minus 6 dBA Acceptable noise level
* ANL = recommended acceptable LAeq noise level for the specific receiver, area and time of day from Table 2.

3.2.3 INP Project Specific Criteria

The INP Project Specific Noise levels are the more stringent of either the amenity or intrusive criteria.
The INP states that these criteria have been selected to protect at least 90% of the population living in
the vicinity of industrial noise sources from the adverse effects of noise for at least 90% of the time.
Provided the criteria in the INP are achieved, it is unlikely that most people would consider the
resultant noise levels excessive.

In those cases where the INP project specific assessment criteria are not achieved, it does not
automatically follow that all people exposed to the noise would find the noise unacceptable. In
subjective terms, exceedances of the INP project specific assessment criteria can be generally
described as follows:
 Negligible noise level increase <1 dB(A) (Not noticeable by all people)
 Marginal noise level increase 1 dB(A) to 2 dB(A) (Not noticeable by most people)
 Moderate noise level increase 3 dB(A) to 5 dB(A) (Not noticeable by some people but may be
noticeable by others)
 Appreciable noise level increase >5 dB(A) (Noticeable by most people)

In view of the foregoing, Table 4 presents the methodology for assessing noise levels which may
exceed the INP project specific noise assessment criteria.

Table 4 Noise Impact Assessment Methodology

Assessment Criteria Project Specific Noise Management Noise Affectation

Criteria Zone Zone
Intrusive Rating background  5 dBA above project  5 dBA above project
level specific criteria specific criteria
plus 5 dBA
Amenity INP based on existing  5 dBA above project  5 dBA above project
industrial level specific criteria specific criteria

For the purposes of assessing the potential noise impacts the project specific, management and
affectation criteria are further defined as follows:

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 15

Project Specific Criteria

Most people in the broader community would generally consider exposure to noise levels
corresponding to this zone acceptable.

Noise Management Zone

Depending on the degree of exceedance of the project specific criteria (1 dBA to 5 dBA) noise impacts
could range from negligible to moderate. It is recommended that management procedures be
implemented including:
 Prompt response to any community issues of concern.
 Noise monitoring on site and within the community.
 Refinement of on-site noise mitigation measures and plant operating procedures where practical.
 Consideration of acoustical mitigation at receivers.
 Consideration of negotiated agreements with property holders.

Noise Affectation Zone

Exposure to noise levels exceeding the project-specific criteria by more than 5 dB(A) may be
considered unacceptable by some property holders and the INP recommends that the proponent
explore the following.
 Discussions with relevant property holders to assess concerns and provide solutions.
 Implementation of acoustical mitigation at receivers.
 Negotiated agreements with property holders, where required.

3.3 Consideration of Prevailing Weather Conditions

3.3.1 Wind

Wind has the potential to increase noise at a receiver when it is light and stable and blows from the
direction of the noise source. As the strength of the wind increases the noise produced by the wind
will obscure noise from most industrial and transport sources.

Wind effects need to be considered when wind is a feature of the area under consideration. Where
the source to receiver wind component at speeds of up to 3 m/s occur for 30% or more of the time in
any seasonal period (during the day, evening or night), then wind is considered to be a feature of the
area and noise level predictions must be made under these conditions.

The INP Section 5.3 Wind Effects states:

“Wind effects need to be assessed where wind is a feature of the area. Wind is considered
to be a feature where source to receiver wind speeds (at 10 m height) of 3 m/s or below
occur for 30 percent of the time or more in any assessment period in any season.”

Ab analysis of wind speed and direction has not been undertaken as part of this study. However,
noise from the solar farm has been assessed using both calm and enhanced 2 m/s winds (from the
source to all receptors). Full details regarding the parameters used for noise modelling are provided
in Section 3.3.3.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 16

3.3.2 Temperature Inversion

The NSW INP states that temperature inversions need only be considered for the night-time noise
assessment period (10.00 pm to 7.00 am).

The INP states:

“Temperature inversions occur during E, F and G stability categories. These three categories are
considered to represent weak, moderate and strong inversions respectively. For noise-assessment
purposes, only moderate and strong inversions are considered significant enough to require
assessment.”

“In dispersion modelling, stability class is used to categorise the rate at which a plume will disperse. In
the Pasquill-Gifford stability class assignment scheme there are six stability classes, A through to F.
Class A relates to unstable conditions, such as might be found on a sunny day with light winds. Class
F relates to stable conditions, such as those that occur when the sky is clear, the winds are light and
an inversion is present. The intermediate classes B, C, D and E relate to intermediate dispersion
conditions. A seventh class, G, has also been defined to accommodate extremely stable conditions
such as might be found in arid rural areas.”

An analysis of the occurrence of each stability class has not been conducted. However, to provide for
a conservative ‘worst case’ assessment, noise modelling of day and evening operations at the solar
farm allows for a temperature inversion (i.e. Pasquil Stability Category F – see Table 5) or alternatively
strong winds from the source to the receptor.

With regard to construction noise impacts, as all construction works will be undertaken during the day
period (when the likelihood of temperature inversions is significantly reduced), construction noise from
the facility has only been modelled under Pasquil Stability Category C (i.e. intermediate dispersion
conditions).

3.3.3 Noise Modelling Parameters for Meteorological Conditions

The resultant weather conditions used to predict the level of noise for the different modelling scenarios
are shown below:
Construction and Operational Noise – Neutral Conditions (Meteorological Category 4):
 2 m/s wind from source to receiver, Pasquil Stability Class C
Construction Noise – Enhanced Propagation Conditions (Meteorological Category 5):
 2 m/s wind from source to receiver, Pasquil Stability Class C
Operational Noise – Enhanced Propagation Conditions (Meteorological Category 6):
 2 m/s wind from source to receiver, Pasquil Stability Class F or;
 Greater than 3 m/s winds from source to receiver, Pasquil Stability Class C, D, or E.

It is noted that the meteorological categories used in the modelling allow for a range of different
combinations of wind speeds and Pasquil stability classes as shown in Table 5. For example, as the
worst case operational noise impacts have been modelled using Meteorological Category 6, this
condition also allows for strong winds (greater than 3 m/s) under Pasquil Stability Class C, D or E.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 17

Table 5 Meteorological Parameters for Noise Modelling

Noise Modelling Propagation Meteorological Wind Velocity Pasquil Stability

Scenario Condition Category (m/s) Category
Construction & Neutral Weather 4 0.5 < V < 3.0 A, B (day)
Operational
-0.5 < V < 0.5 C, D, E (day)
-3 < V < -0.5 F, G (evening & night)
Construction Enhanced “worst 5 V > +3.0 A, B (day)
case” weather
0.5 < V < 3.0 C, D, E (day)
-0.5 < V < 0.5 F (evening & night)
Operational Enhanced “worst 6 V > +3.0 C, D, E (day)
case” weather
0.5 < V < 3.0 F, G (evening & night)

3.4 Additional EPA Noise Assessment Information

The EPA’s recommended noise assessment criteria aim to limit potential intrusive noise emissions
and preserve noise amenity. In cases where the limiting noise assessment criterion cannot be
achieved, then practicable and economically feasible noise control measures should be applied. This
usually requires demonstration that Best Achievable Technology and Best Environmental
Management Practices have been implemented in order to mitigate adverse acoustical impacts.

In the event that the lowest achievable noise emission levels remain above the noise assessment
criteria, the potential noise impact needs to be balanced and assessed against any economic and
social benefits the project may bring to the community. It then follows that where the consenting
authority may consider that the development does offer community benefits, then these may be
grounds for permitting achievable noise emission levels as statutory compliance levels.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 18

4 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT

Unattended noise monitoring was previously undertaken by Marshall Day Acoustics (MDA) as part of
the operational noise impact for the wind farm. The results presented in MDA Report entitled “Gullen
Range Wind Farm Noise Impact Assessment”:– Report No. 2007265SY 001 R02 dated 4 June 2008
th

(hereafter, MDA Report 2007265SY-R2) have been used for the determination of applicable noise
limits.

MDA conducted background noise monitoring between June 2007 and November 2007 at
16 representative locations. Two of these monitoring locations are located within the vicinity of the
solar plant and deemed representative of those dwellings located to the north and south of facility.
The monitoring locations are shown in Figure 3 along with other identified sensitive receptors within
1.5 km of the facility.

Figure 3 Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations

Table 6 details the RBL of the monitoring locations which have been derived in general accordance
with the DECCW guidelines. The table shows receptors considered in this assessment, and
representative background monitoring locations (used as part of the earlier assessment of the wind
farm). The five dwellings to the north / northeast of the solar farm were not identified as relevant in
the earlier assessment due to their relative distance from the wind farm. In order to assess noise to
these dwellings, background noise levels based on receptor B11 have been adopted.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 19

It is noted that the dwelling at PW34 is located within the site of the proposed Solar Plant. This
dwelling is owned by the proponent and not occupied. Consequently, noise from the plant is not
assessable to this dwelling and has not been included as part of the assessment.

Table 6 Ambient Background noise levels for Receptor Catchment Areas

Receptor UTM (Zone 55) Coordinates Measured RBL at Representative Receptor, dBA Approximate
Locations Distance to Site
Day Evening Night Boundary (m)
Easting (m) Northing (m)
(0700h – 1800h) (1800h – 2200h) (2200h – 0700h)
Ambient Background Noise Monitoring Location B11 (Representative of Receptors to North of Site)
B11 725247 6169678 34 36 34 1600
B35 726008 6169394 34 36 34 1470
B38 728292 6168955 34 36 34 1540
B38A 728115 6168732 34 36 34 1280
B45 726941 6169421 34 36 34 1650
B47 727704 6169126 34 36 34 1550
B48 727611 6169056 34 36 34 1480
B49 728055 6169108 34 36 34 1620
Ambient Background Noise Monitoring Location PW7 (Representative of Receptors around Site /
Southern Region of Figure 3)
PW7 725225 6166206 33 33 29 1030
PW29 724534 6166969 33 33 29 1260
PW34* 726546 6167423 33 33 29 -
PW35 728980 6167173 33 33 29 1180
PW36 725240 6167640 33 33 29 490
PW5 725649 6167872 33 33 29 135
Note * Project involved receptor

4.1 Existing Industry / Consideration of Cumulative Noise Impacts

There are no significant sources of industrial noise in the rural area surrounding the proposed solar
farm. Whilst there is an existing wind farm, it is subject to very different criteria as the noise source
(and background noise environment) can vary significantly with wind speed and direction.
Furthermore, noise from the wind farm has already been assessed in accordance with applicable
criteria (i.e. the 2003 South Australia Environment Protection Authority (SA EPA) Guidelines) in the
MDA Report.

Consequently, noise from the wind farm should not be assessed using NSW INP. However, for the
purpose of considering cumulative noise emissions from the wind farm, an indicative assessment has
been provided.

In order to do this, the highest levels of wind farm noise at each receptor were determined from the
MDA Report. It is noted that the corresponding wind speeds typically range from 9 m/s to 11 m/s (at
hub height i.e. 80 m to 100 m above ground).

The maximum identified noise levels from the wind farm (at the receptors to the north) were found to
range from 27 dBA to 36 dBA, Leq. For the dwellings in the immediate surrounds and to the south of
the solar farm the maximum levels of wind farm noise vary between 37 dBA and 41 dBA, Leq.

The highest level of noise from the wind farm to a receptor within each catchment area has been used
for determining applicable amenity noise criteria.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 20

5 PROJECT SPECIFIC NOISE EMISSION CRITERIA

5.1 Construction Noise

The RBL’s have been used to calculate construction noise goals at receptor locations. Results are
presented in Table 7.

Table 7 Construction Noise Management Levels – Noise Affected

Location Period RBL, dBA Construction Nose Goal, dBA, Leq (15 min)

Noise Affected Highly Noise Affected

1
B11 (North Receptors) Day 34 44 75
2
Evening 36 41 75
3
Night 34 39 75
1
PW7 (Site / South Day 33 43 75
Receptors) 2
Evening 33 38 75
3
Night 29 34 75
NOTE 1: Day period noise goal = RBL + 10 dBA
NOTE 2: Evening period noise goal = RBL + 5 dBA
NOTE 3: Night period noise goal = RBL + 5 dBA

5.2 Operational Noise

The operational noise emission design criteria for the proposed development have been established
with reference to the INP using the procedure outlined in Section 3.2 of this report.

The resulting operational project specific noise criteria for the proposed development are shown in
bold in Table 8.

Table 8 Project Specific Noise Criteria

Receiver Time of Day Noise Level, dBA

1 2
ANL Measured Predicted INP Criteria
(period) RBL LAeq
Intrusive Amenity
LAeq(15minute) LAeq(Period)3, 4
3
B11 (North Day 50 34 36 39 50
Receptors) 3
Evening 45 36 36 41 45
3
Night 40 34 36 39 38
3
PW7 (Site / Day 50 33 41 38 50
South 38 3
Evening 45 33 41 43
Receptors)
3
Night 40 29 41 34 32
Note 1: ANL Acceptable Noise Level for a rural area
Note 2: The level of existing industrial noise to the surrounding residential areas has been conservatively based on the
highest predicted noise from the wind farm within each catchment area (see Section 4.1)
Note 3: Assuming existing noise levels are unlikely to decrease
Note 4: Adjustments applied in accordance with Table 3 to determine appropriate modification factors.

In accordance with INP methodology, operational noise from the solar farm has been assessed to the
more onerous of the intrusive and amenity criteria (i.e. the ‘Project Specific Noise Criteria’ – in this
case the intrusiveness criteria).

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 21

In addition to the above, cumulative noise emissions from both the wind and solar farm have also
been assessed using the amenity criteria which was conservatively determined based on the highest
possible noise levels from the existing wind farm.

5.3 Sleep Disturbance

As the construction works will only be undertaken during the day period there will be no sleep
disturbance or night time noise impacts as a result of these works.

Similarly, during normal operation of the solar farm there will be minimal noise impacts during the night
period as the associated infrastructure will be under minimum / no load. Consequently, noise from the
solar farm has not been assessed to sleep disturbance and night time noise criteria.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 22

6 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ASSESSMENT

6.1 Construction Stages

To assess the potential noise and vibration impacts during construction, a number of scenarios
comprising typical plant and equipment have been developed based on the indicative staging
information as outline in the SEE document and repeated in Section 2.4. These are summarised in
Table 9.

It is understood that all construction works are proposed to be undertaken during standard daytime
periods (7.00 am to 6.00 pm Monday to Friday and 8.00 am to 1.00 pm on Saturdays).

Table 9 Construction Scenarios

Stage Scenario Equipment No. of Maximum LAeq

plant in Sound Power
15 min Level (dBA)
period
1 Site Preparation, Excavator (clearing site) 2 105
Clearing & Demolition
Bulldozer 28T 1 107
(1,2)
Chainsaw 2 117
Tree mulcher 1 115
Light vehicles 2 94
Dump truck (for disposal of material) 1 106
2 Establish Site Hand Tools 2 94
Compound, Access
Excavator (earthworks) 2 107
Roads & Delivery of
Materials Light vehicles 3 94
(2)
Delivery trucks / semi-trailers 3 100
Bulldozer (28T Ground exc. works) 1 107
DPU / Plate Compactor 2 103
Grader 1 107
Roller (18T Rolling fill) 1 102
Asphalt paver & Tipper Lorry 1 108
Bobcat 1 104
Bored piling rig 1 114
Telehandler 2 105
20-50T Mobile Crane 1 106
(1)
3 Installation of Driven piling rig 1 122
Foundations
Bobcat 1 104
Crane 2 106
Excavator 2 107
Concrete vibrating needle 2 103
Concrete agitator truck (discharging) 1 103
Concrete agitator truck (low to mid revs) 1 107

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 23

Stage Scenario Equipment No. of Maximum LAeq

plant in Sound Power
15 min Level (dBA)
period
4 Installation of Vermeer Trencher 2 105
Underground Cabling
Cable laying trailer & tractor 2 103
Loader 2 110
5 Assembly of Panel Telehandler 2 105
Frames, Mounts &
Hiab truck 2 104
Transformer Units
Generator 2 99
Compressor 1 93
Hand tools 2 94
(1)
Ratchet gun 4 106
20-50T Mobile Crane 1 106
6 Site Rehabilitation / Light vehicles 2 98
Removal of Temporary
Excavator (clearing site) 2 106
Construction Facilities
Bulldozer 28T 1 107
Loader 1 110
Dump truck (for disposal of material) 2 106
Semi-trailer 1 104
Note 1: Denotes “annoying” item of equipment as defined in the ICNG (i.e. contains characteristics such as impulsiveness,
tonality etc.), and as such includes a +5 dB penalty adjustment to predictions.
Note 2: Overall SWL assumes a maximum of 7.5 minutes on-time in any 15 minute period.

6.2 Construction Noise Modelling Parameters

To allow for the complex effects due to shielding and reflection provided by the various buildings, a
three dimensional (3D) computer noise model was prepared using the SoundPLAN V7.2 computer
noise modelling package. To predict the level of noise at the allocated receiver locations the
CONCAWE algorithm was used with both calm / neutral (Category 4) and worst case (Category 5)
atmospheric conditions (see Section 3.3.3).

It is noted that the surrounding land is predominantly used for farming type usage (i.e. covered in
fields, forests or grass). With regard to land encompassing the site, it is understood that grazing
would be used as a ground cover management strategy beneath and around the solar array.
Consequently, whilst the surrounding ground cover would be more accurately represented as soft
absorptive ground (i.e. a ground absorption factor of G= 1), the calculations conservatively include a
mixture of soft and hard ground (G = 0.5) for all ground cover.

The calculations include the source noise levels of the anticipated equipment, the location of the
nearest sensitive receivers, the number of plant items likely to be operating at any given time and the
distance between the equipment and the receivers. The predictions are representative of a worst-
case scenario with all equipment listed in Table 9 operating simultaneously.

In practice, noise levels will depend on the number of plant items and equipment operating at any one
time and their precise location relative to the receiver of interest. Noise levels will vary due to the
movement of plant and equipment about the worksites and the concurrent operation of plant. In some
cases, reductions in noise levels will occur when plant are shielded from sensitive receivers behind
hoarding, buildings or other items of equipment.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 24

6.3 Construction Noise Modelling Results

The results presented in Table 10 have been compared with the relevant design goals. Noise contour
plots for the scenarios are also presented in Appendix C and Appendix D for neutral / calm and worst
case propagation conditions respectively.

Table 10 Construction Noise Predictions

Stage Scenario Receiver Noise Level – Leq(15minute) (dBA)

Predicted Noise at Dwelling NML, Noise NML Excess
Affected (Worst Case)
Calm Worst Case
1 Site Preparation, B11 31 36 44 0
Clearing &
B35 34 40 44 0
Demolition
B38 30 36 44 0
North of Site

B38A 33 38 44 0
B45 34 39 44 0
B47 34 39 44 0
B48 34 40 44 0
B49 31 36 44 0
PW5 47 52 43 9
Site / South
Receptors

PW7 21 26 43 0
PW29 32 38 43 0
PW35 33 39 43 0
PW36 38 43 43 0
2 Establish Site B11 29 35 44 0
Compound,
B35 33 38 44 0
Access Roads &
Delivery of B38 30 36 44 0
North of Site

Materials
B38A 32 38 44 0
B45 32 38 44 0
B47 32 38 44 0
B48 33 39 44 0
B49 30 36 44 0
PW5 45 49 43 6
Site / South
Receptors

PW7 19 24 43 0
PW29 29 35 43 0
PW35 32 37 43 0
PW36 34 39 43 0

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 25

Stage Scenario Receiver Noise Level – Leq(15minute) (dBA)

Predicted Noise at Dwelling NML, Noise NML Excess
Affected (Worst Case)
Calm Worst Case
3 Installation of B11 36 43 44 0
Foundations
B35 40 46 44 2
B38 35 41 44 0
North of Site B38A 36 42 44 0
B45 38 44 44 0
B47 37 43 44 0
B48 38 44 44 0
B49 35 41 44 0
PW5 55 59 43 16
Site / South
Receptors

PW7 25 31 43 0
PW29 40 46 43 3
PW35 34 41 43 0
PW36 35 39 43 0
4 Installation of B11 22 28 44 0
Underground
B35 29 34 44 0
Cabling
B38 28 34 44 0
North of Site

B38A 30 35 44 0
B45 29 35 44 0
B47 29 35 44 0
B48 30 36 44 0
B49 28 34 44 0
PW5 36 40 43 0
Site / South
Receptors

PW7 15 20 43 0
PW29 30 35 43 0
PW35 28 34 43 0
PW36 34 39 43 0
5 Assembly of B11 22 28 44 0
Panel Frame,
B35 26 31 44 0
Mounts &
Transformer B38 19 24 44 0
North of Site

Units
B38A 24 29 44 0
B45 26 31 44 0
B47 27 32 44 0
B48 27 33 44 0
B49 20 25 44 0
PW5 38 42 43 0
Site / South
Receptors

PW7 13 18 43 0
PW29 18 23 43 0
PW35 30 35 43 0
PW36 24 28 43 0

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 26

Stage Scenario Receiver Noise Level – Leq(15minute) (dBA)

Predicted Noise at Dwelling NML, Noise NML Excess
Affected (Worst Case)
Calm Worst Case
6 Site B11 27 33 44 0
Rehabilitation /
B35 31 36 44 0
Removal of
Temporary B38 26 32 44 0
Construction North of Site B38A 28 34 44 0
Facilities
B45 29 35 44 0
B47 30 36 44 0
B48 31 37 44 0
B49 27 32 44 0
PW5 45 48 43 5
Site / South
Receptors

PW7 27 32 43 0
PW29 30 36 43 0
PW35 29 35 43 0
PW36 38 43 43 0
Note: The results have been formatted to provide a visual comparison of the predicted noise level at the receptor:
Green Below Noise Affected NML (i.e. RBL + 10 dBA for day works).
Orange Predicted noise level above Noise Affected NML but less than Highly Noise Affected
Red Predicted noise level above Highly Noise Affected NML criteria (i.e. 75 dBA).

6.4 Discussion

The noise modelling results indicate that construction noise during all stages of works will be well
below the highly noise affected NML criterion of 75 dBA.

Noise associated with the required construction works are predicted to comply with the ICNG criteria
for most scenarios, the only exceptions being:
 Stage 1 – Site Preparation, Clearing & Demolition
 Stage 2 – Establish Site Compound, Access Roads & Delivery of Materials.
 Stage 3 – Installation of Foundations, and;
 Stage 6 – Site Rehabilitation / Removal of Temporary Construction Facilities

In all cases (with the exception of Stage 3), the only exceedance was predicted at receptor PW5 which
is located approximately 130 m west of the site.

A brief discussion of the results for these scenarios is provided below.

Stage 1 – Site Preparation, Clearing & Demolition

During this stage the predicted noise levels at PW5 ranged between 47 dBA and 52 dBA, Leq which
equates to an exceedance of the lower ‘Noise Affected NML’ of 4 dBA to 9 dBA.

The dominant noise source during this stage is the chainsaws and mulcher required for the site
clearing works.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 27

Stage 2 – Establish Site Compound, Access Roads & Delivery of Materials

Noise levels at PW5 during this stage were predicted to range from 45 dBA to 49 dBA which equates
to an exceedance of the daytime NML criteria of 2 dBA to 6 dBA depending on weather conditions. It
is noted that this relatively minor excess is primarily due to the excavator working within the site.

Stage 3 – Installation of Foundations

Predicted noise levels under neutral propagation conditions ranged from 25 dBA at PW7 (located
approximately 1 km south of the site) to 55 dBA at receptor PW5. Under enhanced propagation
conditions, noise levels were typically 4 to 6 dBA louder depending on the location and distance to the
receptor.

The highest noise levels were once again predicted at PW5 where noise levels up to 59 dBA were
predicted under enhanced propagation conditions. Whilst this equates to a 16 dBA excess of the
daytime noise affected NML; it is noted that the elevated noise levels are predominantly due to the
operation of a driven piling rig. Calculations indicate that when the piling rig is not operating a
significant reduction (in the order of 10 dBA at receptor PW5) would be achieved.

For the other dwellings, the predicted noise levels were significantly lower with minor exceedances
predicted under enhanced propagation conditions at PW29 and B35.

Stage 6 – Site Rehabilitation / Removal of Temporary Construction Facilities

The predicted noise levels at the surrounding receptors during the final stage of construction works
ranged from 26 dBA to 45 dBA, Leq. Once again, the highest noise level was predicted at PW5, with a
3 dBA increase under enhanced noise propagation conditions which equates to a relatively minor
excess of the daytime NML of 5 dBA.

It is noted that the dominant source of noise for this location was the loader assumed to be operating
on the site approximately 300 m from the dwelling. Where this item of plant is not operating it is likely
that noise levels will be below the Noise Affected NML.

6.5 Construction Noise Summary

The results indicate that during some of the stages there will be a few minor noise impacts at the
closest dwelling PW5.

Under worst case propagation conditions, the highest noise levels were predicted during the Stage 3
Piling Works. During this stage noise levels up to 59 dBA were predicted at PW5 which equates to an
excess of the daytime NML of 16 dBA. Whilst this is sufficient for the piling works to be clearly
audible, the noise levels are likely to be tolerated given the day works period.

For the other stages where the NML’s were exceeded (i.e. Stages 1, 2, and 6), the excess was only at
PW5 with noise levels ranging from 5 to 9 dBA above the NML criterion.

It should be noted that the noise modelling approach adopted is very conservative as all plant has
assumed to be operating 100% of the time with a mixture of hard and soft ground across the site and
surrounding area. Noise modelling results indicate that a reduction in noise levels in the order of
3 dBA to 6 dBA (depending on receptor location) could possibly be attributed to ground absorption
alone.

In accordance with the ICNG it is recommended that the proponent inform all potentially impacted
residents of the nature of works to be carried out, the expected noise levels and duration, as well as
contact details for a site.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 28

6.6 Construction Noise Control Measures

In order to minimise potential noise impacts upon nearby sensitive receivers, it is understood that all
construction works are proposed to be undertaken during the EPA’s standard daytime construction
periods (i.e. 7.00 am to 6.00 pm Monday to Friday and 8.00 am to 1.00 pm on Saturdays).

Noise impacts during the Stage 3 piling works have the potential to be concerning for surrounding
residents and particular effort should be directed towards the implementation of reasonable and
feasible noise mitigation and management strategies.

Examples of mitigation measures which may be considered appropriate for this work are:
 Use of less noise-intensive equipment, where reasonable and feasible.
 Where practicable, install localised acoustic hoarding around significantly noise generating items
of plant. This would be expected to provide between 5 dB and 10 dB of additional noise
attenuation if adequately constructed to ensure line-of-sight between all receivers and the
construction equipment is broken.
 Planning of the higher Noise Management Level exceedance activities / locations to be
undertaken predominantly during less noise-sensitive periods (i.e. away from early morning / late
afternoon periods when residents are home from work), where available and possible.
 Briefing of the work team in order to create awareness of the locality of sensitive receivers (in
particular PW5) and the importance of minimising noise emissions.
 Use of respite periods during highly noise intrusive works.

As well as the above project specific noise mitigation controls, AS 2436-2010 “Guide to Noise and
Vibration Control on Construction, Demolition and Maintenance Sites” sets out numerous practical
recommendations to assist in mitigating construction noise emissions. Examples of strategies that
could be implemented on the project are provided in Appendix F.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 29

7 OPERATIONAL NOISE ASSESSMENT

7.1 Methodology

In order to determine the acoustical impact of the proposed solar farm, a computer model
incorporating all significant noise sources; the closest potentially affected residential properties, and
the intervening terrain has been prepared.

The computer model was prepared using the SoundPLAN V7.2 Industrial Module which allows the use
of various internationally recognised noise prediction algorithms. The CONCAWE algorithm, which is
suitable for the assessment of large industrial plants, has been selected for this assessment because
it also enables meteorological influences to be assessed.

Inputs to the computer noise model include the following:

 A 5.0 m topographic map for the general area extending from the site to the closest sensitive
receptor and major habitable areas.
 The agricultural land surrounding the site has been conservatively modelled with a ground cover
factor of 0.5 representative of ‘mixed’ ground.
 Octave band sound power levels (SWL’s) for all acoustically significant plant and equipment
proposed to be used on site. Detail of noise source inputs are provided in Section 7.2.
 All plant items have been modelled as point sources.
 All plant has been assumed to operate 100% of the time. This assumption is in line with the INP
15 minute assessment interval. Whilst down time can be expected of some plant at times, there
will be other periods where all plant operates concurrently for at least 15 minutes.
 Prospective plant siting as indicated by NGH Environmental and Goldwind for the operational
facility.
 The predictions also allow for a conservative worst case propagation condition (i.e. including
winds in the direction from the source to the receiver and a temperature inversion). It is noted
that this is unlikely to occur during typical operating conditions as there will be minimal load on
the inverters during the night period when most temperature inversions occur. However, as
temperature inversions can sometimes occur during the early morning period noise from the solar
plant has been modelled for both calm (CONCAWE Category 4) and enhanced (CONCAWE
Category 6) meteorological conditions (see Section 3.3.3).

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 30

7.2 Equipment Sound Power Levels

The LAeq sound power levels of plant and equipment from existing and proposed operations are given
below in Table 11.

Table 11 Equipment Sound Power Levels

Group Plant and Equipment LAeq Sound Power Source Height Above
Levels (dBA) Ground Level (m)
A
Fixed Plant 6x 2 MW Inverters 99 2
A
2x Existing Transformer Substations 90 2
Note A: Data based on SMA Solar Technologies document ‘White Paper BU-U-018: Sunny Central – Sound Power
Measurements on SCxxxCP XT central inverters’ (See Appendix B) assuming there will be two (x2) 1000 kW at
50 Hz inverters at each location (above includes a +3 dBA adjustment to allow for the extra unit).
Note B: Data based on Appendix A. – High Voltage Transformer Data Sheet, Reference 16 of document ‘GULLEN RANGE
WINDFARM – 330 / 33 kV Power Transformer Specification – Document Reference: GRWF-TF-
SPC02012.08.12_v0.4.docx’ with an additional +5 dBA adjustment to each unit to account for tonal noise at 100 Hz.

Over the night period there will be minimal / zero load on the inverters corresponding to minimal noise
impacts. Whilst the transformer substations will operate during the day and night periods due to the
operational requirements of the wind farm, this has already been assessed as part of the earlier
operation noise assessment conducted by MDA.

Consequently, due to the daytime operations of the solar plant, the above has been modelled and
assessed against the more conservative evening INP noise criteria.

7.3 Operational Noise Modelling Results

Operational noise from the solar plant has been assessed to evening INP criteria. Table 12 shows the
operational noise modelling results for both neutral and enhanced propagation conditions which are
also presented as Map 1 and Map 2 respectively in Appendix E.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 31

Table 12 Operational Noise Assessment

Catchment Receiver Noise Level – Leq(15minute) (dBA)

Area
Predicted Noise at Dwelling Project Criteria Predicted
Intrusiveness / Amenity Exceedance
Calm Worst Case
North of Site B11 18 24 33 / 45 0
B35 21 27 33 / 45 0
B38 20 26 33 / 45 0
B38A 22 28 33 / 45 0
B45 21 28 33 / 45 0
B47 22 28 33 / 45 0
B48 23 29 33 / 45 0
B49 20 27 33 / 43 0
Site / South PW5 32 37 38 / 43 0
Receptors
PW7 17 26 38 / 43 0
PW29 21 28 38 / 43 0
PW35 22 29 38 / 43 0
PW36 27 33 38 / 43 0
Note: The results have been formatted to provide a visual comparison of the predicted noise level at the receptor:
Green The predicted noise levels comply with applicable Project Specific Noise Criteria (i.e. are below both INP
Intrusiveness Criteria (RBL + 5 dBA) and the higher Amenity Criteria).
Orange Predicted noise level above INP Intrusiveness criteria but less than Amenity criteria.
Red Predicted noise level above both INP intrusiveness and amenity criteria.

7.4 Discussion

The noise modelling results presented in Table 12 show that noise from the operational solar farm
complies with the project noise criteria.

As per the construction noise modelling results, the highest noise emissions are predicted at PW5 with
noise levels ranging from 32 dBA to 37 dBA, Leq.

Given the predicted level of compliance and conservative allowances included in the noise modelling,
it is likely that there will be minimal noise impacts during normal operation of the solar farm.

7.5 Review of Cumulative Noise from Wind Farm and Solar Farm

As previously noted, noise from the wind farm is subject to specific criteria, which has already been
assessed as part of the MDA Report. However, for indicative purposes the cumulative noise from both
the wind and solar farm has been predicted assuming worst case propagation conditions for both
facilities.

The wind farm noise modelling results have been taken from MDA Report Rp 002 R03 2012154SY
“GULLEN RANGE WIND FARM – Revised Noise Impact Assessment”, dated 25 September 2013.

The cumulative contribution from both facilities is shown in Table 12 assessed to evening INP amenity
criteria.

For all receptors, the cumulative noise from both facilities was found to comply with the amenity
criterion. It should be noted that in reality, noise emissions from both facilities will vary significantly
depending on wind speed, direction, solar load etc. As such, cumulative noise levels are likely to be
much lower than those shown.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 32

Table 13 Assessment of Cumulative Noise Emissions from Both Projects

Catchment Receiver Noise Level – Leq(15minute) (dBA)

Area
Predicted Worst Case Noise at Dwelling INP Amenity Predicted
Criteria Exceedance
Wind Farm Solar Farm Cumulative
North of Site B11 <35* 24 <35 45 0
B35 <35* 27 <35 45 0
B38 <35* 26 <35 45 0
B38A <35* 28 <35 45 0
B45 <35* 28 <35 45 0
B47 <35* 28 <35 45 0
B48 <35* 29 <35 45 0
B49 <35* 27 <35 45 0
Site / South PW5 36 37 40 43 0
Receptors
PW7 40 26 40 43 0
PW29 35 28 36 43 0
PW35 <35* 29 <35 43 0
PW36 37 33 38 43 0
Note: The wind farm noise modelling results included above conservatively assume a maximum wind speed of 12 m/s (at
hub height) for all turbines. The results marked using an asterisk * were not presented in the MDA Report as the
predicted noise level at these receptors was less than 35 dBA.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Goldwind Report Number 640.10935-R1
Gullen Solar Farm 14 January 2016
Construction & Operational Noise Impact Assessment Revision 3
Page 33

8 CONCLUSION

This report presents the results of the assessment of potential noise impacts associated with the
construction and operation of the proposed 11 MW Gullen Solar Plant in southeast NSW.

8.1 Construction Noise

The results of the assessment indicate that whilst noise during the earlier stages of construction are
sufficient to be audible at the closest receptor; given the day works period and predicted noise levels
(typically less than 52 dBA, Leq) any noise impacts during the works are likely to be minimal.

The predicted noise levels during the driven piling works indicate elevated noise levels at the closest
receptor (PW5) up to 59 dBA, Leq under enhanced propagation conditions. Whilst this equates to a
moderate exceedance of the daytime ICNG Noise Management Level, it is likely that any noise
impacts will be able to be managed. This could be achieved by providing the resident with advance
notification of the timing and duration of any piling works. Recommendations to help ensure all
feasible and reasonable mitigation measured are applied have been provided (see Section 6.6), along
with more general strategies (refer to Appendix E).

8.2 Operational Noise

Predicted noise levels during normal operation of the solar plant show that that there will be minimal
noise impacts. In fact, at most receptors, noise from the solar farm will predominantly be inaudible
above the ambient background noise environment.

Cumulative noise impacts from both the solar farm and existing wind farm were also considered
assuming worst case conditions from both facilities to all receptor locations. For all locations, the
cumulative noise impacts were below INP Amenity noise criteria.

Whilst the noise modelling results indicate that noise from the solar plant is likely to comply at all
receptor locations, it is noted that the layout and design of the solar plant has not been finalised.
Consequently, it is possible that the dominant source of noise (the inverters) will be located in different
locations to those assumed in the assessment. As receptor PW5 is located significantly closer to the
site than any of the other dwellings, it is recommended (where possible) that the final layout maximise
the available offset distance from the inverters to this dwelling. Noise emissions from the final layout
should also be reviewed to ensure compliance with applicable noise criteria.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

 Appendix A
Report Number 640.10935-R1
Page 1 of 2

ACOUSTIC TERMINOLOGY

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

 Appendix A
Report Number 640.10935-R1
Page 2 of 2

ACOUSTIC TERMINOLOGY

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

 Appendix B
Report Number 640.10935-R1
Page 1 of 1

GENERAL NOISE MANAGEMENT / MITIGATION MEASURES (AS2346-2010)

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

 B11 CONTOURS
dBA, Leq
36
39
B45 42
B35
45
48
36 51
54
36 B47 B49
36 57
B48
60
B38 63
39
66
39
36 69
36 B38A 72

39 42 43 42
39 39

43 45

36
45 43
48
42

36 51
39

42
54

39
43 42
48 45
57 60

48

36
PW5

51
45
51 45
72 54 48

63
43

66

57
60

43
54
69

63
66
PW36 63
36

39
54 51

63

57
6630
60 57

42
42

51
39

51
57

48
54 66
PW34

5760
54

69
72
51 48

63
48 45
48

4342 45

45
39

54 7

36
51

5
36
60
45

4443 36
PW35
52

434 3
43

39

29

36 42 4435
51
36

43
42 36
PW29 48

39
39 43

36

42
42

39
39
36

39
36
39 39

36
39
36

36
36

36
36
36

PW7

SUITE 6 / 131 BULLEEN RD

BALWYN NORTH
SCALE LEGEND PROJECT Gullen Solar Farm Date: 14/01/2016 APPENDIX
VIC 3104 0 100 200 400 600 800 1000 Point receiver
m Construction plant Project No.: 640.10935
C
AUSTRALIA
T: 61 3 9249 9400 Area source Receiver / BG monitoring loc. CLIENT NGH Environmental Report No.: 640.10935%R1
F: 61 3 9249 9499 ORIENTATION
www.slrconsulting.com Main building Noise Affected NML Prediction Method: CONCAWE MAP NO.
Solar Plant Site Boundary DESCRIPTION Construction Stage 1 % Calm Weather: Prepared By: IF 001
The content contained within this document may be based on third party
data. SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd does not guarantee the accuracy Gullen Range Substation Site Preparation, Clearing & Demolition Prediction Height:2 m
of any such information.
 B11 CONTOURS
dBA, Leq
36
39
B45 42
B35
45
48
51
54
B47 B49 57
B48
36
60
36
B38 63
36 66
69
39 B38A 72

39

36
36
42

39
43
42
43 39
45
48

60
43

54
42
42

45

51
48 45
36
51

36
39

60
57

57

63
PW5 48

39

54
43
63 51 43 42
45

66
66672
9
63
60
57
54

54
PW36 60 66

48
63 63

66
36 57 48

60
3
666
51

51
42

60

57
54 57

36
45
PW34

45
48

54
51

39
43 63

66 0
57
45

43
39 42 48
39

36 51

43
43 45

42
42
39

54
36 PW35
36 51

42
39
48

4425 43
42 43
PW29
36

42
39

336
36
39

36
39

36

36

36
36
PW7

SUITE 6 / 131 BULLEEN RD

BALWYN NORTH
SCALE LEGEND PROJECT Gullen Solar Farm Date: 14/01/2016 APPENDIX
VIC 3104 0 100 200 400 600 800 1000
Construction plant Point receiver Project No.: 640.10935
AUSTRALIA m C
T: 61 3 9249 9400 Area source Receiver / BG monitoring loc. CLIENT NGH Environmental Report No.: 640.10935%R1
F: 61 3 9249 9499 ORIENTATION
www.slrconsulting.com Main building Noise Affected NML Prediction Method: CONCAWE MAP NO.
Solar Plant Site Boundary DESCRIPTION Construction Stage 2 % Calm Weather: Establish Prepared By: IF 002
The content contained within this document may be based on third party
data. SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd does not guarantee the accuracy Gullen Range Substation Site Compound, Access Roads & Deliveries Prediction Height:2 m
of any such information.
 36
36 B11 CONTOURS
dBA, Leq
36
39
39

36
B45 42
B35
39
39 45

36
48

36
51
54
42 B47 B49
42 57

39
B48
43 60
43
39 B38 63
66
36 42 69
42
72

45
45
B38A

36
39
43 43
48

39

39
51

45
36
48
42

42
45
48
39 54
3 4

63

43

36
57
45 54
42

51
51
60
42

4423
60
66
36 63

39

43
PW5 45

39
57
72

51

48
43

48

57
63
PW36

69
51
54
48
42
45

45
48

36
66 54 54
51

54
36

57
60

57
63 PW34 66

63
43 39

42
51
57

54 57
54 5 1

45
48

60
45 43

2
443
42
42
48

39 42

51
36 PW35

48
39

39
541 5

39

43 36
45

3 48
396

48

43
45
45

39
PW29 51

43
43

39 42 42
45 36 43
4 43 45
392
42 39
48

36
36 42

36

36
39

36
36

42
43 39
39

36
45
43

39
39
36
36
39
36

36
43
42

42
39

36
36 PW7 36 39
36

SUITE 6 / 131 BULLEEN RD

BALWYN NORTH
SCALE LEGEND PROJECT Gullen Solar Farm Date: 14/01/2016 APPENDIX
VIC 3104 0 100 200 400 600 800 1000
Construction plant Point receiver Project No.: 640.10935
AUSTRALIA m C
T: 61 3 9249 9400 Area source Receiver / BG monitoring loc. CLIENT NGH Environmental Report No.: 640.10935%R1
F: 61 3 9249 9499 ORIENTATION
www.slrconsulting.com Main building Noise Affected NML Prediction Method: CONCAWE MAP NO.
Solar Plant Site Boundary DESCRIPTION Construction Stage 3 % Calm Weather: Prepared By: IF 003
The content contained within this document may be based on third party
data. SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd does not guarantee the accuracy Gullen Range Substation Installation of Foundations Prediction Height:2 m
of any such information.
 B11 CONTOURS
dBA, Leq
36
39
B45 42
B35
45
48
51
54
B47 B49 57
B48
60
B38 63
66
69
B38A 72

36
36

36
39
39

36

36

36
39 42 42
43 42
39

6
339
43 43
PW5 45
45 48 45

43
39 51
36 42 51

48
PW36
45

48
63

43
54

696
72

57
6
48

63
66 43
43

57

42
54 42
PW34 45

69
72

60
54

36
60

39
42 4
36 3
39

51
5
4
45

48
39 36

51

39
36
PW35

45

36
42

48

442
45 36

3
39 39
36
43

PW29 45

36
3639 43

36
42

36 39

36

PW7

SUITE 6 / 131 BULLEEN RD

BALWYN NORTH
SCALE LEGEND PROJECT Gullen Solar Farm Date: 14/01/2016 APPENDIX
VIC 3104 0 100 200 400 600 800 1000
Construction plant Point receiver Project No.: 640.10935
AUSTRALIA m C
T: 61 3 9249 9400 Area source Receiver / BG monitoring loc. CLIENT NGH Environmental Report No.: 640.10935%R1
F: 61 3 9249 9499 ORIENTATION
www.slrconsulting.com Main building Noise Affected NML Prediction Method: CONCAWE MAP NO.
Solar Plant Site Boundary DESCRIPTION Construction Stage 4 % Calm Weather: Prepared By: IF 004
The content contained within this document may be based on third party
data. SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd does not guarantee the accuracy Gullen Range Substation Installation of Underground Cabling Prediction Height:2 m
of any such information.
 B11 CONTOURS
dBA, Leq
36
39
B45 42
B35
45
48
51
54
B47 B49 57
B48
60
B38 63
66
69
B38A 72

36

39 36

43 42 36

36
36

39
45

51 48 39
39

42
54
PW5

39
42

45
60
63

36
6696
45
43

43
43

43 8

57

42
4
PW36

42
36 51
60

57
48
39

63
39

54

48
51

42
PW34

54
45

45
69
48
66

36

39
57

63 0
6
45
39
42

45

36
3

54
42 4

43
36 57 PW35
51

36
42 43
4458
39
36 39
PW29

433942
42
36

36

36
39

36 36

PW7

SUITE 6 / 131 BULLEEN RD

BALWYN NORTH
SCALE LEGEND PROJECT Gullen Solar Farm Date: 14/01/2016 APPENDIX
VIC 3104 0 100 200 400 600 800 1000
Construction plant Point receiver Project No.: 640.10935
AUSTRALIA m C
T: 61 3 9249 9400 Area source Receiver / BG monitoring loc. CLIENT NGH Environmental Report No.: 640.10935%R1
F: 61 3 9249 9499 ORIENTATION
www.slrconsulting.com Main building Noise Affected NML Prediction Method: CONCAWE MAP NO.
Solar Plant Site Boundary DESCRIPTION Construction Stage 5 % Calm Weather: Prepared By: IF 005
The content contained within this document may be based on third party
data. SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd does not guarantee the accuracy Gullen Range Substation Assebly of Panel Frame & Mounts / Transformers Prediction Height:2 m
of any such information.
 B11 CONTOURS
dBA, Leq
36
39
B45 42
B35
45
48
51
54
B47 B49 57
B48
60
B38 63
66
36
69
B38A 72

36

36
39 39
36
42
43
43 42
39

36
45
45
39
48 39
48
42

36

39
42
43

51
PW5 43

42
60 45

51

63 7
5
60

54
48

63
43
66

66
69

54
51

57

45
45

51
PW36

45
51 60
54

36
48

57

6
663
69
48

54
48

54

39
57
45
PW34 48
36

51
42

51

43
39

48
48

51
7
545 45

45
43
6063 42

43 42
4342
66
69

2 9
57

434 3
43

PW35

39
5154

39 45

36
45

48 42

36 39
PW29 4543 39

36
36 39

36
36
36

36

PW7

SUITE 6 / 131 BULLEEN RD

BALWYN NORTH
SCALE LEGEND PROJECT Gullen Solar Farm Date: 14/01/2016 APPENDIX
VIC 3104 0 100 200 400 600 800 1000
Construction plant Point receiver Project No.: 640.10935
AUSTRALIA m C
T: 61 3 9249 9400 Area source Receiver / BG monitoring loc. CLIENT NGH Environmental Report No.: 640.10935%R1
F: 61 3 9249 9499 ORIENTATION
www.slrconsulting.com Main building Noise Affected NML Prediction Method: CONCAWE MAP NO.
Solar Plant Site Boundary DESCRIPTION Construction Stage 6 % Calm Weather: Prepared By: IF 006
The content contained within this document may be based on third party
data. SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd does not guarantee the accuracy Gullen Range Substation Site Rehab / Removal of Construction Facilities Prediction Height:2 m
of any such information.
 B11 CONTOURS
36 dBA, Leq
36

36
39 39

36
39
B45 42
39 B35
45
48
51
39 54
B47 B49
42 42 57
36 B48
60

39
43
B38 63

36
43
42
66
45 69
36 B38A 72
45 43

39
42
39 43
48 42

43
42

36
45
48

45
51 43
48
36 51
42 39 45
54 57 54

39
43

42
48
63 60 51
36
PW5

43
51
45
72

39
57

69
48
36

54

60

66

66

663
6

45
57
PW36
42

57

48
54
54
39

51

3
43

66

606
63 60
60
54

42
57 66
PW34

60

69
57 54 72

63

51
51

57
54 51 48
36

8
42 45

60
51 4
43

39
45

45 PW35

4329 3

43
48

43
43

39
45 39
57

48 51 54
48
36
39

39 42
42

3492

45
PW29 42

43

48
43

48 36
43

45
36
39 45
45 45

42
36 42 43
39 36
45 42
43
39

36
43
36

43

43
36

39

39
43 42

42

36
36 39
42

36

36
42
36
36

369
39

3
39
36

39
6
39

39 3
36

PW7

36
39

36
SUITE 6 / 131 BULLEEN RD
BALWYN NORTH
SCALE LEGEND PROJECT Gullen Solar Farm Date: 14/01/2016 APPENDIX
VIC 3104 0 100 200 400 600 800 1000 Point receiver
m Construction plant Project No.: 640.10935
D
AUSTRALIA
T: 61 3 9249 9400 Area source Receiver / BG monitoring loc. CLIENT NGH Environmental Report No.: 640.10935%R1
F: 61 3 9249 9499 ORIENTATION
www.slrconsulting.com Main building Noise Affected NML Prediction Method: CONCAWE MAP NO.
Solar Plant Site Boundary DESCRIPTION Construction Stage 1 % Worst Case Weather: Prepared By: IF 001
The content contained within this document may be based on third party
data. SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd does not guarantee the accuracy Gullen Range Substation Site Preparation, Clearing & Demolition Prediction Height:2 m
of any such information.
 36

B11 36 CONTOURS
dBA, Leq
36
39

36
B45 42
B35
39 45
36
48
39
39 51
54
B47 B49 57
B48
60
39

36
42
B38 63
42
66

36
43
69
39
43 B38A 72
42

36
45
43

42
45

43

39
43
48

36
45
42
39 51 45

48
48

60
36

63
51
43

54
42 54

43
60
57

45
57

63
51 39
PW5

48

45
63 54
39

66
696 36

42
672 57

45
63
60
PW36 60

51
66

66
63
48
36

42 51

57
43

6366

60
57 63

57
54
57 60

54

48
PW34

43
54
51 63

60

39
51
45

66
43
48 42 43 54

45
39 48

57
39 3 6

36
39

PW35

45

42
42
36 54
45

48 45
51

42
51
433

48
36
9
45
PW29 43 43
36

36
42

39
45

45
42

3943
36

43

42
36 36
39

43

36

39
42 43 39
39 42 42 42

36
39

36
36 39
36

39 39

39 36
PW7 39

36
36

SUITE 6 / 131 BULLEEN RD

BALWYN NORTH
SCALE LEGEND PROJECT Gullen Solar Farm Date: 14/01/2016 APPENDIX
VIC 3104 0 100 200 400 600 800 1000
Construction plant Point receiver Project No.: 640.10935
AUSTRALIA m D
T: 61 3 9249 9400 Area source Receiver / BG monitoring loc. CLIENT NGH Environmental Report No.: 640.10935%R1
F: 61 3 9249 9499 ORIENTATION
www.slrconsulting.com Main building Noise Affected NML Prediction Method: CONCAWE MAP NO.
Solar Plant Site Boundary DESCRIPTION Construction Stage 2 % Worst Case Weather: Prepared By: IF 002
The content contained within this document may be based on third party
data. SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd does not guarantee the accuracy Gullen Range Substation Build Site Compound, Access Roads & Deliveries Prediction Height:2 m
of any such information.
 36
43 42

B11

36
42 43 CONTOURS
dBA, Leq
36

39
43 45 39

36
3492
36
B45 42

39
B35 45 42
45 45
43 43 48

36
51
36

42
54
B47 B49
48 45 36 57 36
B48

39
60

3936
48 B38 63
45
66
36 43 48
69

42
42
39 43
51 B38A 72

39
51

45
4
45
45

8
54 43

42
36
43 51

48

36
54
42 57
39

42
43
60

51
48
51

48
63
45

57

54

45
39
42

48
43 66 63
36

48
PW5

54
48
39

54
57

69
60
45

60
51
PW36

72
51

42
43 54

43
69

57
42
66

60

57
PW34
6
636
63

57
36

54
48
60

48

45
39 45
54

60
54

57 8

45

51
43 5145
4 42
57 43 43 8

42
44

51
453 57 5 4

51
PW35
51

42
42
57
51

39
48
51

48
36
54
48
39

4543
PW29
45

42
54
48

43
4345482 39

4543
36

36
39

48

39
4

42
43
51
51

39
3942 42

39 36
42 39 36

45
43

45
51
42 39

2
43

45

45 4
36 45 43 45

39
43
48
48

36
36
4 34932 36

3369 2
425

43
42

4
36
39
39

39
36 43
39

43

36

43
48 3
43

432
36 442

45

9
PW7
43

36

36
39

42 36 39
36

39
42

45
45

43
SUITE 6 / 131 BULLEEN RD
BALWYN NORTH
SCALE LEGEND PROJECT Gullen Solar Farm Date: 14/01/2016 APPENDIX
VIC 3104 0 100 200 400 600 800 1000
Construction plant Point receiver Project No.: 640.10935
AUSTRALIA m D
T: 61 3 9249 9400 Area source Receiver / BG monitoring loc. CLIENT NGH Environmental Report No.: 640.10935%R1
F: 61 3 9249 9499 ORIENTATION
www.slrconsulting.com Main building Noise Affected NML Prediction Method: CONCAWE MAP NO.
Solar Plant Site Boundary DESCRIPTION Construction Stage 3 % Worst Case Weather: Prepared By: IF 003
The content contained within this document may be based on third party
data. SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd does not guarantee the accuracy Gullen Range Substation Installation of Foundations Prediction Height:2 m
of any such information.
 B11 CONTOURS
dBA, Leq
36
39
B45 42
B35
45
48
36 36 51
54
B47 B49 57
B48
60
36
B38 63
66
69

36
39
39
B38A 72

39

36
42
42
39 43 42

36
43

45

39
42
45

39

43
43
45 48

36
423
36

39
48
PW5

42
51
45

43
36 48
42

48
54

54
51
PW36

51
45

63

72
69
51

66

39
57

60
57

63
66

54
48
PW34

69
72
39
43

57

43
48

4842
60
42

51
4239

36
57

54
43

45
36 45
42

36
343
9 42 PW35

45
39
51
45

36
39
45

43 39 48
36
39 43 42
PW29 48 36 43
4
36
42 39 2
45

36

39
43

39
36
39
45

39
42 43
36

36
39

42

36

36
36
36
39

PW7
36

36

SUITE 6 / 131 BULLEEN RD

BALWYN NORTH
SCALE LEGEND PROJECT Gullen Solar Farm Date: 14/01/2016 APPENDIX
VIC 3104 0 100 200 400 600 800 1000
Construction plant Point receiver Project No.: 640.10935
AUSTRALIA m D
T: 61 3 9249 9400 Area source Receiver / BG monitoring loc. CLIENT NGH Environmental Report No.: 640.10935%R1
F: 61 3 9249 9499 ORIENTATION
www.slrconsulting.com Main building Noise Affected NML Prediction Method: CONCAWE MAP NO.
Solar Plant Site Boundary DESCRIPTION Construction Stage 4 % Worst Case Weather: Prepared By: IF 004
The content contained within this document may be based on third party
data. SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd does not guarantee the accuracy Gullen Range Substation Installation of Underground Cabling Prediction Height:2 m
of any such information.
 B11 CONTOURS
dBA, Leq
36
39
B45 42
B35
45
48
51
54
B47 B49 57
B48
60
B38 63
66
36
69
36
B38A 72
36
39

36

36
39
39 39
42 43 42

43
45
45 48 42 39

36
43
39 54 43
45 36

51
42

42
PW5

43
63 6

48
42
51
6
48

69
57

39
60

45
PW36 54
4 3 45 60
45

57

36
51
45

48
63
48

51
43
36

54
39

43
PW34

57

6696
42
51

60
43
39 36

63
48 42

42
57

48
42

PW35
45

36

45394
54
39

3
43

48 4551
43 36 4 2 4 8
PW29

45
42

39
42
36
36 39

36
3643
39
39 43

39
36
39 42
36

39
36
36
36 39
36 36

PW7 36

36

SUITE 6 / 131 BULLEEN RD

BALWYN NORTH
SCALE LEGEND PROJECT Gullen Solar Farm Date: 14/01/2016 APPENDIX
VIC 3104 0 100 200 400 600 800 1000
Construction plant Point receiver Project No.: 640.10935
AUSTRALIA m D
T: 61 3 9249 9400 Area source Receiver / BG monitoring loc. CLIENT NGH Environmental Report No.: 640.10935%R1
F: 61 3 9249 9499 ORIENTATION
www.slrconsulting.com Main building Noise Affected NML Prediction Method: CONCAWE MAP NO.
Solar Plant Site Boundary DESCRIPTION Construction Stage 5 % Worst Case Weather: Prepared By: IF 005
The content contained within this document may be based on third party
data. SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd does not guarantee the accuracy Gullen Range Substation Assebly of Panel Frame & Mounts / Transformers Prediction Height:2 m
of any such information.
 B11 CONTOURS
dBA, Leq
36
36 39
B45 42
B35
45
36
48
51
36 36 54
B47 B49 57
39 B48
60
B38 63
36 66

36
69
B38A 72
39

39
39
36 42

42
43
39

45 43
45

36
42
48 43 42

43
39

43
36 48

43

42

42
51

45
45
51

39
43
36

54
48
PW5

45
63 51

60
48

63
6669

66
57

54
48

57
36

54

42
60
39

45
PW36

54

51
54
51
60
57
43

6
663
69
57

57
42

51
PW34 51
54

51
48 51

39
4
5 57
54

36
43
6063
45

45

48

45
66

453 4
69

48 48

3
4 2 PW35

43
4
57

42

42
48

45 39

43
5451

45
39

36
36

42
39 48 39
PW29 43 43

43
4 45

36
2 36
43 42
36

42
39 42

39

36
36

39
39 36
36
36
36

PW7
36

36

SUITE 6 / 131 BULLEEN RD

BALWYN NORTH
SCALE LEGEND PROJECT Gullen Solar Farm Date: 14/01/2016 APPENDIX
VIC 3104 0 100 200 400 600 800 1000
Construction plant Point receiver Project No.: 640.10935
AUSTRALIA m D
T: 61 3 9249 9400 Area source Receiver / BG monitoring loc. CLIENT NGH Environmental Report No.: 640.10935%R1
F: 61 3 9249 9499 ORIENTATION
www.slrconsulting.com Main building Noise Affected NML Prediction Method: CONCAWE MAP NO.
Solar Plant Site Boundary DESCRIPTION Construction Stage 6 % Worst Case Weather: Prepared By: IF 006
The content contained within this document may be based on third party
data. SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd does not guarantee the accuracy Gullen Range Substation Site Rehab / Removal of Construction Facilities Prediction Height:2 m
of any such information.
 B11 CONTOURS
dBA, Leq
33
36
B45 39
B35
42
45
48
51
B47 B49 54
B48
57
B38 60
63
66
B38A 69

33
33

36
36 33
38 39
PW5 42
36
38 48 38 9
3

57 54
51
33

39

45
PW36

33
5 42
48 42 448 51

554 48
45

7
554
57 541

38
5
51 39

51
54

36
36

57
PW34 5

45
4

48
48 51
42 42
38 39

5574
339
6 38

45
33 45
36
42

42
33 PW35
33
38
39
42

45
33 38
33
5418

PW29 36
3389
36

33
36
33

33

PW7

SUITE 6 / 131 BULLEEN RD

BALWYN NORTH
SCALE LEGEND PROJECT Gullen Solar Farm Date: 14/01/2016 APPENDIX
VIC 3104 0 100 200 400 600 800 1000
Construction plant Point receiver Project No.: 640.10935
AUSTRALIA m E
T: 61 3 9249 9400 Area source Receiver / BG monitoring loc. CLIENT NGH Environmental Report No.: 640.10935%R1
F: 61 3 9249 9499 ORIENTATION
www.slrconsulting.com Main building INP Intrusiveness (Site Area) Prediction Method: CONCAWE MAP NO.
Solar Plant Site Boundary DESCRIPTION Noise from Operational Solar Plant Prepared By: IF 001
The content contained within this document may be based on third party
data. SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd does not guarantee the accuracy Gullen Range Substation Neutral / Calm Weather Conditions Prediction Height:2 m
of any such information.
 B11 CONTOURS
dBA, Leq
33
36
B45 39
B35
42
45
48
51
B47 B49 54
B48
57
B38 60
63
66
33 B38A 69

33 33

36
36
33
38
39

33
36 38 36
39 38
42

39
45
PW5
42 39

33
42 38

51
57 4
5
48

36
33 PW36 4851 45
45
36

38
51 48

57
54
42

51
57 54

7
554
48
54

51
48

57
PW34
51 54
45 45

57
42
42

38
39 36 39 38 48

39
45 48
45
33

36
38

38
PW35
39

39
42

33
33

38

6
38 3
45
42

33
33
38 36
5418
39

36
PW29

36
33

36

33

39
42
39

36
38
36
33
33
33 33

33
33

PW7

SUITE 6 / 131 BULLEEN RD

BALWYN NORTH
SCALE LEGEND PROJECT Gullen Solar Farm Date: 14/01/2016 APPENDIX
VIC 3104 0 100 200 400 600 800 1000
Construction plant Point receiver Project No.: 640.10935
AUSTRALIA m E
T: 61 3 9249 9400 Area source Receiver / BG monitoring loc. CLIENT NGH Environmental Report No.: 640.10935%R1
F: 61 3 9249 9499 ORIENTATION
www.slrconsulting.com Main building INP Intrusiveness (Site Area) Prediction Method: CONCAWE MAP NO.
Solar Plant Site Boundary DESCRIPTION Noise from Operational Solar Plant Prepared By: IF 002
The content contained within this document may be based on third party
data. SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd does not guarantee the accuracy Gullen Range Substation Enhanced / Worst Case Weather Conditions Prediction Height:2 m
of any such information.
 Appendix F
Report Number 640.10935-R1
Page 1 of 2

GENERAL NOISE MANAGEMENT / MITIGATION MEASURES

Adoption of Universal Work Practices

 Regular reinforcement (such as at toolbox talks) of the need to minimise noise and vibration.
 Regular identification of noisy activities and adoption of improvement techniques.
 Avoiding the use of portable radios, public address systems or other methods of site
communication that may unnecessarily impact upon nearby residents.
 Where possible, avoiding the use of equipment that generates impulsive noise.
 Minimising the need for vehicle reversing for example (particularly at night), by arranging for one-
way site traffic routes.
 Use of broadband audible alarms on vehicles and elevating work platforms used on site.
 Minimising the movement of materials and plant and unnecessary metal-on-metal contact.
 Minimising truck movements.

Plant and Equipment

 Choosing quieter plant and equipment based on the optimal power and size to most efficiently
perform the required tasks.
 Selecting plant and equipment with low vibration generation characteristics.
 Operating plant and equipment in the quietest and most efficient manner.

On Site Noise Mitigation

 Maximising the distance between noise activities and noise sensitive land uses.

 Installing purpose built noise barriers, acoustic sheds and enclosures.

Work Scheduling
 Providing respite periods which could include restricting very noisy activities (e.g. piling) to the
daytime, restricting the number of nights that after-hours work is conducted near residences or by
determining any specific requirements.
 Scheduling work to coincide with non-sensitive periods.
 Planning deliveries and access to the site to occur quietly and efficiently and organising parking
only within designated areas located away from the sensitive receivers.
 Optimising the number of deliveries to the site by amalgamating loads where possible and
scheduling arrivals within designated hours.
 Including contract conditions that include penalties for non-compliance with reasonable
instructions by the principal to minimise noise or arrange suitable scheduling.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

 Appendix F
Report Number 640.10935-R1
Page 2 of 2

GENERAL NOISE MANAGEMENT / MITIGATION MEASURES

Source Noise Control Strategies

Some ways of controlling noise at the source are:

 Where reasonably practical, noisy plant or processes should be replaced by less noisy
alternatives.
 Modify existing equipment: Engines and exhausts are typically the dominant noise sources on
mobile plant such as cranes, graders, excavators, trucks, etc. In order to minimise noise
emissions, residential grade mufflers should be fitted on all mobile plant utilised on site.
 Use of siting of equipment: Siting noisy equipment behind structures that act as barriers, or at the
greatest distance from the noise-sensitive area; or orienting the equipment so that noise
emissions are directed away from any sensitive areas, to achieve the maximum attenuation of
noise.
 Regular and effective maintenance.

Noise Barrier Control Strategies

Temporary noise barriers are recommended where feasible, between the noise sources and all nearby
potentially affected noise sensitive receivers, wherever possible. Typically, 7 dBA to 15 dBA of
attenuation can be achieved with a well-constructed barrier. Specific strategies include:
 Orientation of the noisy equipment whereby the least noisy side of the equipment is facing the
closest receiver.
 The positioning of any site huts/maintenance sheds adjacent to the noisy equipment, in the
direction of the closest receiver.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

  

 
BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT 
GULLEN SOLAR FARM – BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT 
 

     

 
 
 

DECEMBER 2015 
 
 

 suite 1, 216 carp st  (po box 470)  bega  nsw  2550  australia  t 61 2 6492 8333   
www.nghenvironmental.com.au   e ngh@nghenvironmental.com.au 
unit 17, 27 yallourn st  (po box 1037)  unit 18, level 3, 21 mary st suite 1, 39 fitzmaurice st  (po box 5464)
fyshwick  act  2609  australia  surry hills  nsw  2010  australia  wagga wagga  nsw  2650  australia 
t 61 2 6280 5053  f 61 2 6280 9387  t 61 2 8202 8333   t 61 2 6971 9696  f 61 2 6971 9693 

 
  
 
 

Document Verification
Project Title:  Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment
 
 
Project Number:  6385 
Project File Name:  Gullen Solar BA_Final v1.docx   
Revision  Date  Prepared by (name)  Reviewed by (name)  Approved by (name) 
Draft v1  13/11/2015  Dave Maynard  Brooke Marshall  Brooke Marshall 
Sam Patmore 
Final v1  14/12/2015  Sam Patmore  Brooke Marshall  Brooke Marshall 
         
         
         
         

nghenvironmental prints all documents on environmentally sustainable paper including paper made from bagasse (a by‐
product of sugar production) or recycled paper. 

 
nghenvironmental is a registered trading name of nghenvironmental Pty Ltd; ACN: 124 444 622. 
ABN: 31 124 444 622 
 
 

 suite 1, 216 carp st  (po box 470)  bega  nsw  2550  australia  t 61 2 6492 8333   
www.nghenvironmental.com.au   e ngh@nghenvironmental.com.au 
unit 17, 27 yallourn st  (po box 1037) unit 18, level 3, 21 mary st suite 1, 39 fitzmaurice st  (po box 5464)
fyshwick  act  2609  australia  surry hills  nsw  2010  australia  wagga wagga  nsw  2650  australia 
t 61 2 6280 5053  f 61 2 6280 9387  t 61 2 8202 8333   t 61 2 6971 9696  f 61 2 6971 9693 

 
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

CONTENTS 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ IV 
1  INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 5 
1.1  BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................5 
1.2  AIM OF THIS ASSESSMENT/PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT .......................................................................5 
2  PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 7 
2.1  LOCATION OF THE ACTIVITY .................................................................................................................7  
2.2  SITE CONTEXT .......................................................................................................................................7 
2.3  DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................................................................8  
2.3.1  Infrastructure components .................................................................................................................... 8 

2.3.2  Infrastructure layout and development envelope ................................................................................. 9 

2.4  PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ........................................................................................9  
2.5  INDICATIVE TIMELINE .........................................................................................................................10  
3  ASSESSMENT APPROACH AND SURVEY EFFORT ......................................................................... 12 
3.1  LITERATURE REVIEW, SURVEY GUIDELINES AND DATABASE SEARCHES ...........................................12 
3.1.1  {Literature review ................................................................................................................................ 12 
3.1.2  Survey guidelines ................................................................................................................................. 12 

3.1.3  Database searches ............................................................................................................................... 12 

3.2  FIELD SURVEYS ...................................................................................................................................13 
3.2.1  Flora survey ......................................................................................................................................... 13 

3.2.2  Fauna survey ........................................................................................................................................ 14 
3.2.3  Survey effort and conditions ............................................................................................................... 18 

3.3  LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................................19 
3.3.1  Flora ..................................................................................................................................................... 19 

3.3.2  Fauna ................................................................................................................................................... 19 

3.4  GIS MAPPING .....................................................................................................................................20 
4  RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 21 
4.1  FLORA .................................................................................................................................................21 
4.1.1  Vegetation communities ..................................................................................................................... 21 
4.1.2  Flora species recorded ......................................................................................................................... 24 
4.1.3  BioBanking plots .................................................................................................................................. 24 
4.1.4  Disturbance and weeds ....................................................................................................................... 26 

4.1.5  Plant species and communities of conservation significance .............................................................. 26 

6385 Final V1  i   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

4.2  FAUNA ................................................................................................................................................27 
4.2.1  Fauna species recorded ....................................................................................................................... 27 
4.2.2  Fauna habitat ....................................................................................................................................... 27 

4.2.3  Threatened fauna species recorded .................................................................................................... 31 
4.2.4  Migratory species ................................................................................................................................ 32 

4.3  CRITICAL HABITAT ..............................................................................................................................33 
4.4  WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY CORRIDORS ...............................................................................................33  
4.5  SEPP 44 ‐ KOALA HABITAT PROTECTION ............................................................................................34  
5  ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ...................................................................................... 35 
5.1  CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................35  
5.1.1  Loss of vegetation ................................................................................................................................ 35 

5.1.2  Endangered Ecological Communities................................................................................................... 38 
5.1.3  Threatened flora species ..................................................................................................................... 39 

5.1.4  Potential introduction and spread of weeds ....................................................................................... 39 

5.1.5  Loss of habitat ...................................................................................................................................... 39 

5.1.6  Direct Impacts to fauna ....................................................................................................................... 41 

5.2  OPERATIONAL IMPACTS .....................................................................................................................42  
5.2.1  Alteration to microclimate and erosion potential under the array ..................................................... 42 
5.2.2  Native pasture management under the array ..................................................................................... 43 

6  RECOMMENDED SAFEGUARDS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................... 45 
6.1  CONSTRUCTION PHASE ......................................................................................................................45  
6.2  OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT...........................................................................................................46  
6.3  DECOMMISSIONING ...........................................................................................................................46  
6.4  OFFSETTING .......................................................................................................................................46 
7  REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 47 
APPENDIX A  THREATENED SPECIES EVALUATIONS .........................................................................A‐I 
APPENDIX B  FIELD SURVEY RESULTS .............................................................................................. B‐I 
APPENDIX C  ASSESSMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................ C‐I 
 

   

6385 Final V1  ii   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

TABLES 
Table 2‐1 Key infrastructure components (including items to be installed at the existing substation) .........8 

Table 2‐2 Indicative timing for the Gullen Solar Farm. .................................................................................10 

Table 3‐1:  Background searches undertaken for threatened entities and noxious weeds .........................12 

Table 3‐2:  Survey effort completed within the subject site .........................................................................18 

Table 3‐3‐2:  ‐ Prevailing weather conditions during each Striped Legless Lizard tile survey ......................19 

Table 3‐4‐3: ‐ Prevailing weather conditions during the nocturnal survey (including spotlight/stagwatch and 
call playback times) .......................................................................................................................................19 

Table 4‐1  Conservation status of native vegetation at the subject site ......................................................21 

Table 4‐2 Results of Biobanking Plots within the study area ........................................................................25 

Table 5‐1  Potential impacts of the proposed solar plant .............................................................................35 

Table 5‐2 Estimated impact areas of each proposal component .................................................................37 

No table of figures entries found. 
 
FIGURES 
Figure 1‐1 Location of the activity ..................................................................................................................6  

Figure 2‐1 Development envelope (assessed area within which infrastructure would be located) ............11 

Figure 4‐1 Red Stringybark ‐ Brittle Gum ‐ Inland Scribbly Gum dry open forest within the study area .....22 

Figure  4‐2  Ribbon  Gum  forest  derived  grassland  in  the  proposed  array  area  and  open  forest  along  the 
proposed access from Storriers Lane............................................................................................................22  

Figure  4‐3  Snow  Gum  –  Candlebark  Woodland  and  derived  grassland  within  the  study  area  and  the 
community along Sawpit Creek (right) .........................................................................................................23  

Figure 4‐4 Exotic pastures within the study area (left) and planted exotic wind breaks (right) ..................24 

Figure 4‐5 Fauna habitats within the study area ..........................................................................................28  

Figure B‐1 Flora Survey Effort and Results ................................................................................................... B‐I 

Figure B‐2 Fauna Survey Effort and Results ................................................................................................ B‐II 

   

6385 Final V1  iii   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
AC  Alternating current 
Cwth  Commonwealth 
CMA  Catchment Management Authority 
DBH  Diameter at breast height 
DECC / DECCW  Refer to OEH 
DC  Direct current 
DoE  (Cwth) Department of Environment 
DoPI  (NSW) Department of Planning and Infrastructure 
EEC  Endangered ecological community – as defined under relevant law applying 
to the proposal 
EIA  Environmental impact assessment 
EPBC Act  Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwth) 
EP&A Act  Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)  
FM Act  Fisheries Management Act 1994 (NSW) 
Ha  Hectares 
Km  Kilometre 
kV  Kilovolts 
LEP  Local Environment Plan 
LGA  Local Government Area 
M  Metres 
MNES  Matters of National environmental significance under the EPBC Act (c.f.) 
MW  Megawatt 
NSW  New South Wales 
OEH  (NSW)  Office  of  Environment  and  Heritage,  formerly  Department  of 
Environment, Climate Change and Water 
PV  Photovoltaic 
SEPP  State Environmental Planning Policy (NSW) 
sp/spp  Species/multiple species 
TSC Act  Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) 
V  Volts 
WoNS  Weeds of National Significance 
 
 

6385 Final V1  iv   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 BACKGROUND 
Gullen Solar Pty Ltd Australia are proposing to construct an 11 Megawatt (MW) Solar Photovoltaic Farm, 
on rural lands at 131 Storriers Lane, approximately 17km south of Crookwell, on the Southern Tablelands 
of NSW. 
The project site is adjacent to the 165.5 MW Gullen Range Wind Farm, which became fully operational in 
December 2014. The development of additional renewable energy infrastructure at this location would 
make use of existing electricity generation and transmission infrastructure used for the Gullen Range Wind 
Farm.  

1.2 AIM OF THIS ASSESSMENT/PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT 
This Biodiversity Assessment (BA) forms part of the environmental assessment requirements of Part 4 of 
the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.   
Specifically, the aims of this report are to: 

 Describe the biodiversity values of the site and surrounding area including identifying protected 
and  threatened  flora  and  fauna  species,  populations  and  ecological  communities  and  their 
habitats. 

 Identify the ecological constraints of the site as it relates to the proposed use for a solar farm. 

 Identify the direct and indirect impacts of the proposal on flora and fauna species, populations, 
ecological communities and critical habitat. 

 Address  the  requirements  of  relevant  legislation  including  the  NSW  Environmental  Planning  & 
Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act), and the 
Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).  

 Assess  the  significance  of  the  impact  of  the  possible  options  on  species,  ecological 
communities and populations listed under the TSC Act and EPBC Act. 

 Propose  environmental  management  measures  to  avoid,  minimise,  mitigate  and,  if  necessary, 
offset any impacts. 
 

   

6385 Final V1  5   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

CROOKWELL
GRABBEN
GULLEN CROOKW ELL
GOULBURN

R
!
!
R

R
!
R!
! R !
R
! !
R R
!
R
R
!
GRA BBEN GULLEN
! !
R R !
R!
! RR
R !
R
!
R
!
R!
! R
!
R
R
!
R
!
R
!
R!
!
R !
! R
R!
! R!RR
R
!

Leahy Lane Walkom

s
Lane
Lane

rs
an e

rrie
Sto
Prices L

!
R
R !
!
R!
! RR
R
!
R
!
R !
! R
!
R
Lane

R R
! R !
! R
!!R
R
!
R
!
Bannister

R
! R
!
R
!
R
!
!
R
R
!
Po
!
R m er o
R
!
R!
! R y Ro
R !
! R
R
!
R
!
ad
R
!
R !
! R!
R
R !
! R
R
!
R
!
R
!
R
!

Notes:
- Aerial imagery coutesy of Goldwind
- Layout layers provided by Goldwind
- Transport layers and topo sourced from ESRI

R
! Gullen Range Wind Farm turbines 0 1 2 4 Kilometr es

Existing Gullen Range Wind Farm Substation

°
Ref:6385 1-1 v2
Gullen Range Wind Farm boundary Author: JB
Gullen Solar Farm site

www.nghenvironm ental. com .au  

Figure 1‐1 Location of the activity 

6385 Final V1  6   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

2.1 LOCATION OF THE ACTIVITY 
The  project  site  is  located  in  south  eastern  New  South  Wales,  at  131  Storriers  Lane,  Bannister  2580, 
approximately  17  km  south  of  Crookwell,  and  26  km  northwest  of  Goulburn  (refer  to  Figure  1‐1).  The 
project site is situated to the north of the Pomeroy precinct boundary of the Gullen Range Wind Farm and 
covers an area of approximately 113 hectares. This area of land has been acquired by Gullen Solar Farm 
Pty Ltd and earmarked for the construction and operation of the solar farm. 
The project study area occurs within the Hawkesbury ‐ Nepean Catchment Management Authority (CMA), 
and within the Crookwell Subregion, and falls under the jurisdiction of the Upper Lachlan Local Government 
Area (LGA).  

2.2 SITE CONTEXT  
The project site is currently used for grazing purposes, and as such, has been predominantly cleared of 
overstorey vegetation, with pasture improved paddocks the dominant feature of the site, although there 
are  some  scattered  remnant  trees  and  planted  wind  breaks  occurring  within  the  site.    Intact  remnant 
woodland occurs on the periphery of the site’s eastern and southern boundaries which connects to large 
contiguous forested areas further to the southeast of the site.  
The site is undulating, part of a larger plateau formation and generally slopes down to the north and east. 
Locally steep areas border the site to the south. Gully systems are present to the south in larger areas of 
contiguous  forest,  as  well  as  to  the  north,  in  a  broader  and  shallow  open  drainage  gully  supporting  a 
number of farm dams. Most of the site drains to the east, towards Sawpit Creek. 
The site is situated within the Wollondilly River sub catchment of the Hawkesbury Nepean catchment and 
is within the Sydney Drinking Water Catchment. Two 1st order creek lines are present; one in the southern 
part and the other in the eastern part of the site. They join to form a 2nd order creek south east of the site.  
A  single  residence  is  located  on  the  project  site  with  associated  shedding.  The  residence  will  not  be 
occupied during construction or operation of the project. 
Land use within the local area is dominated by rural activities on large holdings. Population density is low. 
Adjoining lands are privately owned and are predominantly cleared grazing lands.  
The operational Gullen Range Wind Farm is located south, southwest and northeast of the Gullen Solar 
Farm site. 
The site is serviced by roads from Goulburn and Crookwell via several alternative routes. The two main 
routes that would be used include Crookwell and Kialla Road route and Range Road route.  Access to the 
solar site will be off Storriers Lane. 

   

6385 Final V1  7   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE 

2.3.1 Infrastructure components 
The key infrastructure components of the project are shown in Table 2‐1 below. 
Table 2‐1 Key infrastructure components (including items to be installed at the existing substation) 

Component  Details  Construction activities 

Solar panels  Equivalent of 40,000 solar PV panels sized at  Excavate  and  form  footings 
approximately  1m  x  2m,  standing  3m  to  4m  (concrete)  or  install  posts  (pile 
high.  driven). 
Panels tilted at 25‐35 degrees.  Attach  support  structures  to 
Support structures for mounting solar panels.  footings or posts. 
Concrete  footings  or  driven  posts  as  Mount  panels  on  support 
foundations.   structure. 

Electrical  Wiring between panels and inverter systems.  Install/connect electrical wiring 

connections/inverters  5 ‐ 10 inverter stations (each 6m long) each of  Footings  installed  for  inverters 
1 ‐ 2MW capacity and step up transformers to  and  transformers,  mount 
convert  direct  current  (DC)  to  alternating  inverters  and  transformers  on 
current (AC).  footings. 
1000‐1500  Volt  DC  junction  boxes  Connect inverters. 
(combiner boxes). 
Collection circuits  33kV  underground  cables  for  connection  to  Trenching,  cable  laying  and 
the  existing  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm  backfill.  Pole  erection  and  line 
Substation (approximately 3km) and an option  stringing  for  optional  overhead 
for a short section (240m) of 33 kV overhead  section. 
reticulation  to  span  a  steep  slope  and  creek 
crossing. 
Access works  Access tracks (up to 8m wide) to and from site,  Earthworks. 
to  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm  Substation  and  Rehabilitation. 
around  arrays.  Dependent  on  access  route 
option  chosen,  works  may  include  a  creek 
crossing.  
Drainage works, approximately 240m. 
Central  control  and  Control  cabling  between  Gullen  Range  Wind  Install fibre optic cable with 33kV 
monitoring system  Farm  Substation  and  panels  and  monitoring  collection  circuit  and  within 
system at Gullen Range Wind Farm Substation. existing  control  room  at  Gullen 
Range Wind Farm. 
Maintenance  An  approximate  12m  x  12m  x  3.6m  high  Footings, install shed. 
colorbond  rural  shed  for  storage  of  spare 
parts.  This  may  be  connected  to  a  small 
rainwater tank. 
Safety  Fencing of the entire facility with 2m ‐ Excavate  and  form  footings 
2.4m high chain mesh fence.  (concrete). 
Install posts and attach mesh. 
 

6385 Final V1  8   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Component  Details  Construction activities 

Gullen  Range  Wind  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm  Substation  and  Existing – no change. 
Farm items  33/330kV transformers. 
Switchgear modular units (33kV).  Configure  existing  units  inside 
33kV switchroom at Gullen Range 
Wind Farm Substation. 

2.3.2 Infrastructure layout and development envelope 
The project layout comprises groups of panels on level ground or north facing slopes. These are all located 
on the Gullen Solar Farm site. Inverters will be located centrally to groups of panels. The 33kV underground 
cables are located between the Gullen Solar site and the existing substation on the Gullen Range Wind 
Farm site.  The switchgear will be installed within the existing substation located on the Gullen Range Wind 
Farm site. Materials laydown areas would be required during construction.  
While the final infrastructure layout and components have yet to be determined, three indicative layouts 
were considered. Together, these provide the largest possible development envelope, which is the area 
within which infrastructure would be located (Figure 2‐1). This envelope is the ‘upper limit’ area that would 
be disturbed by the development of the solar farm. It includes two access options, two cabling options to 
the Pomeroy substation and areas required for stock piling and materials laydown during construction, to 
ensure all areas that may be required by the project are assessed in this Biodiversity Assessment and the 
overarching Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE). 
It  should  be  noted  that  the  final  infrastructure  layout  of  the  constructed  project  would  have  a  smaller 
footprint  than  the  development  envelope  assessed  in  this  SEE.  The  development  envelope  shown  is 
approximately  64  ha.  The  final  construction  footprint  is  expected  to  be  approximately  25‐30  ha.  An 
indicative layout under consideration is provided in Appendix A. 
Further  details  on  power  generation,  transmission  of  power  to  the  grid,  and  traffic  management  and 
access, are provided in full in the SEE. 

2.4 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION  
Project  construction  and  operation  details  are  fully  described  in  the  overarching  Statement  of 
Environmental Effects.  Details provided include the following: 

Construction 
 Works activities, including sequencing of the construction program  
 Proposed construction equipment details  
 Source, quantity and types of materials to be used  
 Timing of work, including (standard) construction hours  
 Staffing requirements, including workforce numbers  

Operation 
 Operational life of the project 
 monitoring and facility maintenance, including management of breakdowns and repairs 
 Landscaping works, and other land management requirements including grazing for ground 
cover management strategy under and around the array  

6385 Final V1  9   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Decommissioning 
 Key elements of project decommissioning, including disconnection from the grid, removal 
and recycling of PV modules, removal of buildings and equipment and site rehabilitation. 

2.5 INDICATIVE TIMELINE 
The indicative timing for the Gullen Solar Farm is outlined in Table 2‐2 below. 
Table 2‐2 Indicative timing for the Gullen Solar Farm. 
Phase  Approximate commencement   Duration 
Environmental investigations   Third‐and fourth quarters 2015  2‐3 months 
Development Application submission  December 2015   
Public exhibition  December 2015 to January 2016  At least 1 month (more time 
may  be  required  over  the 
holiday period) 
Consent Authority/JRP Review  January – February 2016   
Development Consent  March 2016   
AHIP issued  March  2016   
Preconstruction  documentation  and  Second quarter 2016  3 months 
design 
Construction  Third‐fourth quarters 2016  6 months 
Commissioning  Fourth quarter 2016 to first quarter  2‐3 months 
2017 
Operation    25 years 
Decommissioning    6 months 
 

 
   

6385 Final V1  10   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Existing 330kV transmission line

L an e
Crown Road access to solar farm

s
Sto rr ier
R Gullen Range Wind Farm turbines
!
Existing 330kV
transmission line Existing Gullen Range Wind Farm
Pine trees to Substation
be removed Gullen Range Wind Farm boundary
(Pomeroy precinct)
Gullen Solar Farm site boundary
Development Envelope (including
access tracks and cabling to Storriers
Lane and south to substation) of
approx. 64H a
Proposed road upgrades

POM_01
R
!

POM_02 Indicative layout and subject to change

R
! POM_05
R
!
0 100 200 400 Metres
POM_04
R
!

°
POM_03 Ref: 6385 2-3 v3
R
!
Author: JB
Notes:
- Aerial imagery copyright Google Earth 2015
- Layout layers provided by Goldwind
- Transport layers sourced from ESRI www .nghenvironm en tal.com .au
 

Figure 2‐1 Development envelope (assessed area within which infrastructure would be located)   

6385 Final V1  11   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

3 ASSESSMENT APPROACH AND SURVEY EFFORT 

3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW, SURVEY GUIDELINES AND DATABASE SEARCHES 

3.1.1 Literature review 
{

Literature relevant to this assessment was reviewed and included: 

 OEH Threatened Species Profiles  
 Department of the Environment EPBC Act Species Profiles and Threats Database (SPRAT) 
 Construction methodology and concept designs 
 Aerial maps 
 Native vegetation mapping for the area (Tozer et al. 2010) 
 Various published texts on birds, mammals, reptiles and frogs 

3.1.2 Survey guidelines 
Surveys were undertaken in accordance with relevant guidelines including DECC (2004) Draft Threatened 
Biodiversity Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for Developments and Activities, as well as with reference 
to  specific  correspondence  with  OEH  Threatened  Species  Officers  with  regard  to  additional  surveys  for 
Golden sun moth.  

3.1.3 Database searches 
Database searches undertaken are listed in Table 3‐1.  The results of the database searches are provided 
in the threatened species evaluations at Appendix A.   
Searches  were  undertaken  prior  to  the  surveys.  Updated  searches  were  also  completed  prior  to  the 
completion of the impact assessment to account for any new species that may have been listed during this 
time.  
An  evaluation  of  the  likelihood  of  the  occurrence  of  threatened  flora  and  fauna  species  and  ecological 
communities within the study area was undertaken, based on the presence of suitable habitat and/or the 
existence of species records in the vicinity (Appendix A). Assessments of significance, pursuant to the EP&A 
Act and the Commonwealth EPBC Act, were undertaken for species with potential to be adversely affected 
(refer Section 5 and Appendix C). 
 
Table 3‐1:  Background searches undertaken for threatened entities and noxious weeds 
Resource  Target  Search Date  Search Area 
OEH Wildlife Atlas  Threatened flora and Endangered  30/10/15   Hawkesbury/Nepean 
Database  Ecological Communities.  CMA, Crookwell sub‐
Threatened Fauna  3/11/15  catchment 

EPBC Act Protected  Threatened flora and Endangered  30/10/15  10 kilometres radius 

Matters Search Tool  Ecological Communities.  of study area 
Threatened and Migratory Fauna  3/11/15 

DPI Noxious Weed  Noxious weeds declared in the  30/10/15  Upper Lachlan Shire 

Database  relevant LGA.  Council  

6385 Final V1  12   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

3.2 FIELD SURVEYS 
Flora and fauna field surveys of the development site were conducted at various times between February 
and November 2015.  The area assessed included all areas proposed for infrastructure including the array 
envelope,  the  northern  access  route  as  well  as  both  of  the  (eastern  and  western)  southern  access  and 
cabling options. This included a minimum buffer of approximately 30 metres either side of the southern 
access and cabling options.  

3.2.1 Flora survey 
The initial flora survey was conducted on 18 February 2015 by a senior botanist to ascertain vegetation 
type and condition and provide a representative species list for the site. A second survey was undertaken 
on the 20 March 2015 by two ecologists to collect additional Biometric plot data. This plot data provides a 
standardised summary of the composition and condition of the vegetation within the plot.  Techniques and 
standards utilised are described below. Key components of the flora survey are shown on the biodiversity 
survey effort and results maps in Appendix B2. Survey effort is documented in Table 3‐2. 

Random meander, condition assessment – February 2015 
Floristics  at  the  site  were  surveyed  using  the  random  meander  method  of  Cropper  (1993).  Random 
meanders were undertaken across the entire study area. Particular attention was paid to areas considered 
a possible location for threatened flora species. In these areas targeted searches were undertaken. 
Highly disturbed or exotic dominated areas were not surveyed in detail, other than to note the presence 
of  noxious  and  other  weeds.  All  identifiable  species  encountered  were  recorded  for  the  purposes  of 
characterising  vegetation  types  and  habitat  values  for  threatened  species  and  communities.  The 
boundaries of vegetation types were recorded using a handheld GPS for later input into GIS mapping.  
Native  vegetation  condition  was  rated  according  to  the  two  point  scale  endorsed  under  the  BBAM 
Guidelines (OEH 2014).  These are: 

Low condition  For woody vegetation 
Native over‐storey percentage of foliage cover is less than 25% of the lower 
value  of  the  over‐storey  percentage  of  foliage  cover  benchmark  for  that 
vegetation type, and less than 50% of ground cover vegetation is indigenous.
Natural native grassland 
Less than 50% of groundcover vegetation is indigenous species or more than 
90% of the groundcover vegetation is cleared. 
Moderate to good  Any native vegetation not in low condition. 
condition 

Biometric plot surveys – March 2015 
To supplement the random meander surveys and to provide quantifiable data on vegetation condition, 
Biometric plot  surveys  were  undertaken according  to the  BioBanking  Assessment  Methodology (BBAM, 
OEH 2014). The data collected allows the biodiversity values at the site to be compared to benchmark data 
held by the NSW OEH and can also be utilised in any subsequent calculations of offsets according to the 
BBAM, should offsets be required for the proposal. 

6385 Final V1  13   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Plant and community nomenclature  
Vegetation  communities  in  the  study  area  have  been  categorised  on  the  basis  of  their  structure  and 
formation  as  well  as  the  floristic  composition  of  the  site.  Native  vegetation  communities  have  been 
classified according to the Biometric Vegetation Types database (OEH 2012) applicable to the Hawkesbury 
Nepean catchment. 
Botanical nomenclature follows Harden (1990‐2002), with recent name changes provided by the Australian 
Plant Name Index of the Australian National Herbarium. Noxious weeds identified are those declared for 
the Upper Lachlan Shire Council control area under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993.  
In the body of this report, flora species are referred to by both their common and scientific names when 
first mentioned.  Subsequent references to these species cite the common name only.  Where a species 
does not have a generally accepted common name, the scientific name is used throughout the body of the 
report.  Common and scientific names are included in the appendices. 

Vegetation community mapping 
Vegetation community mapping was undertaken within ArcGIS v10.0 using high resolution aerial imagery 
and GPS data collected in the field. Treed vegetation has been mapped to the extent of the overstorey 
canopy.  

3.2.2 Fauna survey 
The fauna surveys involved a variety of methods, including fauna habitat assessment, hollow‐bearing tree 
inventory, diurnal bird surveys, nocturnal spotlighting and stagwatching, as well as targeted threatened 
species surveys, including an artificial shelter (tile) survey for threatened reptiles (specifically targeting the 
Striped Legless Lizard, Delma impar), and native grassland traverses to search for the Golden Sun Moth 
(Synemon plana). 
The fauna survey was undertaken over two days and one night, on the 26th and 27th of October 2015 and 
involved two ecologists.  The tile surveys were installed on 27 August 2015 and then left undisturbed for 
one  month.  Fortnightly  checks  commenced  from  the  29th  September  and  continued  until  the  10th 
November 2015.1 
Three site traverses through areas of native grassland with a high proportion of Wallaby Grass were also 
planned for the month of December (specific dates to be confirmed). 
It is noted that the results of these targeted surveys will not be obtained until after the submission of the 
overarching SEE. This is justified on the basis of relatively high confidence of not detecting these species at 
the site. They were not detected in extensive surveys for the wind farm and the site is outside the known 
range  of  the  Golden  Sun  Moth.  The  survey  results  will  confirm  the  assumptions  of  this  assessment  or 
provide a trigger to undertake further assessment and management for these species. 
The specific methods employed are described further below, including a full description of the survey effort 
including all dates and activities undertaken for the fauna surveys.  

                                                              
1 Additional tile checks have continued since the submission of this assessment. 

6385 Final V1  14   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Habitat assessment 
A summary assessment of the different fauna habitat types and their quality was conducted across the 
subject site. Each habitat assessment was informed by the flora survey results, and included factors such 
as  canopy  resources,  ground‐layer  resources,  vegetation  structure,  connectivity  and  existing  levels  of 
disturbance. During  the  field  surveys,  habitat  quality was  classified  into  three  categories  of either high, 
moderate or low based on the presence of additional fauna resources including: 

 Diverse structure, that is, structural components at a range of stratum levels (understorey, 
midstorey,  and  canopy)  and  age  or  size  classes  (trees  of  different  ages,  fallen  timber  of 
different sizes). 
 Shelter  and  refuge,  that  is,  low  shrub  or  tussock,  rocky  outcrops,  hollow  logs  (ground 
dwelling fauna). 
 Mature trees, which are more likely to bear hollows and mature hollow‐bearing trees, which 
are  more  likely  to  bear  multiple  hollows  of  a  range  of  sizes,  including  those  with  large 
internal  dimensions.  Mature  trees  also  produce  more  foraging  resources  for  nectar  and 
seed eating fauna. 
 Habitat complexity, including ecotones2 between vegetation types, or areas with different 
management regimes, which produce a habitat mosaic. Within a habitat patch, there may 
be a recently disturbed area, as well as a mature area with little recent disturbance. This 
increases the range of foraging and shelter opportunities within a habitat. 
 Key habitat components such as hollow‐bearing trees (see below). 
Note:    fauna  habitat  ‘quality’  and  vegetation  ‘condition’  classes  are  not  interchangeable,  as  different 
criteria are used to distinguish fauna and flora values. 

Hollow‐bearing tree inventory 
A hollow‐bearing tree inventory was undertaken across the length and width of the subject site (as defined 
by the maximum likely extent of disturbance, shown in Figure 2‐1). The following data was recorded for 
mapped hollow‐bearing trees: species of tree, the number of hollows, and the size of each hollow (small: 
< 5cm; medium 5‐15cm; large > 15 cm). It should be noted that all sizes were recorded as estimates and 
that identifying all hollows from the ground is not always possible. The raw data for the hollow‐bearing 
tree inventory is presented at Appendix B‐3.   
The hollow‐bearing tree survey covered all land within the development footprint, including the solar panel 
arrays,  the  northern  access  route  and  both  of  the  (eastern  and  western)  cable  and  access  alignment 
options. This survey included all trees within at least 30m of the proposed development footprint. 

Bird surveys 
Bird surveys consisted of opportunistic sightings made during the site traverses (to identify hollow bearing 
trees and general habitat values as well as the fortnightly tile checks), as well as an additional three 30 
minute surveys at various locations within the site:  

 In open cleared grazing areas of the site 
 Along the ecotones between the cleared land and the woodland bordering the property to 
the south. 

                                                              
2 Ecotones are transition zones, where one environment grades into another.   

6385 Final V1  15   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

The bird species observed during the surveys are included at Appendix B‐4. 

Aquatic habitat inspections 
Areas supporting open standing or flowing water within the subject site were investigated to determine 
their suitability for threatened fish and frog species. Within the study area, the extent of aquatic habitat 
consisted of five dams as well as a semi‐permanent creek/drainage line across the northern and eastern 
property boundary. 
Notes on the vegetation, structure and condition of these aquatic habitats were recorded in the field. Any 
aquatic species either seen or heard calling were recorded during field investigations and added to the 
fauna lists at Appendix B‐4. 

Nocturnal surveys (spotlighting) and stagwatching 
Stagwatching was undertaken at two separate locations within the site on the evening of the 26th October 
2015, by two experienced ecologists.  This process involved quietly watching a small group of paddock trees 
supporting observable hollows, from approximately 15m before dusk for a period of 45 minutes (i.e. till 
well  after  dark)  and  noting  any  fauna  either  entering  or  leaving  any  of  the  observable  hollows.    High‐
powered 12v 50w spotlights were used for this activity.  The locations of the 2 stagwatching sites are shown 
in Figure B‐2 (Appendix B‐2). 
Shortly  after  the  stagwatching  was  completed,  a  nocturnal  spotlight  survey  was  then  conducted  for  a 
period of about one and a half hours (8pm to 9.30pm) on the evening of the 26th October.  This survey 
involved two ecologist traversing the entire site on both foot and in a vehicle, and using hand‐held 12v 50w 
spotlights to  actively search for nocturnal, arboreal and scansorial  vertebrate fauna through patches of 
vegetation, where safe to do so. This survey process also utilised call playback (described below) to help 
attract fauna toward the field survey staff in order that they could be seen or heard (and recorded). 

Call playback 
A  call‐playback  survey  was  conducted  during  the  nocturnal  spotlighting  survey  on  the  night  of  the  26th 
October 2015.  This survey method involved playing/broadcasting recorded calls of targeted threatened 
species through a megaphone for a period of several minutes (between 3 and 5 minutes for each species).  
After playing each call, a period of a few minutes (3‐5) was then spent listening carefully for any return calls 
from animals in the area, as well as keeping an eye out for animals that may have been attracted toward 
the calls.  This included listening for members of the same species being broadcasted returning the call, as 
well as listening or watching for other species that might respond to the call (such as threat calls from prey 
species of predator calls, or observing potential predators of these species that might be attracted towards 
the played calls). 
The targeted species included: 

 Forest Owls, including the Powerful Owl, Masked Owl and Sooty Owl,  
 Squirrel Glider 
 Spotted‐tailed Quoll 
 Green and Golden Bell Frog (at farm dams) 

Artificial shelter (tile) surveys 
The  site  supports  some  areas  of  exposed  rocks  that  would  be  removed  for  the  proposed  solar  farm 
development.  These rocky outcrops could potentially support a number of reptile species, including the 
Vulnerable Striped Legless Lizard (Delma impar).  In order to confirm the potential use of these habitat 

6385 Final V1  16   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

features by this species, a reptile ‘tile’ survey in these areas was undertaken, as advised by OEH during a 
previous on‐site meeting.  Based on the area of suitable habitat known to be present within the site, two 
tile plots or arrays, were installed, with each plot containing 50 tiles, for a total of 100 tiles.  The location 
of the two tile plots are provided in Figure B‐1 (Appendix B‐2).  
The artificial shelter methodology involved the placement of concrete roof tiles on the ground to create 
artificial shelter sites suitable for reptiles for both shelter beneath the tile, and as a basking site on top of 
the tile.  The tile checks were then undertaken by a qualified ecologist with experience in reptile surveys.  
The tile surveys generally commenced at approximately 10:00am each morning, or earlier when possible. 
Surveys involved lifting each tile and checking for the presence or absence of the Striped Legless Lizard, or 
Pink‐tailed  Worm  Lizard.  Other  fauna  species  occurring  beneath  the  tiles  (primarily  reptiles  and 
amphibians) were identified and recorded. 
The tiles were initially placed onsite on the 27 August and left undisturbed for a period of four weeks before 
checks commenced.  Checks were then conducted fortnightly from 29 September through to 10 December 
(for a total of six checks over 8 weeks).  Surveys were not undertaken during high rainfall, or when the 
temperature exceeded 28oC (as per the EPBC Act guidelines).  Farm animals were kept out of the tile plots 
for the duration of the survey. 

Golden Sun Moth surveys 
The site supports areas of native grassland, and in some areas, displays a high proportion of Wallaby Grass 
(Rytidosperma spp.) such as across the western paddocks.  Wallaby Grass is an important habitat feature 
of the Golden Sun Moth (Synemon plana), and although the subject site is outside the known range of the 
species, there have been no systematic surveys for this species east of the current records.  
In  order  to  confirm  the  presence  or  absence  of  this  species  at  the  site,  targeted  surveys  were  planned 
within areas of suitable habitat3.  The surveys undertaken involved random meander traverses through 
areas  of  suitable  habitat.    A  total  of  three  separate  site  traverses  were  planned  during  the  month  of 
December (within the known activity period for this species), to be conducted only on days with suitable 
weather, being warm to hot (above 200C), still to slightly windy (wind speeds of less than about 15kph), 
and generally clear to partly cloudy days (cloud cover of less than 40%). 
As an added measure, contact was made with Dr Murray Evans (ACT Conservation Planning and Research) 
to confirm whether Golden Sun Moths had been observed flying in other known locations in the region on 
the same day or close to the same day (with similar weather conditions) as the days that the surveys were 
conducted  at  the  Gullen  Solar  site  to  ensure  that  the  surveys  were  being  undertaken  during  suitable 
periods. 
 

   

                                                              
3 It is noted these surveys are commencing concurrent with submission of the SEE. 

6385 Final V1  17   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

3.2.3 Survey effort and conditions 
 

Table 3‐2:  Survey effort completed within the subject site 
Date  Method  Survey Effort  Target Species 
Flora       
18 February 2015  Random meander surveys  2 person hours  All flora species  
Targeted searches  0.5 person hours  Threatened flora 
species 
20 march 2015  Biometric plots  16 person hours (8 plots)  All flora species 
Fauna       
27 August 2015  Tile Survey – Initial Placement  1 person hours  Striped Legless Lizard 
29 September 2015  Tile Survey ‐ Check  1 person hours  Striped Legless Lizard 
12 October 2015  Tile Survey ‐ Check  1 person hours  Striped Legless Lizard 
26 October  Habitat Assessment  3 person hours  All fauna species 
Hollow‐bearing tree Inventory –  4 person hours  Hollow‐bearing trees 
supplementary survey 
Diurnal bird survey  1 person hours  All diurnal bird species 
Stagwatching  1.5 person hours  Hollow‐dependant 
fauna 
Aquatic Survey  0.5 person hours  Aquatic fauna species 
Spotlighting   3 person hours  Nocturnal Species 
Call Playback  0.5 person hours  Forest Owls, Green and 
Golden Bell Frog, 
Squirrel Glider & 
Spotted‐tailed Quoll 
27 October  Diurnal bird survey  1 person hours  All diurnal bird species 
Aquatic Survey  0.5 person hours  Aquatic fauna species 
Tile Survey ‐ Check  1 person hours  Striped Legless Lizard 
10 November  Diurnal bird survey  1 person hours  All diurnal bird species 
Tile Survey ‐ Check  1 person hours  Striped Legless Lizard 
24 November  Tile Survey ‐ Check  1 person hours  Striped Legless Lizard 
December  GSM Surveys  To be confirmed  Golden Sun Moth 
 

   

6385 Final V1  18   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Table 3‐3‐2:  ‐ Prevailing weather conditions during each Striped Legless Lizard tile survey 

Date  Time  Temperature  Cloud  cover  Wind  Rain 

recorded  range 
(Min – max) 
29/09/2015  11.00 – 12.00  5 – 21oC  20 ‐ 40%  Light  Nil 
12/10/2015  10.00 – 11.00  10 ‐ 25oC  0 ‐ 20%  Light  Nil 
27/10/2015  10.00 – 11.00  9 – 20oC  60‐80%  Light  Nil 
10/11/2014  10.30 – 11.30  9‐280C  0‐20%  none  Nil 
24/11/2015  10.00 – 11.00  7‐270C  20‐40%  Light  Nil 
10/12/2015  9.30 – 10.30  10‐310C  0‐20%  none  Nil 

 
Table 3‐4‐3: ‐ Prevailing weather conditions during the nocturnal survey (including spotlight/stagwatch and call 
playback times) 

Date  Time  Temperature  Cloud  cover  Wind  Moon phase 

recorded  range 
26/10/2015  19.30  19oC  20 ‐ 40%  Light  Full 
20.30  14oC  40 ‐ 60%  Light ‐ Moderate  Full 

3.3 LIMITATIONS 

3.3.1 Flora 
Most living flora species encountered at the site were able to be identified, enabling vegetation types and 
condition to be clearly defined. The summer timing of the survey was considered appropriate for detecting 
a reasonable species diversity within the study area however, earlier spring and summer flowering species, 
and species difficult to identify in their vegetative state, are likely to have been overlooked, for example 
many spring or early summer flowering orchids would not have been detectable. Heavy grazing at the time 
of the survey also made identification of certain grasses to species level difficult. The site appears to have 
been  subject  to  prolonged  heavy  grazing  and  as  such  grazing  sensitive  species  are  likely  to  have  been 
eliminated.  Therefore  it  is  considered  unlikely  that  any  important  species  were  overlooked  due  to  the 
timing of the surveys.  

3.3.2 Fauna 
The survey was conducted in mid‐late spring which is the breeding period for many native animals, and so 
the general timing of these surveys is considered to be suitable for identifying most species.  The relatively 
warm weather, with little rain and light winds also was favourable for detecting a wide variety of species. 
The full moon period encountered during the nocturnal spotlighting of the 26th October may however have 
had some negative influence on detectability, with many nocturnal species often limiting activity on full 
moon nights to reduce the chance of predation by Forest Owls and other nocturnal predators.  The slightly 
overcast conditions on this night would however have had some positive influence in negating the effects 
of a full moon on survey results. 

6385 Final V1  19   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

The tile surveys were not undertaken during high rainfall, or when the temperature exceeded 28oC (as per 
the EPBC Act guidelines). Refer to Table 3‐3‐2 for the general weather conditions experienced during the 
tile surveys.  The ambient conditions are therefore not expected to have had any negative influence on the 
results of the tile surveys. 

3.4 GIS MAPPING 
Hand‐held  Garmin  GPS  units  were  used  to  record  features  during  the  survey,  such  as  the  locations  of 
hollow‐bearing trees. The accuracy of GPS units ranged from about five metres to about eight metres, with 
reducing accuracy in areas of denser canopy cover. Therefore, the location of mapped hollow‐bearing trees 
is approximate only, showing the general vicinity where the tree was marked in the field.  
Data  were  plotted  over  aerial  imagery  (sourced  from  NSW  Six  Maps)  using  ESRI’s  ArcGIS  software  for 
mapping, planning and presentation.  All map references are based on the GDA 94 datum. 
Vegetation mapping was ground‐truthed but developed by hand digitising layers over high resolution aerial 
imagery.  

6385 Final V1  20   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

4 RESULTS 

4.1 FLORA 

4.1.1 Vegetation communities 
Broad vegetation communities within the study area are mapped on Figure B‐1 at Appendix B‐2. A total of 
three native vegetation types were recorded in the study area along with derived grasslands derived from 
the clearing of these communities: 

 Red Stringybark ‐ Brittle Gum ‐ Inland Scribbly Gum dry open forest of the tablelands, South 
Eastern Highlands 
 Ribbon  Gum  ‐  Narrow‐leaved  Peppermint  grassy  open  forest  on  basalt  plateaux,  Sydney 
Basin and South Eastern Highlands 
 Snow Gum ‐ Candle Bark woodland on broad valley flats of the tablelands and slopes, South 
Eastern Highlands 
These vegetation communities and their characteristics within the study area are discussed in more detail 
below. The conservation status of these communities is summarises in Table 4‐1. 
Table 4‐1  Conservation status of native vegetation at the subject site 
Vegetation type  Estimated percent  EEC (TSC Act or 
cleared in the CMA  EPBC Act)? 
Red Stringybark ‐ Brittle Gum ‐ Inland Scribbly Gum dry open  55% No 
forest of the tablelands, South Eastern Highlands 
Ribbon Gum ‐ Narrow‐leaved Peppermint grassy open forest  95% Yes 
on basalt plateaux, Sydney Basin and South Eastern 
Highlands 
Snow Gum ‐ Candle Bark woodland on broad valley flats of  95% Yes 
the tablelands and slopes, South Eastern Highlands 

Red Stringybark ‐ Brittle Gum ‐ Inland Scribbly Gum dry open forest 
The study area is largely dominated by native pastures derived from the clearing of a dry forest community 
dominated by Brittle Gum (Eucalyptus mannifera), Broad‐leaved Peppermint (E. dives) and Inland Scribbly 
Gum (E. rossii).  The  two  cable  routes  cross  areas  where  the  overstorey  of this  community  is  intact  and 
scattered overstorey trees and a patch containing an intact overstorey occur in the eastern array area (refer 
left  and  right  image  respectively  in  Figure  4‐1).  The  understorey  is  generally  grassy  and  dominated  by 
Wallaby  Grasses  (Rytidosperma  spp.)  with  sparse  shrubs  comprising  mostly  Urn  Heath  (Melichrus 
urceolatus) and Grey Guinea Flower (Hibbertia obtusifolia). Native forbs are occasional. 
 

6385 Final V1  21   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

   
Figure 4‐1 Red Stringybark ‐ Brittle Gum ‐ Inland Scribbly Gum dry open forest within the study area 

Native  pastures  derived  from  this  community  are  generally  dominated  by  a  varying  diversity  of  native 
grasses  however,  native  forb  diversity  was  observed  to  be  very  low.  Common  pasture  weeds  were  the 
dominant forb species and exotic grasses were also scattered throughout and dominant in patches. This 
community and the pastures derived from it are common vegetation types in the area and do not meet 
the definition of any Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs) listed under the NSW Threatened Species 
Conservation  Act  1995  (TSC  Act)  or  the  Commonwealth  Environment  Protection  and  Biodiversity 
Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). 

Ribbon Gum ‐ Narrow‐leaved Peppermint grassy open forest   
Within the western  array  area  and on  the  southern  facing  slope  of  the  proposed  cable route  scattered 
Ribbon Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) trees are present and it is considered likely that the area once supported 
an open forest or woodland community with Ribbon Gum as one of the dominant species. This is supported 
by the dominance of Ribbon Gum along the proposed access from Storriers Lane (refer Figure 4‐2).  

   
Figure 4‐2 Ribbon Gum forest derived grassland in the proposed array area and open forest along the proposed 
access from Storriers Lane 

On the upper slopes, underlying basalt was observed to be outcropping and in the Biodiversity Assessment 
for  the  adjacent  Gullen  range  Wind  Farm  (NGH  Environmental  2008),  Narrow‐leaved  Peppermint  (E. 
radiata) was observed to occur commonly on these basalt derived soils. It is therefore considered likely 
that Narrow‐leaved Peppermint would have also formed a component of the community prior to it being 
predominately cleared. The original forest vegetation is likely to have been consistent with the definition 
of Tableland Basalt Forest in the Sydney Basin and South Eastern Highlands Bioregions EEC. The definition 

6385 Final V1  22   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

includes areas of grassland derived from the clearing of this community which occur within the study area. 
Similarly  to  the  pastures  derived  from  the  dry  forest  community,  the  native  pasture  derived  from  the 
clearing of the Ribbon Gum forest is also degraded due to grazing and exhibits a low native species diversity. 

Snow Gum ‐ Candlebark woodland 
In  the  far  east  of  the  eastern  array  area,  a  few  individuals  of  Black  Sallee  (Eucalyptus  stellulata)  were 
observed. Outside of the subject site, along Sawpit Creek to the east, Snow Gum (E. pauciflora) was also 
present (refer Figure 4‐3). It is likely that a woodland dominated by Snow Gum and Black Sallee occurred 
in this area and that the low diversity native pasture is derived from the clearing of this woodland. Although 
highly  disturbed  and  degraded,  the  groundcover  vegetation  in  this  area  would  meet  the  definition  of 
Tablelands Snow Gum, Black Sallee, Candlebark and Ribbon Gum Grassy Woodland in the South Eastern 
Highlands, Sydney Basin, South East Corner and NSW South Western Slopes Bioregions EEC listed under the 
TSC Act due to the dominance of native grasses in the ground cover. 

 
Figure 4‐3 Snow Gum – Candlebark Woodland and derived grassland within the study area and the community 
along Sawpit Creek (right) 

Non‐native vegetation types 
In the central  section  of the  study area the  ground  cover  has  been tilled  and  planted to  exotic  pasture 
species  (Figure  4‐4).  These  areas  are  not  considered  to  comprise  native  vegetation  and  were  not 
investigated in detail. Several wind breaks are also present within the study area that are comprised of 
planted exotic pine trees (Figure 4‐4). 

6385 Final V1  23   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

   
Figure 4‐4 Exotic pastures within the study area (left) and planted exotic wind breaks (right) 

4.1.2 Flora species recorded 
A total of 74 flora species were recorded within the study area. These included 44 native species and 30 
introduced  species.  A  full  species  list  of all  flora  species  recorded  during  the  field  survey  is  provided  in 
Appendix B‐1 of this report. 

4.1.3 BioBanking plots 
The results of the BioBanking plots are included in Table 4‐2. These results reflect the poor quality and 
disturbance history of the vegetation with the majority of the variables outside of the benchmark values4 
for the communities within the study area. Note that BioBanking plots were not completed within the 
Snow Gum – Candlebark Woodland as at the time of the survey it was advised by the proponent that this 
vegetation would be unlikely to be impacted as the land began to slope down towards Sawpit Creek 
which was unfavourable for the installation of solar panels. It is however included in the worst case 
impacts of the proposal assessed in Section 5.  Further surveys may be required if this vegetation type is 
to be impacted by the final design. 

   

                                                              
4 Benchmark values are provided by the NSW OEH and reflect the BioBanking variables that are expected to be 

obtained in a particular vegetation type that is in near natural condition. 

6385 Final V1  24   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Table 4‐2 Results of Biobanking Plots within the study area 

Biometric vegetation type  Condition 

Red  Stringybark  ‐  Brittle  Gum  ‐  Inland  Scribbly  Gum  dry  open  forest  of  the  tablelands,  South  Eastern  Moderate to good 
Highlands (HN570) 

  Native  Native cover    Native ground cover  Exotic  HBTs  Logs 

Spp. #  plant  (m) 
Overstorey  Midstorey  Grasses  Shrubs  Other  cover 
Min  Max  Min  Max  Min  Max  Min  Max  Min  Max 

Benchmark  17  28.5%  33.5%  0%  15%  1%  10%  8.5%  12.5%  14.5%  18.5%  0%  1  50 

DBP1  16  32.5  0  32  4  2  0  0  15 

DBP2  17  0  0  70  2  10  12  0  0 

(derived 
grassland) 
DBP5  6  0  0  28  0  0  64  0  0 
(derived 
grassland) 

DBP6  5  0  0  44  0  0  40  0  0 

(derived 
grassland) 

DBP7  5  0  0  48  0  0  20  0  0 

(derived 
grassland) 

DBP8  10  0  0  32  0  0  12  1  24 

Regeneration within the entire zone included three out of three species which gives a regeneration score = 1. 

Biometric vegetation type  Condition 

Ribbon  Gum  ‐  Narrow‐leaved  Peppermint  grassy  open  forest  on  basalt  plateaux,  Sydney  Moderate to good 
Basin and South Eastern Highlands (HN571) 
    Native  Native cover    Native ground cover  Exotic  HBTs  Logs 
Spp. #  plant  (m) 
Overstorey  Midstorey  Grasses  Shrubs  Other  cover 
Min  Max  Min  Max  Min  Max  Min  Max  Min  Max 
Benchmark  21  27%  37%  4%  24%  39.4%  49.4%  0%  5%  20.9%  30.9%  0%  0  0 

DBP3  10  0  0  58  0  4  36  0  0 

(derived 
grassland) 

DBP4  5  0  0  68  0  0  10  0  0 

(derived 
grassland) 
Regeneration within the entire zone included one out of one species which gives a regeneration score = 1.0. 

Benchmark variables:  

- Native Spp. #: number of native species (species richness)  
- HBT: number of hollow bearing trees   
- Logs: linear length of fallen logs. 
 

6385 Final V1  25   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

4.1.4 Disturbance and weeds 
The  study  area  has  been  subject  to  extensive  clearing  to  facilitate  grazing  of  sheep  and  cattle.  Grazing 
pressures appear to be high given the general absence of native forb species across the study area and the 
very short cropped groundcover observed in many areas during the survey. 
Agricultural activities within the study area and the locality have resulted in the colonisation of a range of 
introduced  plant  species.  Across  the  majority  of  the  study  area,  grazing  is  likely  to  have  reduced  or 
eliminated  selectively  grazed  or  grazing  sensitive  species,  such  as  Kangaroo  Grass,  terrestrial  orchids, 
wattles and pea shrubs. 
Minor pasture weed species were common across the majority of the study area. Three species listed as 
noxious within the Upper Lachlan Shire Council Local Government Area under the NSW Noxious Weeds Act 
1993  were  recorded  within  the  study  area.  Serrated  Tussock  (Nassella  trichotoma),  Blackberry  (Rubus 
fruticosus  aggregate  species)  and  Sweet  Briar  (*Rosa  rubiginosa)  were  present  as  scattered  individuals 
within pasture in the study area.  

4.1.5 Plant species and communities of conservation significance 

Endangered ecological communities 
As discussed in Section 4.1.1 above, two EECs listed under the NSW TSC Act are considered to occur within 
the study area: 

 Tableland Basalt Forest in the Sydney Basin and South Eastern Highlands Bioregions 
 Tablelands Snow Gum, Black Sallee, Candlebark and Ribbon Gum Grassy Woodland in the 
South Eastern Highlands, Sydney Basin, South East Corner and NSW South Western Slopes 
Bioregions  
Within  the  study  area,  both  of  these  communities  are  largely  cleared  and  highly  disturbed  and 
predominately occur as low diversity derived grasslands. Although they are still considered to meet the 
definitions of the EECs, the conservation value of these communities within the study area is considered 
to be relatively low. The significance of impacts to these communities is discussed further in Section 5. 

Listed threatened species 
No threatened flora species were detected during the surveys however, the timing of the surveys was not 
considered optimal for the majority of species. 
NSW  Wildlife  Atlas  database  searches  for  threatened  species  listed  on  the  TSC  Act  identified  6  species 
within the Hawkesbury/Nepean ‐ Crookwell CMA and Upper Lachlan Shire LGA and six species listed under 
the  EPBC  Act  (Appendix  A).  The  likelihood  of  all  threatened  flora  species  to  occur  at  the  site  has  been 
assessed  in  relation  to  their  known  habitat  requirements  and  availability  of  suitable  habitat  within  the 
study area. These results are tabulated in the threatened species habitat evaluation included as Appendix 
A. This evaluation concluded that there was a negligible to low likelihood of any threatened flora species 
occurring within the study area due to: 
1. Absence of required abiotic habitat features  
2. High levels of disturbance 
3. Absence of associated vegetation communities or flora species 
4. Lack of detection of conspicuous species during surveys 

6385 Final V1  26   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

4.2 FAUNA  

4.2.1 Fauna species recorded 
46 fauna species were recorded during the field survey including: 

 8 amphibians 
 27 birds 
 7 mammals (including one monotreme) 
 4 reptiles 
A  complete  fauna  species  list  is  provided  in  Appendix  B‐4.  The  species  records  include  native  and  non‐
native species. Of the species recorded at the site, none are listed as threatened under either the TSC Act 
or the EPBC Act.  
Exotic  and  pest  species  such  as  the  European  Hare  (Lepus  europaeus),  European  Rabbit  (Oryctolagus 
cuniculus) and European Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) are likely to be common across the landscape.  Flocks of 
European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) were also regularly observed across the cleared open parts of the site. 

4.2.2 Fauna habitat 
The  proposal  site  is  predominantly  cleared  of  mature  canopy  vegetation,  with  only  small  pockets  of 
remnant trees, including isolated paddock trees scattered across the site and within the proposed solar 
farm footprint.  Remnant woodland borders the site to the south and there is a narrow band of mature 
riparian vegetation forming the eastern boundary. 
Across the majority of the development footprint, there is a varying diversity of native grasses that are 
cropped very short and with very low native forb diversity.  Minor pasture weed species are common across 
the majority of the study area.  A number of farm dams are also present in the site, of varying size and 
condition. 
Fauna  habitats  within  the  site  therefore  include  both  terrestrial  and  aquatic  habitats.    The  terrestrial 
habitats  include  remnant  woodland  and  hollow‐bearing  trees,  as  well  as  open  grasslands  and  rocky 
outcrops.  The aquatic habitats are provided by the farm dams, and the semi‐permanent creek line to the 
eats  (outside  of  the  development  footprint).    Each  of  these  habitat  types  are  described  in  more  detail 
below. 
In  general,  fauna  habitat  quality  within  the  proposed  solar  farm  footprint  is  considered  to  be  low  to 
moderate,  given  the  largely  cleared  and  regularly  grazed  nature  of  the  site,  with  some  mature  hollow‐
bearing trees and good quality farm dams, but minimal grassland structure, remnant woodland areas, or 
patches of fallen timber or rocky outcrops of any notable value. 
The various fauna habitats are depicted in Figure 4‐5 on the following page. 
   

6385 Final V1  27   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

    

Figure 4‐5 Fauna habitats within the study area  
(clockwise from top‐left is grassland areas with small rock piles where tile surveys are located, edge of remnant 
forest areas bordering the site to the south, hollow‐bearing paddock tree with some fallen timber at base, small 
rocky outcrop near northern riparian zone boundary) 
 

Aquatic habitats 
The aquatic habitats within the site consists of both farm dams, as well as a semi‐permanent creek that 
borders the eastern and north‐eastern property boundaries.  There is another largely permanent creek to 
the south of the site, which joins the creek along the eastern property and becomes Sawpit Creek.  The 
headwaters  of  this  southern  creek  passes  through  the  far  south‐western  portion  of  the  property  and 
supports a relatively narrow band of riparian vegetation at this point.  Further east and downstream, this 
creek  is  situated  well  outside  of  the  property  boundary  and  passes  through  a  more  substantial  area  of 
intact remnant woodland.  
The farm dams at the time of the surveys consist of three large dams occurring as sequence of ponds along 
a drainage line bordering the site to the north, as well as an additional three paddock dams, not associated 
with any definable drainage line.  The three large dams across the northern site boundary were full at the 
time of the surveys and generally were in good condition, with relatively good water quality (i.e. clear and 
no odours or surface films), and supporting some macrophyte vegetation.  A relatively large community of 
frogs were heard calling from these dams, with a total of seven species identified during the survey period 
(refer to Fauna Lists at Appendix B‐4 for the species identified).  Frog choruses from the other paddock 
dams revealed an apparent smaller community of fewer species. 

6385 Final V1  28   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

None  of  the  species  identified  are  listed  as  rare  or  threatened  under  either  state  or  commonwealth 
legislation.  It is considered unlikely that these dams would support the identified threatened frog species 
included in the database search results (these being the Green and Golden Bell Frog, Litoria aurea, and the 
Yellow‐spotted Tree Frog, Litoria castanea) based on the apparent lack of suitable aquatic vegetation cover, 
and the lack of any records of these conspicuous species in the local area. 
The creek to the south of the site within the remnant woodland areas, and where the access and cabling 
routes  will  pass  through,  appears  to  be  predominantly  permanent  (was  observed  to  be  flowing  on 
numerous  walk  through  this  area),  and  is  in  relatively  good  condition  being  situated  within  an  intact 
riparian corridor or mature native vegetation.  Water quality was observed to be relatively good based on 
a preliminary visual and olfactory (smell) assessment.  The water was relatively clear, with low turbidity, 
with  little  smell,  and  minimal  algal  growth  or  sedimentation/siltation  of  the  creek  bed.    In  the  areas 
surveyed (but not confirmed for the entire length of the creek where it borders the site), the creek banks 
appeared to be in good condition with few areas of bank slumping or undercutting, or other active erosion 
areas.  A few minor fauna movement tracks through the embankments have resulted in some bare earth 
patches which could become erosion prone, although these are generally surrounded by relatively dense 
understorey vegetation and are reasonably stable. 
The semi‐permanent creek system to the east and northeast of the site was in moderate condition, with 
some fringing macrophytes, and a relatively intact, albeit narrow, riparian zone.  Bank stability along these 
creek  lines  was  lower  given  the  narrower  riparian  zone  and  likely  greater  use  (and  hence  impact)  by 
livestock.  Water quality within this creek line was also lower in comparison with the creek to the south, 
given that it obviously does not flow as frequently (and was not flowing at the time of the surveys), and is 
susceptible to greater access and use by stock. The water had no obvious smells at the time of the main 
fauna survey in late October 2015. 
Both creeks provide habitat for a number of common species of frogs (although the farm dams had larger 
choruses of more species than the creek line), and reptiles, including lizards, skins, snakes and turtles.  
It is unlikely that either of the two creek lines (i.e. the eastern or southern arms of Sawpit Creek) would 
support any fish given their small and potentially semi‐permanent nature, with small shallow pools and 
riffles that would restrict fish passage for the majority of the year,  In particular, there is very little likelihood 
that  these  systems  would  support  the  threatened  fish  species  Murray  Cod  (Maccullochella  peelii)  or 
Macquarie Perch (Macquaria australasica) included in the EPBC PMST database search results for this area. 

Remnant woodland 
Remnant woodland borders the site to the south.  The fauna habitat features of this woodland area include 
some mature hollow‐bearing habitat trees (not individually identified and mapped as these are outside of 
the proposed site; individual hollow‐bearing trees within the footprint are discussed further below), as well 
as a relatively intact and predominantly native shrubby understorey.  Fallen logs and rocky outcrops are 
also present in these woodland areas. 
This remnant woodland area supports habitat for numerous woodland birds, as well as Wallabies, Echidnas, 
and some arboreal fauna types such as Possums, as well as various reptiles, including snakes and common 
skink species (refer to the fauna list at Appendix B‐4 for a list of species recorded).  No threatened species 
of fauna were identified during the surveys in this area. 
There are a small number of places where this woodland projects northward into the cleared paddocks, 
however the solar farm footprint avoids these areas, and it is expected that none of the woodland areas 
would be removed as a consequence of the development, with the exception of a narrow band of remnant 

6385 Final V1  29   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

vegetation to the southwest of the site that would be cleared to support the proposed cabling and access 
options from the Gullen Range Windfarm Site further south. 

Hollow‐bearing trees 
A total of 30 hollow‐bearing trees were identified as occurring within the general area of the development, 
including the proposed cabling and access route options (refer to Figure B‐2 at Appendix B‐2).  However 
only trees located within or immediately adjacent to the works areas were identified, and so it is likely that 
a  far  greater  number  of  hollow‐bearing  trees  occur  within  the  full  property  boundary  and  immediately 
adjacent areas. 
These  trees  provide  a  variety  of  hollow  sizes  suitable  for  use  by  a  number  of  fauna  species  including 
arboreal mammals, microbats and birds. A hollow‐bearing tree inventory is included in Appendix B‐3.  
A stagwatch was conducted of trees 18 and 19 (combined), and, 21 and 22 (combined) for 45 minutes at 
each location on the evening 26 October 2015.  No nocturnal animals were observed to enter or leave the 
hollows within these trees, although it possible they are being utilised by diurnal bird species not observed 
during the stagwatch survey. 
With regard to other hollow‐bearing trees throughout the site, it is possible and likely that some of these 
hollow‐bearing trees would be utilised by native fauna. Given that many of these trees are located just 
outside of the development footprint, as well as the (likely) presence of many more hollow‐bearing trees 
in the surrounding remnant woodland areas not included in the surveys, further targeted fauna surveys of 
these trees for use by fauna is not considered necessary.  Notwithstanding this, hollows are a declining 
resource  and  it  is  assumed  that  all  hollow‐bearing  trees  may  support  native  hollow‐dependant  fauna. 
Measures to mitigate potential impacts have been considered and are discussed further in the following 
sections. 

Fallen timber 
Fallen  timber  was  observed  at  a  number  of  locations  within  the  site,  however  only  two  areas  of  fallen 
timber located at the base of existing paddock trees were observed within the development footprint, and 
would be subject to removal.  These particular places of fallen timber within the footprint consisted mainly 
of some fallen branches (no entire fallen trees were observed), with very few occurrences of large hollowed 
branch sections. 
These habitat features may provide shelter for reptiles however, given the relatively open and exposed 
nature of the land surrounding these isolated paddock trees with fallen timber, it is considered unlikely 
that they would be suitable for other native ground dwelling fauna that use fallen timber as shelter and 
nesting sites (such as native marsupials including bandicoots and quolls). 
More extensive areas of fallen timber were observed within the remnant woodland, including the two main 
areas where the woodland extends northward into the property. These are located outside of the actual 
solar farm footprint. 

Grassland fauna habitats 
Grassland habitat quality within the site was considered to be in a poor condition overall.  All open, cleared 
areas  of  the  site  outside  of  the  remnant  woodland  areas,  have  been  extensively  modified,  and  have 
historically been heavily grazed, including areas of pasture improvement in the eastern parts of the site.  
The  grassland  areas  have  therefore  been  kept  quite  short  in  recent  times,  and  there  is  little  structural 
complexity to these areas, including in areas of native grassland, such as inter‐tussock spaces, that normally 
provide habitat for some native grassland fauna species.  

6385 Final V1  30   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Within some of the western parts of the site, mainly within areas of the dry open forest, the understorey 
is  generally  grassy  and  dominated  by  Wallaby  Grasses  (Rytidosperma  spp.),  although  native  forbs  are 
occasional. This species is known as an important component of the habitat requirements for the Golden 
Sun Moths (Synemon plana).  The management regimes of this area, including the shortness of the grass 
throughout  many  times  of  the  year,  and  low  structural  diversity  overall,  indicate  that  these  areas  are 
unlikely to support this species.  Given also the lack of any rocky outcrops or other notable features in the 
native grassland areas, other native threatened grassland fauna that were included in the database search 
results, such as  the  Striped  Legless  Lizard  (Delma  impar),  are  also  considered  unlikely  to  occur  in  these 
areas.  As mentioned, targeted surveys for this species in other parts of the site where some minor rocky 
outcrops occur have failed to locate this species.  Given the lack of suitable native grassland habitat in the 
location of the rocky outcrops in the east of the site, it is considered unlikely that this species occurs within 
the site. 

Rocky outcrops 
Rocky  outcrop  habitats  within  the  development  site  were  observed  to  be  limited  and  of  generally  low 
habitat value.  Areas of exposed rock observed within the site occurred primarily as smaller paddock rocks 
that appear to have been artificially exposed and collected together into small piles during the pasture 
improvement activities.  
Because of the locations of these small rock piles in pasture improved paddocks, the overall habitat value 
of these rock piles was considered to be limited.  Notwithstanding this, it is likely that some fauna types, 
manly common reptile species, would utilise these as habitat sites. 
Inspections of some of these rock piles (i.e. turning and looking beneath rocks), as well as the establishment 
of the tile survey plots within the area of the two more extensive rocky areas, recorded three common 
species of skinks, and a single Brown Snake (Pseudonaja textilis) (refer to the fauna species list at Appendix 
B‐4). 
Despite the inspections beneath rocks and the tile surveys conducted to date, there was no evidence of 
these areas supporting any listed threatened fauna species such as the Striped Legless Lizard or the Pink‐
tailed Worm‐lizard (Aprasia parapulchella) both of which were included in the database search results as 
having the potential to occur in the subregion.  Given the condition of the surrounding grassland and the 
minor and artificial nature of these rock piles, it is considered unlikely that either of these species would 
be present at the site and utilising these habitats. 
Some more natural areas of rocky outcrops were observed within the remnant woodland areas, and are 
likely to provide suitable habitat for native fauna types that utilise these habitat features, although none 
of these occur within the actual development footprint and they would not be impacted. 

4.2.3 Threatened fauna species recorded 
No threatened fauna species, listed under either of the TSC Act or the EPBC Act were recorded during field 
surveys within the proposed development site.  

Threatened terrestrial fauna with the potential to occur 
NSW  Wildlife  Atlas  database  searches  for  threatened  species  listed  on  the  TSC  Act  identified  14  bird 
species,  five  mammals,  four  reptiles  and  two  amphibian  species  within  the  Crookwell  CMA  sub‐region 
(Appendix  A).  The  Commonwealth  Protected  Matters  Search  Tool  identified  five  bird,  two  fish,  one 

6385 Final V1  31   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

amphibian, four mammal, two reptile and 10 migratory bird species with the potential to occur within 10 
km of the subject site.  
An assessment of each of these species and their likelihood of utilising the study area was undertaken and 
is included at Appendix A. For the majority of species, based on assessment of the habitat present within 
the study area and then each species’ habitat requirements, it was considered unlikely that any of these 
identified threatened species would occur at the site, or use the site as an important habitat resource. 
Further targeted surveys were undertaken to confirm the potential occurrence at the site of the Striped 
Legless Lizard. These surveys involved artificial tile shelter surveys through the September to November 
period (refer to Survey Effort for details on the duration and number of checks conducted). 
The majority of threatened species identified during the database searches are highly mobile and are most 
likely to utilise the site for foraging only. The threatened species habitat evaluations (presented in full in 
Appendix  E)  determined  that  a  low  risk  of  impact  exists  for  these  threatened  fauna  as  a  result  of  the 
proposed works (refer to Appendix E). This is a result of the:  
1. Small number of hollows present within the development site 
2. Retention  of  all  almost  areas  of  surrounding  remnant  woodland,  including  retention  of 
potential movement corridors surrounding the site 
3. Disturbed nature of much of the understorey, including almost entirely pasture improved 
paddocks for the majority of the land within the development footprint 
While it is possible that some threatened species may utilise the site on occasion (such as some of the 
woodland species included in the database search results), they are unlikely to rely on the site, particularly 
for breeding, and are therefore highly unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposed works.   
A number of threatened species are known to occur in areas surrounding the site, including the Powerful 
Owl  (Ninox  strenua)  and  some  microbat  species  recorded  during  the  environmental  assessment  of  the 
Gullen Range Windfarm development (NGH 2008).  The records of these species were associated with the 
larger area of contiguous and good quality forest to the south east of the site.  Whilst it is possible that 
Powerful Owls  may  visit the  solar  farm  site  from  time  to  time  for  foraging,  it  is highly  unlikely  that  the 
species would establishing a breeding site within the more open habitats of the development footprint.  
The microbats are also more closely associated with the remnant forests, and whilst they may forage in or 
near the site, important breeding and sheltering habitat resources for these species is regarded overall as 
being limited within the development footprint. 
Given the overall low likelihood of occurrence at the site of any of the listed threatened species included 
in  the  database  search  results,  an  Assessment  of  Significance  (AoS)  was  not  deemed  necessary  for  any 
species. 

4.2.4 Migratory species 
No EPBC‐listed migratory species were recorded during the field surveys. Habitat evaluations (Appendix E) 
however, identified that there is potential for six species to occur within the study area on occasion:  

 Fork‐tailed Swift (Apus pacificus) 
 White‐throated Needletail (Hirundapus caudacutus) 
 Rainbow Bee‐eater (Merops ornatus) 
 Black‐faced Monarch (Monarcha melanopsis) 
 Yellow Wagtail (Motacilla flava) 
 Satin Flycatcher (Myiagra cyanoleuca) 

6385 Final V1  32   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

 Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons) 
 Great Egret, White Egret (Ardea alba) 
 Cattle Egret (Ardea ibis) 
 Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii) 
These species are all widespread and have broad habitat requirements. The Fork‐tailed Swift and White‐
throated Needletail do not breed in Australia and are almost exclusively aerial. The Black‐faced Monarch 
and Satin Flycatcher prefer dense habitats (rainforest or heavily vegetated gullies) and would only occur at 
the site very occasionally to forage.  
The Rufous Fantail mainly inhabits wet sclerophyll forests, often in gullies.  Suitable habitat for this species 
is  not  present  within  the  development  footprint.  The  Rainbow  Bee‐eater  is  distributed  across  much  of 
mainland Australia and occurs in a wide range of habitats.  
Important breeding sites for the Cattle Egret occur further north (between Newcastle and Bundaberg), as 
for the Great Egret where the main breeding colonies are in the north of the country, but is otherwise 
widespread in Australia. 
Latham’s  Snipe  Latham's  Snipe  is  a  non‐breeding  visitor  to  south‐eastern  Australia,  and  occurs  in 
permanent  and  ephemeral  wetlands  up  to  2000  m  above  sea‐level  with  low,  dense  vegetation  (e.g. 
swamps, or flooded grasslands. The farm dams present at the site has insufficient vegetation cover to be 
considered suitable habitat for this species. 
While  some  of  these  species  may  utilise  the  site  on  occasion,  they  are  unlikely  to  rely  on  the  site, 
particularly for breeding, and there is an abundance of good quality and contiguous habitat in the nearby 
national  parks.  For  these  reasons,  these  species  are  highly  unlikely  to  be  adversely  impacted  by  the 
proposed works and an assessment under the EPBC Act significant impact criteria is not required.  

4.3 CRITICAL HABITAT 
The study area does not contain any areas that have been declared as critical habitat under either the TSC 
Act or EPBC Act. 

4.4 WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY CORRIDORS 
Wildlife corridors are generally defined as a link of habitat between two or more larger areas of wildlife 
habitat. Corridors are critical for the maintenance of ecological processes. They allow for the movement of 
animals  and  the  continuation  of  viable  populations.  For  example,  they  may  facilitate  genetic  exchange 
between local  populations  and thereby protect  populations  from  inbreeding  or  events  such  as  disease, 
bushfire, or other events that could threaten an isolated population with localised extinction. The width 
and structure of corridors is specific to the species utilising them. Corridors are less important for wide‐
ranging, highly mobile species; and more important for species such as frogs, reptiles and small mammals. 
Existing wildlife corridors in the area occur to the south and northeast of the development site within the 
remnant woodland areas and riparian zones present in these areas.  There is no contiguous woodland or 
midstorey vegetation linking these areas through the site. 
A number of planted windbreaks, mainly of Pinus spp, occur, however these are narrow, of limited value 
to native wildlife (with the exception of some temporary shelter for birds moving through the site), and do 
not extend continuously from the south to the north through the site. 

6385 Final V1  33   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

The proposal area is located almost entirely within the cleared and grazed areas of the site.  Given the 
highly mobile nature of most of the threatened fauna species with the potential to occur in the locality, the 
development  is  therefore  not  expected  to  impact  on  any  existing  corridors  and  the  movement 
opportunities for native fauna.  

4.5 SEPP 44 ‐ KOALA HABITAT PROTECTION 
A single species of Koala feed tree listed under Schedule 2 of SEPP 44 was recorded within the subject site 
(but not within the development footprint); Ribbon Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis). The Ribbon Gum is also 
considered  a  primary  feed  species  in  the  Recovery  plan  for  the  Koala  (DECC  2008).  This  species  was 
relatively common throughout the gullies within the remnant woodland areas, but was not common within 
the development footprint itself, and so no Koala food trees are likely to be removed as a consequence of 
this proposal. 
Whilst there are scattered records of Koalas in the Southern Tablelands (DECC 2008), there were no signs 
of Koala, either actual observations, scratching or scats, were observed during the field survey. Given the 
open and isolated nature of the proposal site, it was considered unlikely that Koalas are present in the 
proposal area or nearby surrounds. 
 
 

6385 Final V1  34   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

5 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS 
The  proposal  would  involve  the  construction,  operation  and  eventual  decommissioning  of  PV 
infrastructure,  access  tracks,  a  site  maintenance  building  and  perimeter  fencing.  Potential  biodiversity 
impacts  are  detailed  in  Table  5‐1  and  discussed  in  more  detail  below,  according  to  the  phase  of  the 
development. 
Any changes to the location of infrastructure that fall outside the assessed areas (defined in Section 3.2) 
may require further survey and assessment. 
Table 5‐1  Potential impacts of the proposed solar plant 
  Construction and decommissioning Operation phase 
Vegetation and   Clearing and disturbance during   Microclimate impacts under the PV 
flora  construction and installation of the  array (shading, temperature, humidity).
array and associated infrastructure.    Weed growth and spread. 
 Risk of noxious and environmental 
weed introduction and spread. 
Fauna   Clearing of habitat for construction and   Loss of or alteration to grassland 
installation of the solar plant and  habitat for macropods, birds, reptiles 
associated infrastructure (such as tree  and insects due to shading, changed 
food sources, tree hollows, rock  microclimate and reduced productivity.
habitats). Includes loss of habitat   Movement barrier and collision hazard 
connectivity and nest sites.  created by perimeter fencing. 
 Potential entrapment of fauna from   Habitat avoidance due to presence of 
trenching.  infrastructure. 
 Disturbance to local fauna from noise,   Vehicle collision risks to fauna. 
light and vibration. 
 Vehicle collision risks to fauna. 
 

5.1 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 

5.1.1 Loss of vegetation 
While the final infrastructure layout and components have yet to be determined, three indicative layouts 
were considered. Together, these provide the largest possible development envelope, which is the area 
within which infrastructure would be located (Figure 2‐1). This envelope is the ‘upper limit’ area that would 
be disturbed by the development of the solar farm to ensure all areas that may be required by the project 
are assessed in this BA. 
Estimates  of  the  areas  affected  by  each  component  of  the  proposal  according  to  vegetation  type  are 
provided in Table 5‐2. Considering a worst case scenario, in that all native vegetation under the array area 
would be lost, and the longest access and cabling routes are selected, the proposal will result in the removal 
of  50.12  hectares  of  vegetation,  including  42.06  hectares  of  native  vegetation.  The  majority  of  this 
vegetation (approximately 40 hectares) is comprised of highly modified low diversity derived grasslands of 
low habitat value.  
In reality, the impact areas will be less than this estimate. The final infrastructure layout is expected to be 
approximately 25 ha in area (however changes in the pattern and boundaries of the development may 
require  further  survey  and  assessment  if  substantially  different  from  the  layout  options  used  for  this 
assessment). Further, it is unlikely that all of the native groundcover vegetation under the array will be 

6385 Final V1  35   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

removed  or  modified.  Operational  impacts  such  as  alterations  to  the  microclimate  under  the  PV  array 
(shading, temperature, humidity) are discussed further in Section 5.2. 
 

6385 Final V1  36   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Table 5‐2 Estimated impact areas of each proposal component  
Brittle Gum  Ribbon Gum ‐  Planted  Planted 
Brittle Gum ‐  dry forest  Narrow‐leaved  Ribbon Gum  Snow Gum ‐  native  exotic 
Inland Scribbly  derived  Peppermint  forest derived  Candlebark  Exotic  shelter  shelter 
Infrastructure component  Option  Gum dry forest  grassland  Forest  grassland  woodland  pasture  belt  belt 
Cabling and access to 
existing substation  1  0.07  0.76  0.00  0.13  0.00  0.09  0.00  0.00 
Cabling and access to 
existing substation  2  0.10  0.76  0.00  0.05  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00 
Northern access  ‐  0.00  0.00  0.01  0.28  0.00  0.00  0.00  0.00 
Solar array  NA  0.50  30.79  0.00  8.17  0.80  7.07  0.55  0.90 
Worst case total (Option 1)     0.57  31.55  0.01  8.58  0.80  7.16  0.55  0.90 
 
 

6385 Final V1  37   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

5.1.2 Endangered Ecological Communities 

Tableland Basalt Forest in the Sydney Basin and South Eastern Highlands Bioregions 
Considering  the  worst  case  scenario,  up  to  8.6  hectares  of  this  community  could  be  impacted  by  the 
proposal of which 8.6 hectares is comprised of highly  disturbed low diversity derived grassland. Impact 
calculations based on GIS mapping identified that up to 0.01 hectares of overstorey vegetation may be 
impacted for the northern accesses however, in reality the proposal is unlikely to require the removal of 
trees. Tracks would be able to avoid trees and impacts would be limited to the trimming of the canopy if 
required for clearances. 
The worst case scenario assessed in the report assumes the total loss of all vegetation within development 
envelope however, as stated, it is likely that not all of this area will be used for development. Further, this 
assessment assumes the total loss of all groundcover vegetation under the array whereas although some 
vegetation will be lost for the establishment of tracks and footing etc, the majority would be impacted from 
indirect impacts due to alterations to the microclimate under the array (discussed further in Section 5.2 
below) which would be unlikely to result in the total loss of the vegetation. 
The assessment of significance undertaken for this community (refer to Appendix C) assumed the worst 
case  total  loss  of  8.6  hectares.  This  assessment  concluded  that  the  proposal  is  unlikely  to  remove  or 
substantially modify the composition of the community such that it would threaten the viability of the local 
occurrence. 
The proposal would be unlikely to result in the fragmentation or isolation of remnants of the community 
and would not present a barrier to the dispersal of any flora or fauna species that comprise the community 
in the local area. The habitat to be impacted is not considered to be important habitat. 
Given  the  highly  disturbed  and  modified  nature  of  the  vegetation  to  be  impacted  and  that  similar 
vegetation is widespread in areas adjacent to the proposal site and in the local area, the worst case loss of 
8.6 hectares is not considered to be significant.  

Tablelands Snow Gum, Black Sallee, Candlebark and Ribbon Gum Grassy Woodland in the South 
Eastern Highlands, Sydney Basin, South East Corner and NSW South Western Slopes Bioregions 
Considering the worst case scenario, two trees and up to 0.8 hectares of highly disturbed low diversity 
derived  grassland  that  meets  the  definition  of  the  community  would  be  impacted  by  the  proposal.  As 
discussed above, not all of the worst case area assessed is likely to be impacted by the proposal. At the 
time of the surveys it was advised by the proponent that this vegetation would be unlikely to be impacted 
as  the  land  on  which  this  community  occurred  began  to  slope  down  towards  Sawpit  Creek  which  was 
unfavourable for the installation of solar panels. 
The assessment of significance undertaken for this community (refer to Appendix C) assumed the worst 
case  total  loss  of  0.8  hectares.  This  assessment  concluded  that  the  proposal  is  unlikely  to  substantially 
modify the composition of the community such that it would threaten the viability of the local occurrence. 
Impacts would occur to disturbed vegetation on the western extent of the local occurrence. The proposal 
would not result in any fragmentation or isolation of habitat for the community. 
The worst case scenario would result in the loss of two Black Sallee trees which is not considered important 
to the long‐term survival of the local occurrence. Groundcover vegetation is comprised of low diversity 
derived  grassland  widespread  in  the  local  area.  Given  the  highly  disturbed  and  modified  nature  of  the 

6385 Final V1  38   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

vegetation to be impacted and that the community was observed to extent further north and south of the 
proposal site along Sawpit Creek, the worst case loss of 0.8 hectares is not considered to be significant. 

5.1.3 Threatened flora species 
As discussed in Section 4, given the habitats present, the low levels of native understorey diversity and the 
high intensity of grazing observed during the surveys, it is considered unlikely that any threatened flora 
species would occur within the study area. As such, impacts to threatened flora species are considered 
unlikely. 

5.1.4 Potential introduction and spread of weeds 
The site carries noxious weeds which would require control before and after the proposed works. Good 
weed hygiene would be required to prevent the movement of weeds around and off the property, and 
prevent the introduction of any new weeds during construction. Safeguards have been included in Section 
6 to ensure weeds are adequately controlled at the site. 
With the appropriate implementation of weed controls during and following construction, weed impacts 
within and off the subject site are not expected to be significant. 
The spacing between the PV array rows would be adequate to allow vehicles to access the site for ongoing 
weed control and pasture renovation, as required. 

5.1.5 Loss of habitat 

Loss of hollow‐bearing trees 
A total of 30 hollow‐bearing trees were recorded within the study area (refer to Figure B‐1, Appendix B).  
Of these, seven were recorded within development envelope and are subject to removal, whilst a further 
16 were recorded in or near the access tracks and cabling routes and may be subject to removal (dependant 
on final detailed design).  The remaining seven trees were located in the immediately adjacent forest areas 
and  would  not  be  removed  (refer  to  HBT  Inventory  at  Appendix  B‐3).    In  terms  of  hollow  bearing  tree 
resources more broadly, it is likely that many more hollow‐bearing trees occur within the remnant forest 
areas  to  the  south  and  east  that  were  not  included  in  the  survey  and  would  not  be  affected  by  the 
development. 
The majority of the trees proposed to be removed occur as relatively isolated paddock trees, or in small 
clumps of retained trees not contiguous with other forest patches, and with little surrounding vegetation 
cover or structure.  
A stagwatch survey was conducted at four of these isolated paddock trees and no fauna were observed 
entering of leaving any of the hollows. Notwithstanding this, it is likely that some more generalist species 
(such as Galahs and Rosellas) may be using these trees as shelter sites from time to time. 
No microbats were observed entering or leaving or generally flying around these isolated hollow‐bearing 
paddock  trees,  although  their  potential  usage  of  these  resources  cannot  be  discounted.    Even  if  some 
microbats use these trees from time to time, only a small number of trees would be subject to removal, 
with a greater abundance of these resources to be retained within the remnant forests surrounding the 
site.  This, combined with the mobile nature of the species, indicate that impacts of the removal of these 
trees would not be high. 

6385 Final V1  39   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

The removal of hollow‐bearing trees is listed as a Key Threatening Process in NSW. The removal of the 
identified hollow‐bearing trees are the site would contribute to this process, to a small extent. Given the 
isolated  nature  of  these  trees,  and  the  extent  of  hollow‐bearing  trees  resources  within  the  remnant 
woodland areas surrounding the site which would not subject to any direct impacts from the development, 
the impact is considered  justifiable.  Nevertheless,  the  removal  of these  hollow‐bearing  trees  should  be 
minimised where possible and undertaken in accordance with the tree felling protocol (to be prepared as 
part of the overall final Construction and Environmental Management Plan set), when required. Hollows 
to be removed have also been recommended to be offset, via the installation of nest boxes.  A Nest Box 
Management Plan is also to be prepared as part of the final Construction and Environmental Management 
Plan set. 

Loss of shelter sites for ground dwelling fauna  
The site supports very little in the way of good quality habitat for ground dwelling fauna, such as rocky 
outcrops and fallen logs.  The rocky areas within the site consist of relatively small rocks that have been 
excavated/exposed  during  the  pasture  improvement  practices  and  collected  together  into  small  piles.  
Some  common  reptile  species  are  likely  to  utilise  these  including  skinks  and  snakes.    Despite  targeted 
surveys for threatened reptiles including the Striped Legless Lizard, there has been no evidence of their 
presence at the site recorded.  It is considered unlikely that this species would be present at the site given 
the highly modified and grazed pastures surrounding these sites. 
Only three locations of fallen logs were recorded within the development footprint and subject to removal, 
these being at the base of hollow‐bearing trees numbered 18 and 30 (refer to Figure B‐1 at Appendix B‐3), 
as well as at the base of a lone paddock tree (non‐hollow‐bearing) in the far eastern portion of the site, 
approximately  60m  from  the  creek  forming  the  eastern  property  boundary.    Fallen  logs  may  provide 
suitable habitat for ground dwelling mammals, such as the Spotted‐tailed Quoll and other smaller native 
mammals.  The site surveys, including spotlighting of these habitats, did not reveal any evidence of usage 
of these habitat areas by native mammals.  It is likely that some reptiles, including snakes and skins, would 
utilise these habitats for shelter. 
Given the lack of any records of rare or threatened species using these habitat features, and the abundance 
of these resources in the adjacent remnant woodland areas, the removal of these habitat features is not 
considered  likely  to  result  in  any  substantial  impacts  to  important  ecological  processes  or  threatened 
fauna. 

Loss of tree food sources 
As the solar farm footprint is located almost entirely within the cleared portion the site, very few trees or 
native  shrubs  would  be  removed  as  a  consequence  of  the  proposed  development.    In  addition,  no 
important food tree resources (such as primary Koala food trees or Glossy Black Cockatoo feed trees) were 
recorded within the development footprint. 
Given  this,  and  the  abundance  of  native  trees  and  shrubs  in  the  adjacent  remnant  woodland  areas 
surrounding the site, the proposed development is not expected to result in any impacts with regard to 
loss of food tree resources. 

Loss of habitat connectivity  
The main movement corridors in the area are associated with the remnant woodland area bordering the 
site  to  the  south,  as  well  as  to  the  north‐east  of  the  site.    These  areas  would  not  be  impacted  by  the 
development.  

6385 Final V1  40   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Movement opportunities within the development footprint are limited for most species, with the exception 
of birds and kangaroos, with no contiguous woodland running through the site that connect larger areas 
of habitat in the surrounding areas.  Kangaroos are expected to be able to move past or around the site 
within the woodland areas, and birds would be able to fly freely over the site. 
The  proposed  development  is  therefore  not  expected  to  impact  upon  habitat  connectivity  and  fauna 
movement opportunities to any great extent. 

5.1.6 Direct Impacts to fauna 

Entrapment of fauna 
During the construction phase, and particularly, during open trenching activities, it is possible that some 
fauna may become trapped within trenches, pits or other enclosed areas. 
This potential threat to fauna is able to be mitigated through the implementation of a fauna management 
plan during construction activities that involve trenching or other excavations that could entrap fauna.  The 
fauna management plan would include measures such as ensuring that trenches and pits are covered if left 
open overnight, or if covering is not possible, then “ladders” such as sticks and branches are placed in the 
pits/trenches  to  allow  fauna  the  chance  to  climb  out.    Any  pits/trenches  left  open  overnight  are  to  be 
inspected daily in the morning to check for any entrapped fauna.  Any fauna that have become trapped 
should  be  aided  in  escape  through  additional  “ladders”,  or  where  possible,  by  directly  capturing  and 
removing the fauna (if safe to do). 
Given  the  implementation  of  a  fauna  management  plan  including  the  recommended  protocols  above, 
direct impacts to fauna from entrapment will be largely avoided. 

Disturbance to local fauna from construction activities 
Disturbance  to  local  fauna  may  occur  during  the  construction  activities,  including  nesting  fauna  within 
trees,  as  well  as  ground  dwelling  fauna  occupying  rock  piles  or  fallen  logs.    A  fauna  management  plan 
including protocols for the discovery of fauna disturbed during the construction phase will be prepared and 
implemented prior to works commencing.  This management plan will largely avoid or at least substantially 
reduce the risk of direct impacts to native fauna. 

Direct mortality from vehicle collisions 
During the construction (and operational) phase, there will be an increase in the volume of traffic using the 
local roads, including the farming access tracks. 
As part of the adjacent wind farm development, vehicle speeds on the local tracks have been reduced to 
between 20 and 40 kilometres per hour, largely as a dust mitigation measure. The reduced speed limits on 
these local tracks will help to reduce potential impacts from vehicle collisions. 
Additionally, specified construction hours are generally limited to daytime hours, and so there is likely to 
be  little  traffic  associated  with  the  development  using  roads  at  sunset  and  sunrise  periods  when  the 
greatest chance of vehicle‐fauna collisions occur. 

6385 Final V1  41   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

5.2 OPERATIONAL IMPACTS 

5.2.1 Alteration to microclimate and erosion potential under the array 
Vegetation  and  ground  habitats  would  likely  be  affected  by  reduced  insolation  and  temperature  and 
increased humidity underneath the solar modules.  Wind speeds may also be reduced.  

Shading under the array 
Pasture grasses at the proposed solar array site comprise two physiological groups; cool season C3 grasses 
and warm season C4 grasses. C4 grasses require more sunlight to drive photosynthesis than C3 grasses 
(Langford et al. 2004) and are likely to decline or disappear from under the array. C4 grasses present at the 
site  include  the  natives  Kangaroo  Grass  (Themeda  australis),  Red  Grass  (Bothriochloa  macra)  and  the 
introduced Couch (Cynodon dactylon). Kangaroo Grass is a keystone species for native grassy communities 
because it provides long term protection from invasive annual weeds by locking up soil nitrate (Prober and 
Lunt 2008). However this species has been greatly reduced at the subject site and is limited to specific areas 
to the south of the proposed array areas.  
Under the PV array, C4 species may over time be out‐competed and replaced by C3 species present at the 
subject site. C3 grasses recorded at the site include the natives Wallaby Grasses (Austrodanthonia spp.), 
Spear and Corkscrew Grass (Austrostipa spp.), Wheat Grass (Elymus scaber), Weeping Grass (Microlaena 
stipoides)  and  Hairy  Panic  (Panicum  effusum),  and  the  noxious  weed  Serrated  Tussock  (Nassella 
trichotoma). However, in terms of native groundcover, C3 grasses are already dominant in areas where the 
array is proposed. As such, there is unlikely to be a notable loss of C4 grasses.  
Weeping Grass is a forest species and is known to be shade‐tolerant. Where it is present, this species may 
come  to  dominate  the  sward  under  the  solar  array.  It  occurs  in  parts  of  the  site  but  usually  in  low 
abundance and appears to be absent from many areas. Weeping Grass can form a dense low mat if well 
managed, which will assist weed resistance, protect soils and reduce dust.  
Reduced insolation and daytime temperatures are likely to mean lower rates of plant growth and biological 
productivity, although this will also be affected by any shift in species composition at the site. It may also 
be  offset  by  increased  soil  moisture.  Shading  experiments  conducted  on  the  pasture  species  Perennial 
Ryegrass (Lolium perenne) showed that 50 per cent shading decreased tiller densities and stubble yields, 
but  did  not  affect  mean  tiller  weights  (Thomas  and  Davies  1978).  Shaded  swards  were  also  slower  to 
recover when full light was restored. Reduced productivity and slower recovery rates have implications for 
grazing management under the array. 
In the grazed paddocks existing native and exotic pasture across the site is likely to decline initially due to 
shading following PV array installation. A reduction in cover may lead to bare ground and susceptibility of 
the  soil  to  erosion.  The  selection  of  a  more  suitable  shade  tolerant  pasture  species  for  planting  would 
address this issue, if bare areas developed.  
Regarding native pasture, shade tolerant species are present onsite within the woodland remnants and 
may benefit from shading. It is likely that a native groundcover would survive onsite under the PV arrays in 
areas where a native groundcover currently exists. 

Changes in rainfall distribution under the array 
Soil  underneath  the  PV  modules  would  likely  receive  less  rainfall  than  surrounding  soil.  However, 
evapotranspiration  losses  would  also  be  lower  due  to  shading  and  reduced  air  movement.  Lateral 
movement of surface and subsurface water from adjacent rain‐exposed areas would be likely to occur. As 

6385 Final V1  42   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

such,  the  net  amount  of  moisture  available  to  vegetation  under  the  PV  modules  should  not  be  highly 
altered. 
There could be a concentration of rainfall runoff in a strip below the lower edge of the solar panel rows. 
This could 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. 

5.2.2 Native pasture management under the array 
Changes to the structure or composition of the groundcover under the array due to altered microclimate 
may result in short‐term or longer‐term impacts. The initial response to shading may result in declines of 
certain species resulting in areas where groundcover may not be adequate to adequately protect soils.   
Grazing pressure can also influence the response of the groundcover to an altered microclimate. For long 
term stability of native pastures, grazing pressure needs to be maintained in early to mid‐spring to keep 
annual  grasses  and  legumes  in  check  and  maintain  the  health  of  the  perennial  grasses  (Langford  et  al. 
2004). Pasture should be kept short (<5cm). Weeping Grass can become rank and of low quality if under‐
grazed and Wallaby Grasses can be severely thinned by excessive annual exotic grass growth during spring 
(Langford et al. 2004). Soil disturbance during operational activities can increase opportunities for weed 
invasion  and  germination.  Movements  of  maintenance  vehicles  can  also  result  in  soil  compaction 
particularly when soils are wet. 
Native pasture management under the array would be achieved through the preparation of a Groundcover 
Management Plan as recommended in Section 6. 
A groundcover management plan would be developed to ensure groundcover is maintained across the site. 

Loss of or alteration to grassland habitats for native fauna 
The current condition of the grasslands as potential habitat for native fauna is poor, with minimal structural 
complexity due to constant grazing and pasture improvement practices, as well as a general lack of native 
grassland species.  As such, the grassland habitats are considered unlikely to be suitable for most native 
grassland species, including important or threatened species such as Striped Legless Lizards, Golden Sun 
Moths.  Native bird species requiring tussocky structures for shelter are also unlikely to be able to utilise 
these  areas,  such  as  quails  and  other  ground  bird  species  requiring  taller  grasslands  for  shelter.  
Furthermore, European Starlings were relatively abundant across the site, whereas other native grassland 
bird species were not observed. 
The  proposed  development  of  the  solar  farm  would  result  in  some  changes  to  the  existing  grassland 
characteristics, most notably through the increase of shading of pastures directly beneath the panels, as 
well as the associated concentration in runoff from the PV modules which could lead to some soil erosion 
where pastures have become stabilised, or alternatively, increased pasture growth at these microhabitats 
from the increased concentration of water. 
Because of the current poor condition of the grassland areas in terms of native species diversity and lack 
of  structural  complexity,  the  potential  impacts  of  these  effects  on  native  fauna  is  regarded  as  being 
negligible.  The fauna group most likely to be impacted by this process is the local population of Eastern 
Grey Kangaroos that occurs over this and adjacent properties.  The overall impact on this population from 
changes to the grasslands is considered to be minimal given that the fencing of the site is also likely to 
restrict access into these areas, such that any changes to the grasslands would be effectively meaningless 
to them.  Furthermore, at least five carcasses of male Eastern Grey Kangaroos were observed within the 

6385 Final V1  43   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

development footprint during the fauna surveys.  All five animals appear to have been shot as part of a 
culling program.  This being the case, the impacts of minor changes to grasslands to a population of animals 
that is being actively targeted for culling would appear to be minimal in the broader context of kangaroo 
management at this property. 

Movement barrier and collision hazard created by perimeter fencing 
The  establishment  of  a  perimeter  fence  around  the  development  site  is  likely  to  have  some  impact  on 
native  fauna  as  a  consequence  of  restricted  movement  opportunities  through  the  site,  and  to  a  lesser 
extent through collision hazard.   
However, given that habitat values within the actual footprint are negligible in comparison with the habitat 
values of the surrounding areas of intact remnant woodland, the movement opportunities for native fauna 
are  considered  unlikely  to  be  substantially  affected  assuming  that  movement  through  the  remnant 
woodland areas is still maintained.  It will therefore be important that no fencing is erected through the 
woodland areas that would restrict native fauna movements.   
With respect to the potential collision hazard of perimeter fencing, the fence will be a security fence of at 
least 2m in height.  This height is likely to deter animals from jumping over or through it, and becoming 
entangled in the fence. 

Habitat avoidance due to presence of infrastructure 
The establishment of a solar farm at the site may result in some species actively avoiding the site due to 
the  presence  of  the  solar  infrastructure.  Potential  impacts  associated  with  this  are  considered  to  be 
negligible given that the establishment of a perimeter fence as described above, would more likely be a 
greater deterrent to fauna visitation than the infrastructure itself.  Furthermore, there are no important 
habitat areas within the site that would be required by any conservation‐dependant fauna as habitat crucial 
to their long term survival from which their exclusion would likely result in an impact to the species or 
population’s long‐term survival  

Vehicle collision risks to fauna 
As stated above under construction impacts, as with the Gullen Range Wind Farm development, there is 
likely to be an establishment of vehicle speed restrictions throughout the site, as well as along local access 
roads, primarily for dust minimisation requirements.  A reduction or management of vehicles speeds to 
between 20 and 40kph is likely to minimise the risk of vehicle and fauna collisions.   
Notwithstanding  this,  a  protocol  should  be  established  to  ensure  that  vehicle  speeds  are  managed,  to 
remind road users that native fauna can occur on roads and are susceptible to vehicle collisions as well as 
to establish a protocol for obtaining help (such as placement of the local WIRES helpline at the site office, 
and/or in vehicles) so that help can be requested as soon as possible for any fauna that has been injured 
in a vehicle collision. 

   

6385 Final V1  44   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

6 RECOMMENDED SAFEGUARDS AND MITIGATION 
MEASURES 

6.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE 
 Vegetation  clearing  and  disturbance  will  be  minimised  to  the  extent  required  to  complete  the 
works. In particular, works are to avoid impacts to mature eucalypts wherever possible. Wherever 
practicable, excavations and vehicle/machinery movements will occur outside the canopy dripline 
of large eucalypts, and avoid impacts within the adjacent woodland patches that are to be retained 
to the south of the development site.  Tree protection standards should comply with Australian 
standard AS4970‐2009 Protection of trees on development sites (Standards Australia, 2009). 
 Existing areas of disturbance will be preferentially used for vehicle and machinery access, materials 
laydown,  stockpiling  of  cleared  vegetation  and  the  deposition  and  retrieval  of  spoil  whenever 
practicable.  
 Areas  disturbed  by  the  construction  phase  would  be  stabilised  and  rehabilitated  progressively 
during works. Seeding and replanting would be with species appropriate to the areas of impact; 
native in native dominated areas. A Groundcover Management Plan is to be prepared to provide 
details on how this recommendation should be implemented. 
 Works will be avoided during, and immediately following heavy rainfall events to protect soils and 
vegetation at the site from compaction, where practical. 
 A  weed  management  plan  would  be  developed  for  the  site  including  but  not  limited  to  the 
following outcomes; 
o The control of noxious weeds recorded on the site 
o Preventative measures for the spread or introduction of weeds. 
o Monitoring of control and preventative measures and ongoing adaptive management to 
suppress weeds 
o Laydown sites for excavated spoil, equipment and construction materials would be weed‐
free or treated for weeds prior to use;  
o Sediment  control  materials  would  be  weed  free  such  as  weed  free  hay  bales  or 
geotextiles; and  
o Imported materials such as sand and gravel would be sourced from sites which do not 
show evidence of noxious weeds or Phytophthora infection. 
 The space between the solar panel rows would be adequate to allow a small vehicle (such as an 
ATV) to access the site for ongoing weed control and pasture renovation if required.  
 Aquatic habitat will be protected by installation and monitoring of site specific sediment erosion 
controls in accordance with Landcom 2004. 
 Any  aquatic  habitats  to  be  removed  (i.e.  draining  and  in‐filling  of  farm  dams)  would  include  a 
protocol  for  inspection  of  the  dams  by  an  ecologist  immediately  after  draining  to  capture  and 
relocate any stranded aquatic fauna (such as frogs and turtles). 
 Any  hollow‐bearing  trees  to  be  removed  would  be  removed  in  accordance  with  a  tree  felling 
protocol, to minimise impacts to resident fauna. The Tree Felling Protocol is to be developed as 
part of the final Construction and Environmental Management Plan. 

6385 Final V1  45   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

 All  hollows  removed  would  be  offset;  one  nest  box  per  hollow,  specific  to  the  type  of  hollow 
removed.  Monitoring  would  verify  the  hollows  remain  intact  for  a  period  of  two  years  post 
installation.  
 Rock  and  log  habitat  removed  during  the  construction  phase  will  be  relocated  to  immediately 
adjacent sites, outside of the development footprint, to retain habitat values in the area. 
 Construction materials should not be stockpiled on site for extended periods of time as local fauna 
may take up residence and be injured when the materials are moved.  
 Trenches  should  be  backfilled  as  soon  as  possible  to  minimise  the  chance  of  fauna  becoming 
trapped. 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 (dependent on the size of trench needed). 
 Construction vehicles would be speed limited onsite, to reduce risk of collision with fauna. 

6.2 OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT 
 A groundcover management plan would be developed that would include regular monitoring of 
vegetation cover and composition and allow for adaptive management. The aim of the plan is to 
retain  vegetation  cover  under  the  panels  to  resist  erosion  and  weed  infestation.  Where 
information  is  lacking,  trials  and  expert  input  may  be  required.    The  plan  would  include  as  a 
minimum: 
o A monitoring protocol to routinely assess vegetation cover and composition to allow 
for adaptive management 
o Suitable grazing strategies to promote native perennial groundcover 
o Measures  for  the  establishment  of  a  shade  tolerant  native  groundcover  where 
necessary  to  address  the  potential  for  soil  erosion  and  weed  ingress.  Provision  for 
advice from an agronomist (or other suitably qualified person) in relation to preferred 
species/varieties,  establishment  methods  of  alternative  pastures  and  best  practice 
management would be included. Onsite trials would be considered if information is 
lacking. 
 Weed monitoring and treatment would continue, to suppress noxious weeds onsite. 

 Operational vehicles would be speed limited onsite, to reduce risk of collision with fauna. 

6.3 DECOMMISSIONING  
 A flora and fauna management plan would be prepared to manage removal of infrastructure from 
the site and rehabilitation of areas disturbed during decommissioning. 

6.4 OFFSETTING  
Offsetting is not a requirement for the project, although offsetting of hollows to be removed is included 
above. This will act as incentive to micro site infrastructure to avoid hollow bearing trees where possible. 
 
 

   
6385 Final V1  46   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

7 REFERENCES 
 
Langford, CM, Simpson, PC, Garden, DL, Eddy, DA, Keys, MJ, Rehwinkel, R and Johnston, WH (2004) Managing 
Native Pastures for Agriculture and Conservation, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Southern 
Rivers CMA, Natural Heritage Trust 
Lunt, I.D. (1990). The soil seed bank of a long‐grazed Themeda triandra grassland in Victoria. Proceedings of 
the Royal Society of Victoria 102, 53‐57. 
NGH Environmental (2008). Proposed development the Gullen Range wind farm, southern tablelands of New 
South Wales. Biodiversity Assessment Report, prepared for Gullen Wind Farm Pty. Ltd. July 2008. 
Prober, S. and Lunt, I. (2008) Kangaroo Grass: a keystone species for restoring weed‐invaded temperate grassy 
woodlands. Australasian Plant Conservation Vol 17:1 
Scarlett, N.H. & R.F. Parsons (1990). Conservation biology of the southern Australian daisy Rutidosis 
leptorrhynchoides. Clark, T.W. & J.H. Seebeck, eds. Management and Conservation of Small 
Populations. Page(s) 195‐205. Chicago, United States of America: Chicago Zoological Society. 
Simpson, K and Day, N (2010) Field Guide to the Birds of Australia (8th Edition).  Penguin Books Australia Ltd. 
VIC Australia.  
Thomas, H and Davies, A. (1978) Effect of Shading on the Regrowth of Lolium perenne Swards in the Field 
Welsh Plant Breeding Station Aberystwyth. Annals of Botany 42: 705‐715. 
Van Dyck, S, Gynther, I, and Baker, A (2013). Field Companion to the Mammals of Australia. New Holland 
Publishers, NSW Australia. 
Wilson, S and Swan, G (2010). A Complete Guide to Reptiles of Australia.  New Holland Publishers, NSW 
Australia. 
 
 

6385 Final V1  47   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

APPENDIX A THREATENED SPECIES EVALUATIONS 
 

6385 Final V1  A‐I   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

A.1 FLORA 
Possible 
Species  Ecology  Presence of habitat  Likelihood of occurrence 
impact? 
Trees and shrubs         
Black Gum  Black Gum has a moderately narrow distribution, occurring mainly in the  Present None. Conspicuous species  No
Eucalyptus aggregata  wetter,  cooler  and  higher  parts  of  the  tablelands,  for  example  in  the  not detected during surveys. 
Blayney, Crookwell, Goulburn, Braidwood and Bungendore districts. Grows 
TSC ‐ V 
in the lowest parts of the landscape. Grows on alluvial soils, on cold, poorly‐
drained flats and hollows adjacent to creeks and small rivers. Often grows 
with  other  cold‐adapted  eucalypts,  such  as  Snow  Gum  or  White  Sallee 
(Eucalyptus pauciflora), Manna or Ribbon Gum (E. viminalis), Candlebark 
(E.  rubida),  Black  Sallee  (E.  stellulata)  and  Swamp  Gum  (E.  ovata).  Black 
Gum  usually  occurs  in  an  open  woodland  formation  with  a  grassy 
groundlayer  dominated  either  by  River  Tussock  (Poa  labillardierei)  or 
Kangaroo Grass (Themeda australis), but with few shrubs. 
Bynoe’s Wattle Bynoe's Wattle is a semi‐prostrate shrub to a metre high. This species is  Absent None No
Acacia bynoeana  confined to the northern portion of the Sydney Basin Bioregion and the 
TSC – E  southern portion of the north coast Bioregion. Occurs in heath or dry 
EPBC ‐ V  sclerophyll forest on sandy clay soils, often containing ironstone gravels. 
Seems to prefer open, sometimes slightly disturbed sites such as trail 
margins, edges of roadside spoil mounds and in recently burnt patches. 
The single flower heads, on short hairy stems, appear anytime from 
September to March. Its seedpods are mature from September to 
January. The hairy branchlets distinguish the species from the similar and 
more common Three‐veined Wattle Acacia trinervata. It is more likely to 
occur in sclerophyllous heath or woodland on Sandstone based 
substrates in association with Corymbia gummifera, Eucalyptus 
sclerophylla, Banksia serrata & Angophora bakeri, none of which occur in 
Cumberland Plain Woodland. It has been recorded in Castlereagh Nature 
Reserve. 

6385 Final V1  A‐II   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Possible 
Species  Ecology  Presence of habitat  Likelihood of occurrence 
impact? 
Forbs         
Perennial daisy growing in grasslands and grassy woodlands, often  Marginal – study  Unlikely – Not detected in  Low
Hoary Sunray 
colonising disturbed sites such as road verges, but does not persist well in  area heavily grazed.  areas of suitable habitat 
Leucochrysum albicans   grazed situations. Flowers spring‐summer. May be locally common, and is  Some habitat within  despite targeted searches. 
ssp albicans var tricolor  not listed as threatened in NSW. Recorded around Goulburn. (var  areas of dry forest  Only 1 Record within 10km 
albicans recorded at Lake Bathurst).  along the proposed 
EPBC ‐ E  transmission routes. 
Omeo Stork’s‐bill Perennial forb that occurs in clonal colonies that can be up to several  Absent None No
Pelargonium sp.  metres wide. Known from only 3 locations in NSW, with two on lake‐beds 
Striatellum (G.W.Carr  on the basalt plains of the Monaro and one at Lake Bathurst.  A 
10345)  population at a fourth known site on the Monaro has not been seen in 
TSC ‐ E  recent years. The only other known population is at Lake Omeo, Victoria. 
EPBC ‐ E  It occurs at altitudes between 680 to 1030 m. 
Austral Toadflax This species is found in small populations across eastern NSW. It is almost  Marginal. Areas of  Unlikely – nearest records  Low
Thesium australe  invariably associated with Kangaroo Grass (Themeda australis) and tends  Kangaroo Grass  over 80 km south and north‐
TSC – V  to occur in moist areas.   present but not in  west of the site. Not 
EPBC ‐ V  moist areas and low  detected during surveys. 
diversity due to 
prolonged moderate 
to heavy grazing 
Basalt Pepper‐ Occurs in a variety of habitats including woodland with a grassy  Present Unlikely – nearest records  Low
cress/Pebbleweed  understorey and grassland. Appears to respond to disturbance, having  over 30km north of the site. 
Lepidium hyssopifolium  appeared after soil disturbance at one site. It’s cryptic and non‐descript  Not detected during 
EPBC ‐ E  nature (appearing like several weed species) makes it hard to detect.  surveys. 
Almost all remaining populations of Basalt Peppercress occur in heavily 
modified, non‐natural environments, usually amongst exotic pasture 
grasses and weed species, sometimes with an overstorey of introduced 
tree species. Soils are light to heavy, often friable, clay loams. Most sites 

6385 Final V1  A‐III   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Possible 
Species  Ecology  Presence of habitat  Likelihood of occurrence 
impact? 
are on roadsides, on fringes of developed agricultural land or occur in 
small reserves within an agricultural landscape. 
Grasses         
Floating Swamp  There are many historic collections in the City of Greater Albury. It has  Absent None No
Wallaby‐grass  been recorded recently in lagoons beside the Murray River near Cooks 
Amphibromus fluitans  Lagoon (Shire of Greater Hume), Mungabarina Reserve, East Albury, at 
TSC – V  Ettamogah, Thurgoona (Charles Sturt University Campus), near 
EPBC ‐ V  Narrandera, and also further west along the Murray River (near 
  Mathoura) and in Victoria. There is a recent record of this species near 
Laggan in Upper Lachlan Shire. It is also found in Victoria and in Tasmania. 
Amphibromus fluitans grows mostly in permanent swamps. The species 
needs wetlands which are at least moderately fertile and which have 
some bare ground, conditions which are produced by seasonally‐
fluctuating water levels. Habitats in south‐western NSW include swamp 
margins in mud, dam and tank beds in hard clay and in semi‐dry mud of 
lagoons with Potamogeton and Chamaeraphis species. Flowering time is 
from spring to autumn or November to March. Disturbance regimes are 
not known, although the species requires periodic flooding of its habitat 
to maintain wet conditions. Wetlands inhabited by this species that are 
converted to deep, permanent dams are unsuitable for continued 
habitation by this species. The species has shown a level of resistance to 
salinization of habitat in experimental tests. Has been observed covering 
several hectares in area. The species is also recorded as occasional to 
common in populations. 
Orchids         
Buttercup Doubletail A terrestrial ‘donkey’ orchid with golden‐yellow to orange flowers. The  Absent None No
Diuris aequalis  Buttercup Doubletail has been recorded in Kanangra‐Boyd National Park, 
TSC – E  Gurnang State Forest, towards Wombeyan Caves, the Taralga ‐ Goulburn 
EPBC ‐ V  area, and the ranges between Braidwood, Tarago and Bungendore. 

6385 Final V1  A‐IV   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Possible 
Species  Ecology  Presence of habitat  Likelihood of occurrence 
impact? 
Favours montane eucalypt forest and low open woodland with a grassy 
heathy understory, and secondary grassland, growing in gravelly clay‐
loam, often on gentle slopes (especially on the Great Dividing Range). The 
distribution of this species overlaps with the following EPBC Act‐listed 
threatened ecological communities: White Box‐Yellow Box‐Blakely's Red 
Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland, Natural Temperate 
Grassland of the Southern Tablelands of NSW and the Australian Capital 
Territory, and Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone. Flowering 
occurs between late October and mid December. Populations tend to 
contain few, scattered individuals; despite extensive surveys, only about 
200 plants in total, from 20 populations are known. 
Tarengo Leek Orchid Natural populations are known from a total of four sites in NSW:  Absent. Some areas  None No
Prasophyllum petilum  Boorowa, Captains Flat, Ilford and Delegate. Also occurs at Hall in the  supporting Kangaroo 
TSC – E  Australian Capital Territory. This species has also been recorded at  grass but derived 
EPBC – E   Bowning Cemetery where it was experimentally introduced, though it is  from Dry Forest and 
Also previously  not known whether this population has persisted. Grows in patchy  subject to moderate 
identified as  woodland in fertile soils. Grows in open sites within Natural Temperate  to heavy grazing.  
Prasophyllum sp.  Grassland at the Boorowa and Delegate sites. Also grows in grassy 
Wybong (C.Phelps ORG  woodland in association with River Tussock Poa labillardieri Black Gum 
5269)  Eucalyptus aggregata and tea‐trees Leptospermum spp. at Captains Flat 
and within the grassy groundlayer dominated by Kangaroo Grass under 
Box‐Gum Woodland at Ilford (and Hall, ACT). Apparently highly 
susceptible to grazing, being retained only at little‐grazed travelling stock 
reserves (Boorowa & Delegate) and in cemeteries (Captains Flat, Ilford 
and Hall). 
Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs)       
Natural Temperate  A naturally treeless or sparsely‐treed community, in which the most  Absent None No
Grassland of the  obvious components are various species of native grasses. Characterised 
Southern Tablelands of  by the dominance of native grasses, including Kangaroo Grass Themeda 

6385 Final V1  A‐V   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Possible 
Species  Ecology  Presence of habitat  Likelihood of occurrence 
impact? 
NSW and the Australian  australis, Snow‐grass Poa sieberiana, River Tussock P. labillardieri, Red‐
Capital Territory  grass Bothriochloa macra, speargrasses Austrostipa spp. and wallaby 
  grasses Austrodanthonia spp. Intact sites have a diversity of wildflowers 
EPBC ‐ E  (forbs) including lilies, orchids, peas, daisies and many more. Sites may 
  contain a low density of trees or shrubs and may also contain wet areas 
that are habitat for wetland flora species. The community also includes a 
range of mammal, bird, reptile, frog and invertebrate fauna species. 
Intact remnants that contain a high diversity of flora species are now rare. 
Occurs in the South Eastern Highlands of NSW between Orange and 
Bathurst to Goulburn and Braidwood and the coastal ranges and 
escarpments to the south; the Monaro region (Cooma, Jindabyne and 
Bombala districts), and in the west, areas extending from Khancoban 
through Tumbarumba and Tumut, with a north‐western boundary 
extending from Burrinjuck Dam to Boorowa, then east to the Lachlan 
River and northwards). Contained within the South Eastern Highlands 
bioregion and within an altitude range of between 560 and 1200 metres. 
Occurs in a variety of landforms, but generally on the fertile lower parts 
of the landscape (flats, drainage lines, frost hollow valleys, foothills) 
where resources such as water and nutrients are abundant, but tree 
growth is restricted by periodic drying or waterlogging, frosting, or 
exposure to westerly winds; remnants also occur on midslopes to hilltops 
and plateaux, particularly in basalt but also on other substrates, where 
exposure and soil conditions limit growth of trees. Remnants may occur 
within a mosaic of grassy woodlands, including Box‐Gum Woodland and 
Snow Gum Woodland, or may be bounded by dry or wet sclerophyll 
forest, wetland or heathland. 
Tableland Basalt Forest  Dominated by an open eucalypt canopy of variable composition.  Present Present High
in the Sydney Basin and  Eucalyptus viminalis, E. radiata, E. dalrympleana subsp. dalrympleana and 
E. pauciflora may occur in the community in pure stands or in varying 

6385 Final V1  A‐VI   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Possible 
Species  Ecology  Presence of habitat  Likelihood of occurrence 
impact? 
South Eastern  combinations. The community typically has an open canopy of eucalypts 
Highlands Bioregions  with sparse mid‐story shrubs (e.g. Acacia melanoxylon and A. dealbata) 
  and understory shrubs (e.g. Rubus parvifolius) and a dense groundcover 
TSC ‐ EEC  of herbs and grasses, although disturbed stands may lack either or both 
  of the woody strata. Tableland Basalt Forest is currently found in the 
Eastern Highlands and Southern and Central Tablelands, covering the 
local government areas of Bathurst Regional, Goulburn Mulwaree, 
Oberon, Palerang, Shoalhaven, Upper Lachlan and Wingecarribee. The 
community, however, may be found elsewhere within the designated 
bioregions. Tableland Basalt Forest typically occurs on loam or clay soils 
associated with basalt or, less commonly, alluvium, fine‐grained 
sedimentary rocks, granites and similar substrates that produce relatively 
fertile soils. The species composition of Tableland Basalt Forest varies 
with average annual rainfall. On basalt or plutonic substrates east of 
Mittagong and Moss Vale, at the eastern edge of its distribution where 
average rainfall exceeds 1000‐1100 mm per year, the community is 
replaced by Robertson Basalt Tall Open‐forest and Mount Gibraltar 
Forest. Its distribution spans altitudes from approximately 600 m to 900 
m above sea level, usually on undulating or hilly terrain. Mean annual 
rainfall varies from approximately 750 mm up to 1100 mm across the 
distribution of the community. 
Tablelands Snow Gum,  An open woodland community (sometimes occurring as an open‐forest  Present Present Yes
Black Sallee,  formation), in which the most obvious species are one or more of the 
Candlebark and Ribbon  following: Snow Gum (Eucalyptus pauciflora), Black Sallee (E. stellulata), 
Gum Grassy Woodland  Candlebark (E. rubida) and Ribbon Gum (E. viminalis). Modified sites 
in the South Eastern  include the following: Areas where the main tree species are present 
Highlands, Sydney  ranging from an open woodland formation to an open forest structure, 
Basin, South East  and the groundlayer is predominantly composed of native grass species 
Corner and NSW South  but the herb diversity is reduced; and sites where the trees have been 

6385 Final V1  A‐VII   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Possible 
Species  Ecology  Presence of habitat  Likelihood of occurrence 
impact? 
Western Slopes  removed and only the grassy groundlayer and herbs remain ‐ such sites 
Bioregions  are referred to as secondary or derived grasslands. Occurs in the 
  following bioregions: South Eastern Highlands, Sydney Basin, South East 
TSC ‐ EEC  Corner and NSW South Western Slopes.  Mainly occurs on valley floors, 
  margins of frost hollows, footslopes and undulating hills. Mainly occurs 
between approximately 600 and 1400 m in altitude. Occurs on a variety 
of substrates including granite, basalt, metasediments and Quaternary 
alluvium. The trees may occur as pure stands, mixtures of two or three 
species, or with other trees, including wattles. The understorey in intact 
sites is characterised by native grasses and a high diversity of herbs. Sites 
with only trees and a native grassy groundlayer, but with few herbs are 
important for recovery of this community. Shrubs are generally sparse or 
absent, though they may be locally common. Remnants generally occur 
on fertile lower parts of the landscape where resources such as water and 
nutrients are abundant. It has been estimated that no current patch 
exceeds 60 ha and that 70% of patches are smaller than 20 ha. Sites with 
particular characteristics, including varying age classes in the trees, 
patches of regrowth, old trees with hollows and fallen timber on the 
ground are very important as wildlife habitat. Sites that retain only a 
grassy groundlayer and with few or no trees remaining are important for 
rehabilitation, and to rebuild connections between sites of better quality. 
Remnants support many species of threatened fauna and flora. The fauna 
of remnants (insectivorous birds, bats, etc) can contribute to insect 
control on grazing properties. 
White Box Yellow Box  An open woodland community (sometimes occurring as a forest  Absent None No
Blakely’s Red Gum  formation). Areas that are part of the Australian Government listed 
Woodland  ecological community must have either: an intact tree layer and 
  predominately native ground layer; or an intact native ground layer with 
TSC – EEC  a high diversity of native plant species but no remaining tree layer. Box‐

6385 Final V1  A‐VIII   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Possible 
Species  Ecology  Presence of habitat  Likelihood of occurrence 
impact? 
EPBC ‐ CEEC  Gum Woodland is found from the Queensland border in the north, to the 
  Victorian border in the south. It occurs in the tablelands and western 
  slopes of NSW. The community occurs within the NSW North Coast, New 
England Tableland, Nandewar, Brigalow Belt South, Sydney Basin, South 
Eastern Highlands and NSW South Western Slopes Bioregions. 
Characterised by the presence or prior occurrence of White Box, Yellow 
Box and/or Blakely's Red Gum. The trees may occur as pure stands, 
mixtures of the three species or in mixtures with other trees, including 
wattles.  The tree‐cover is generally discontinuous and consists of widely‐
spaced trees of medium height in which the canopies are clearly 
separated. The understorey in intact sites is characterised by scattered 
shrubs, native tussock grasses, and a high diversity of herbs. Remnants 
generally occur on fertile lower parts of the landscape where resources 
such as water and nutrients are abundant. Sites with particular 
characteristics, including varying age classes in the trees, patches of 
regrowth, old trees with hollows and fallen timber on the ground are very 
important as wildlife habitat. Sites in the lowest parts of the landscape 
often support very large trees which have leafy crowns and reliable 
nectar flows ‐ sites important for insectivorous and nectar feeding birds. 
Sites that retain only a grassy groundlayer and with few or no trees 
remaining are important for rehabilitation, and to rebuild connections 
between sites of better quality. Remnants support many species of 
threatened fauna and flora.  This ecological community occurs in areas 
where rainfall is between 400 and 1200 mm per annum, on moderate to 
highly fertile soils at altitudes of 170 metres to 1200 metres. 

 
 

6385 Final V1  A‐IX   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

A.2 FAUNA 
 

Species  TSC  EPBC  Ecology and distribution   Presence  Likelihood of occurrence  Possible  AoS? 

Act  Act  of  to be 
habitat  impacted? 
Amphibians               
Litoria aurea  Inhabits  marshes,  dams  and  stream‐sides,  Marginal  Unlikely.  Although the farm dams support 
Green and  particularly  those  containing  bullrushes  (Typha  some  suitable  macrophytic  vegetation, 
Golden Bell Frog  spp.) or spikerushes (Eleocharis spp.).  these  dams  are  unlikely  to  support  this 
Optimum  habitat  includes  water‐bodies  that  are  species  given  the  lack  of  adequate 
E  V  vegetation cover surrounding the dams.  No  X
unshaded,  free  of  predatory  fish  such  as  Plague 
Minnow (Gambusia holbrooki), have a grassy area  This species is easily detected being a large 
nearby and diurnal sheltering sites available.  frog that basks during the day and has a loud 
and conspicuous call. 
Litoria  Lives along permanent streams with some fringing  No  None.  Suitable habitat for this species does 
booroolongensis  vegetation cover such as ferns, sedges or grasses.  not occur within the subject site. 
Booroolong Frog  Adults  occur  on  or  near  cobble  banks  and  other 
E  E  No  X 
rock  structures  within  stream  margins,  where  it 
can  shelter  under  rocks  or  amongst  vegetation 
near the ground on the stream edge. 
Litoria castanea  Requires large permanent ponds or slow flowing  Marginal  Unlikely.  Although the farm dams support 
Yellow‐spotted  'chain‐of‐ponds' streams with abundant emergent  some  suitable  macrophytic  vegetation, 
Tree Frog  vegetation  such  as  bulrushes  and  aquatic  these  dams  are  unlikely  to  support  this 
vegetation.    species  given  the  lack  of  adequate 
CE  E  vegetation cover surrounding the dams.  No  X 
Adults  are  active  during  spring  and  summer  and 
bask  on  sunny  days,  and  moves  and  forages  at  This species is easily detected being a large 
night on grassy banks.  frog that basks during the day and has a loud 
and conspicuous call. 
Birds               

6385 Final V1  A‐X   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Species  TSC  EPBC  Ecology and distribution   Presence  Likelihood of occurrence  Possible  AoS? 

Act  Act  of  to be 
habitat  impacted? 
Anthochaera  The  Regent  Honeyeater  is  associated  with  Marginal  Unlikely:  The  species  was  not  observed  in 
Phrygia  temperate  eucalypt  woodland  and  open  forest  the  study  area,  though  could  be  present. 
Regent  including  forest  edges,  wooded  farmland  and  The  study  area  is  not  considered  key 
Honeyeater  urban  areas  with  mature  eucalypts,  and  riparian  breeding habitat and there is an abundance 
forests of River Oak (Casuarina cunninghamiana).  of suitable habitat in the vicinity of the site.  
Areas  containing  Swamp  Mahogany  (Eucalyptus  The species is also highly mobile and capable 
CE  E  robusta)  in  coastal  areas  have  been  observed  to  of  avoiding  impacts.    The  probability  of  an  No  X 
be  utilised.  The  Regent  Honeyeater  primarily  impact is therefore considered to be low. 
feeds on nectar from box and ironbark eucalypts 
and occasionally from banksias and mistletoes. As 
such  it  is  reliant  on  locally  abundant  nectar 
sources with different flowering times to provide 
reliable supply of nectar. 
Callocephalon  In  summer,  generally  found  in  tall  mountain  Present  Unlikely:  Records  for  this  species  indicate 
fimbriatum  forests  and  woodlands,  particularly  in  heavily  they  prefer  more  continuous  sections  of 
Gang‐Gang  timbered  and  mature  wet  sclerophyll  forests.  In  forest which would contain more old growth 
Cockatoo  winter, may occur at lower altitudes in drier more  attributes.  There  is  a  relatively  low 
open eucalypt forests and woodlands, and often  abundance of old growth trees in the impact 
found in urban areas. This species moves to lower  area with few hollow bearing trees, and no 
V    Low  X
altitudes  for  winter,  preferring  open  eucalypt  food  tree  resources  within  development 
forest,  particularly  box‐ironbark  assemblages.  site.  Given more suitable habitat elsewhere 
Prefers old growth attributes for nesting habitat.   in the locality and this species being highly 
mobile and capable of avoiding impacts, the 
probability of an impact is considered to be 
low. 
Circus assimilis  Occurs in grassy open woodland including Acacia  Marginal  Possible.    The  site  is  agricultural  land  and 
Spotted Harrier  and  mallee  remnants,  inland  riparian  woodland,  supports  some  features  of  a  grassy  open 
grassland  and  shrub  steppe.  It  is  found  most  woodland.    The  species  may  forage  at  the 
V    Low  X 
commonly in native grassland, but also occurs in  site,  although  no  nesting  habitat  was 
agricultural  land,  foraging  over  open  habitats  observed.    The  species  does  not  occupy 
including edges of inland wetlands.  

6385 Final V1  A‐XI   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Species  TSC  EPBC  Ecology and distribution   Presence  Likelihood of occurrence  Possible  AoS? 

Act  Act  of  to be 
habitat  impacted? 
Preys  on  terrestrial  mammals  (eg  bandicoots,  hollows,  and  is  mobile  and  so  capable  of 
bettongs,  and  rodents),  birds  and  reptile,  avoiding impacts. 
occasionally insects and rarely carrion 
Builds a stick nest in a tree and lays eggs in spring 
(or sometimes autumn), with young remaining in 
the nest for several months. 
Chthonicola  The species is most frequently reported from the  Marginal  Unlikely.    Suitable  habitat  for  this  species 
sagittatarbler  hills and tablelands of the Great Dividing Range. It  was  not  observed  in  the  study  area.    The 
Speckled Warbler  V    lives  in  a  wide  range  of  Eucalyptus  dominated  species may be an occasional visitor to the  Low  X 
  communities  that  have  a  grassy  understorey,  site from nearby suitable habitats. 
often on rocky ridges or in gullies. 
Daphoenositta  This  species  inhabits  eucalypt  forests  and  Present  Possible:  Potential  habitat  may  be  present 
chrysoptera  woodlands,  especially  those  containing  rough‐ within  parts  of  the  remnant  woodland 
Varied Sitella  barked species and mature smooth‐barked gums  surrounding the development site, there is 
  with dead branches, mallee and Acacia woodland,  little suitable habitat within the impact area 
  where  it  feeds  on  arthropods  gleaned  from  and.    No  nesting  sites  were  observed.  The 
crevices  in  rough  or  decorticating  bark,  dead  extent of vegetation removal is limited to a 
V    branches, standing dead trees and small branches  number of predominantly isolated paddock  Low  X 
and twigs in the tree canopy.  trees, and planted windbreaks of pines. No 
The  species  builds  a  cup‐shaped  nest  of  plant  habitat  that  would  be  considered  to  be  of 
fibres and cobwebs in an upright tree fork high in  high  importance  to  the  species  would  be 
the living tree canopy, and often re‐uses the same  affected.  This species is also highly mobile 
fork or tree in successive years.  and capable of avoiding small‐scale impacts 

Epthianura  Found  mostly  in  temperate  to  arid  climates  and  Marginal  Unlikely.    Suitable  habitat  for  this  species 
albifrons  very  rarely  sub‐tropical  areas,  where  it  occupies  was  not  observed  in  the  study  area.    The 
White‐fronted  V    foothills  and  lowlands  up  to  1000  m  above  sea  species may be an occasional visitor to the  Low  X 
Chat  level. In NSW, it occurs mostly in the southern half  site from nearby suitable habitats. 
  of  the  state,  in  damp  open  habitats  along  the 
coast, and near waterways in the western part of 

6385 Final V1  A‐XII   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Species  TSC  EPBC  Ecology and distribution   Presence  Likelihood of occurrence  Possible  AoS? 

Act  Act  of  to be 
habitat  impacted? 
the state.  The species usually is found foraging on 
bare or grassy ground in wetland areas 
Falco subniger  The black falcon’s habitat is usually in the arid and  Marginal  Possible.    The  site  is  agricultural  land  and 
Black Falcon  semi  arid  zones.  It  is  usually  found  near  supports  a  minor  watercourse  with  a 
watercourses or utilizing patches of isolated trees. number of moderate to large dams. 
V    The black falcon nests in living or dead trees, often  The species may forage at the site, although  Low  X 
using the stick nests of other birds.  no  nesting  habitat  was  observed.    The 
species  does  not  occupy  hollows,  and  is 
mobile and so capable of avoiding impacts. 
Glossopsitta  Inhabits  Eucalypt  forest  and  woodland  where  it  Marginal  Unlikely:  The  riparian  zone  along  the 
pusilla  feeds  on  nectar  and  pollen;  preferring  riparian  eastern  property  boundary  may  support 
Little Lorikeet  zones.   suitable  habitat  for  this  species,  however 
this  zone  does  not  extend  into  the 
V    development footprint itself. More suitable  Low  X 
habitat is present within remnant woodland 
areas south of the site.  This species is also 
highly mobile and capable of avoiding small‐
scale impacts. 
Grantiella picta  Inhabits  Boree,  Brigalow  and  Box‐Gum  Absent  Unlikely:  There  is  very  little  mistletoe  or 
Painted  Woodlands and Box‐Ironbark Forests.  acacias  present  within  the  development 
Honeyeater  A  specialist  feeder  on  the  fruits  of  mistletoes  footprint.  No nests or suitable nesting trees 
growing  on  woodland  eucalypts  and  acacias.  were observed. 
  V     
Prefers mistletoes of the genus Amyema.  This  species  is  also  highly  mobile  and 
It builds a delicate nest hanging within the outer  capable of avoiding small‐scale impacts. 
canopy of drooping eucalypts, she‐oak, paperbark 
or mistletoe branches 
Hieraaetus  The  Little  Eagle  occupies  open  eucalypt  forest,  Marginal  Low:  Preferred  habitat  is  open  woodland.  
morphnoides  V    woodland  or  open  woodland.  Sheoak  or  acacia  The  development  footprint  may  support  Low  X 
Little Eagle  some  foraging  habitat,  however  potential 
nesting  and  shelter  site  are  likely  to  be 

6385 Final V1  A‐XIII   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Species  TSC  EPBC  Ecology and distribution   Presence  Likelihood of occurrence  Possible  AoS? 

Act  Act  of  to be 
habitat  impacted? 
  woodlands  and  riparian  woodlands  of  interior  restricted to the remnant forest areas to the 
NSW are also used.  south, and outside of the impact area. 
The species is highly mobile and capable of 
avoiding small‐scale impacts. 
Lathamus  This species breeds in Tasmania but utilises box‐ Marginal  Unlikely:  Any  occurrence  of  this  species  is 
discolour  ironbark forests and woodlands in Victoria, NSW  likely  to  be  temporary  during  migration. 
Swift Parrot  and Queensland over winter. Key habitats for the  Foraging  sites  within  the  development 
species  on  the  coast  and  coastal  plains  of  New  footprint  are  generally  considered 
  E  South  Wales  include  Spotted  Gum  (Corymbia  unsuitable for this species.   Low  X 
maculata),  Swamp  Mahogany  (E.  robusts),  Red  The  development  would  not  affect  the 
Bloodwood  (Eucalyptus  gummifera)  and  Forest  species  ability  to  move  past  the  site.  The 
Red Gum (E. tereticornis) forests.   species  is  highly  mobile  and  capable  of 
avoiding small‐scale impacts. 
Ninox strenua  Inhabits  a  range  of  vegetation  types  from  Marginal  Low:  There  were  limited  suitable  tree 
Powerful Owl  woodland and open sclerophyll forest to open wet  hollows  identified  within  the  study  area 
forest  and  rainforest.  The  species  occupy  large  during the hollow inventory.  These included 
territories and nest in large tree hollows, at least  isolated  paddock  trees.    The  areas 
0.5 m deep, in trees with a DBH of over 80 cm that  surrounding  these  trees  within  the  impact 
are typically over 150 years old.   site  are  considered  to  be  too  open  to  be 
V    favoured  by  this  species.  Call  playback  and  Low  X 
nocturnal  spotlighting  did  not  observe  this 
species.  This species is know from the larger 
contiguous  forest  to  the  south  east  of  the 
site. 
The species is highly mobile and capable of 
avoiding small‐scale impacts. 
Petroica boodang  The Scarlet Robin lives in dry eucalypt forests and  Marginal  Unlikely.    Suitable  habitat  for  this  species 
Scarlet Robin  woodlands. The understorey is usually open and  was  not  observed  in  the  study  area, 
V    grassy with few scattered shrubs.  This species can  particularly  the  understorey  is  likely  to  be  Low  X 
 
  live in both mature and regrowth vegetation, and  too  short  and  open  with  no  small  trees  or 

6385 Final V1  A‐XIV   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Species  TSC  EPBC  Ecology and distribution   Presence  Likelihood of occurrence  Possible  AoS? 

Act  Act  of  to be 
habitat  impacted? 
occasionally in mallee or wet forest communities,  shrubs, and very little in the way of suitable 
or in wetlands and tea‐tree swamps.  fallen logs. 
Scarlet  Robin  habitat  usually  contains  abundant  The species may be an occasional visitor to 
logs  and  fallen  timber:  these  are  important  the site from nearby suitable habitats. 
components of its habitat.  The species is highly mobile and capable of 
avoiding small‐scale impacts. 
Petroica  Breeds  in  upland  tall  moist  eucalypt  forests  and  Marginal  Unlikely.    Suitable  habitat  for  this  species 
phoenicea  woodlands, often on ridges and slopes.  was not observed in the study area, but may 
Flame Robin  Prefers clearings or areas with open understoreys. be present in surrounding forested areas. 
The  groundlayer  of  the  breeding  habitat  is  Suitable nesting habitat is also not present 
V    dominated by native grasses and the shrub layer  within the development footprint.  Low  X 
may be either sparse or dense.  The species may be an occasional visitor to 
Nests are often near the ground and are built in  the site from nearby suitable habitats. 
sheltered  sites,  such  as  shallow  cavities  in trees,  The species is highly mobile and capable of 
stumps or banks  avoiding small‐scale impacts. 
Polytelis  Inhabits  Box‐Gum,  Box‐Cypress‐pine  and  Boree  Present  Unlikely.  Suitable habitat for this species is 
swainsonii  Woodlands and River Red Gum Forest.  present  in  the  study  area,  with  potentially 
Superb Parrot  Birds often nest in the hollows of large trees (dead  suitable  nesting  habitat  in  the  form  of  the 
or  alive)  mainly  in  tall  riparian  forest  but  also  in  isolated paddock trees.  
  V  open  Box‐Gum  Woodland  or  isolated  paddock  A targeted search of the hollow trees at the  Low  X 
trees. Species known to be used are Blakely’s Red  site did not observe the species utilising any 
Gum, Yellow Box, Apple Box and Red Box.  trees, or foraging in the area. 
Nest in small colonies, often with more than one  The species is highly mobile and capable of 
nest in a single tree.  avoiding small‐scale impacts. 
Rostratula  This  species  is  a  small,  freshwater  wader  that  Absent  None: Suitable habitat for this species is not 
australis  inhabits swamps, dams and marshy areas with a  present.    The  farm  dams  did  not  provide 
E  E  No  X 
Australian  cover  of  grasses,  lignum,  low  scrub  or  open  suitable  macrophyte  vegetation 
Painted Snipe  timber.   characteristics for this species.  

6385 Final V1  A‐XV   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Species  TSC  EPBC  Ecology and distribution   Presence  Likelihood of occurrence  Possible  AoS? 

Act  Act  of  to be 
habitat  impacted? 
Stagonopleura  Found  in  grassy  eucalypt  woodlands,  including  Marginal  Unlikely.    Suitable  foraging  habitat  for  this 
guttata  Box‐Gum  Woodlands  and  Snow  Gum  Eucalyptus  species is limited within the study area. 
Diamond Firetail  pauciflora Woodlands. Also occurs in open forest,  Suitable  nesting  habitat  is  not  present 
mallee,  Natural  Temperate  Grassland,  and  in  within the development footprint. 
secondary  grassland  derived  from  other 
The species may be an occasional visitor to 
communities, and is often found in riparian areas 
the site from nearby suitable habitats. 
(rivers  and  creeks),  and  sometimes  in  lightly 
wooded farmland.  The species is highly mobile and capable of 
V    avoiding small‐scale impacts.  Low  X 
Feeds  exclusively  on  the  ground,  on  ripe  and 
partly‐ripe grass and herb seeds and green leaves, 
and on insects (especially in the breeding season).
Nests  are  globular  structures  built  either  in  the 
shrubby  understorey,  or  higher  up,  especially 
under hawk's or raven's nests. 
 
Migratory Birds 
Hirundapus  This species is almost exclusively aerial, occurring  Absent  Unlikely: Nesting habitat is absent from the 
caudacutus  over  most  types  of  habitat.  Breeding  habitat    study  area.  As  this  species  is  such  a 
White‐throated  includes  wooded  lowlands,  sparsely  vegetation  generalist  in  other  habitat  uses,  any 
  M  No  X 
Needletail  hills and mountains containing coniferous forests.  occurrences are likely to be temporary and 
opportunistic rather than signs the species is 
utilising the study area more permanent.  
Merops ornatus  In  Australia,  this  species  widespread,  except  in  Marginal  Unlikely: Preferred habitat for this species is 
Rainbow Bee‐ desert  areas,  and  breeds  throughout  most  of  its  only marginal within the proposal area. This 
eater  range;  although  southern  birds  move  north  to  is a highly mobile and widespread species.  
  M  breed. The Rainbow Bee‐eater is most often found  No  X 
in  open  forests,  woodlands  and  shrublands,  and 
cleared areas, usually near water. It will be found 
on  farmland  with  remnant  vegetation  and  in 
orchards and vineyards. It will use disturbed sites 

6385 Final V1  A‐XVI   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Species  TSC  EPBC  Ecology and distribution   Presence  Likelihood of occurrence  Possible  AoS? 

Act  Act  of  to be 
habitat  impacted? 
such  as  quarries,  cuttings  and  mines  to  build  its 
nesting  tunnels.  Southern  populations  move 
north,  often  in  huge  flocks,  during  winter; 
northern populations are present year round.  
Monarcha  Mainly occurs in rainforest ecosystems, including  Absent  Unlikely: Preferred habitat for this species is 
melanopsis  semi‐deciduous  vine‐thickets,  complex  notophyll  not present within the proposal area. This is 
Black‐faced  vine‐forest,  tropical  rainforest,  subtropical  a highly mobile and widespread species. 
Monarch    M  rainforest,  mesophyll  thicket/shrubland,  warm  Low  X 
temperate  rainforest,  dry  (monsoon)  rainforest 
and (occasionally) cool temperate rainforest. The 
species breeds in rainforest habitat. 
Monarcha  Migratory  and  mobile  species  that  prefers  wet  Marginal  Unlikely:  Any  occurrence  of  this  species  in 
trivirgatus  forests and mangroves, utilise lower branches.   the proposal area is likely to be the species 
  M  No  X 
Spectacled  passing  through  the  area  rather  than 
Monarch  utilising the habitat for breeding. 
Myiagra  The Satin Flycatcher is found along the east coast  Marginal  Unlikely: Preferred habitat for this species is 
cyanoleuca  of  Australia  from  far  northern  Queensland  to  not present within the proposal area. This is 
Satin Flycatcher  Tasmania,  including  south‐eastern  South  a highly mobile migratory species.  
Australia. The Satin Flycatcher is not a commonly 
seen  species,  especially  in  the  far  south  of  its 
range, where it is a summer breeding migrant. The 
  M  No  X 
Satin Flycatcher is found in tall forests, preferring 
wetter  habitats  such  as  heavily  forested  gullies, 
but  not  rainforests.  The  Satin  Flycatcher  is  a 
migratory  species,  moving  northwards  in  winter 
to northern Queensland and Papua New Guinea, 
returning south to breed in spring.  
Rhipidura  The  Rufous  Fantail  is  found  in  northern  and  Marginal  Unlikely: Preferred habitat for this species is 
rufifrons    M  eastern coastal Australia, being more common in  not  present  in  the  study.  This  is  a  highly  No  X 
Rufous Fantail  the north. The species is found in rainforest, dense  mobile migratory species. 

6385 Final V1  A‐XVII   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Species  TSC  EPBC  Ecology and distribution   Presence  Likelihood of occurrence  Possible  AoS? 

Act  Act  of  to be 
habitat  impacted? 
wet  forests,  swamp  woodlands  and  mangroves, 
preferring deep shade, and is often seen close to 
the ground. During migration, it may be found in 
more  open  habitats  or  urban  areas.  Strongly 
migratory  in  the  south  of  its  range,  it  moves 
northwards  in  winter,  and  virtually  disappears 
from Victoria and New South Wales at this time. 
For  nesting,  the  species  builds  a  small  compact 
cup nest, of fine grasses bound with spider webs, 
that is suspended from a tree fork about 5 m from 
the ground. The bottom of the nest is drawn out 
into a long stem. 
Mammals               
Dasyurus  The Spotted‐tailed Quoll inhabits a range of forest  Marginal  Unlikely: Foraging habitat in the study area 
maculatus  communities  including  wet  and  dry  sclerophyll  is marginal with the older forest to the east, 
Spotted‐tailed  forests, coastal heathlands and rainforests, more  likely to be more favoured. 
Quoll  frequently recorded near the ecotones of closed  Suitable  denning  habitat  features  such  as 
and  open  forest.  This  species  requires  habitat  logs  with  cryptic  entrances,  rock  outcrops, 
V  E  features such as logs with cryptic entrances, rock  No  X 
windrows  and  burrows  are  largely  absent 
outcrops,  windrows  and  burrows  for  use  as  from the site. 
maternal  den sites,  an  abundance  of food  (birds 
Given  this  and  the  highly  mobile  nature  of 
and small mammals) and large areas of relatively 
the  species,  the  potential  for  impacts  is 
intact vegetation to forage in.  
considered to be low.  
Phascolarcto  This species was historically abundant in the south  Marginal  Unlikely:  Primary  and  secondary  feed  tree 
cinereus  of  NSW,  although  now  occurs  in  sparse  and  species  for  the  Koala  were  not  observed 
Koala  possibly  disjunct  populations.  It  occurs  in  within  the  development  footprint  during 
V  V  woodland  communities,  coastal  forests,  field surveys. Some food trees are present in  No  X 
woodlands of the tablelands and western slopes  adjacent areas of contiguous remnant forest 
and  the  riparian  communities  of  the  western  outside  of  the  development  site.  Habitat 
plains  (NPWS,  2003b).  May  also  utilise  isolated  impacts are therefore not expected. 
paddock trees (NPWS, 2003b). Primary feed tree 

6385 Final V1  A‐XVIII   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Species  TSC  EPBC  Ecology and distribution   Presence  Likelihood of occurrence  Possible  AoS? 

Act  Act  of  to be 
habitat  impacted? 
species  listed  for  the  central  and  southern 
tablelands  are  Ribbon  Gum  and  River  Red  Gum, 
secondary  species  include  Candle  Bark,  Blakely’s 
Red Gum, White Box, Yellow Box and Brittle Gum 
(NPWS, 2003b). 
Pseudomys  Inhabits open heathlands, open woodlands with a  Absent  None: Suitable habitat is not present within 
novaehollandiae  heathland  understorey  and  vegetated  sand  the study area.  
New Holland  dunes.  Lives  predominantly  in  burrows  shared 
Mouse  with  other  individuals.  Breeding  typically  occurs 
  V  between August and January, but can extend into  No  X 
autumn.  Nocturnal  and  omnivorous,  feeding  on 
seeds,  insects,  leaves,  flowers  and  fungi,  and  is 
therefore likely to play an important role in seed 
dispersal and fungal spore dispersal. 
Pteropus  The Grey‐headed Flying‐fox inhabits a wide range  Absent  Possible:  Suitable  roosting  habitat  is  not 
poliocephalus  of  habitats  including  rainforest,  mangroves,  and  present  within  the  study  area.    No  camp 
Grey‐headed  V  V  paperbark  forests.  Camps  are  often  located  in  trees were observed, and the site supports  No  X 
Flying‐fox  gullies, typically close to water, in vegetation with  very  little  in  the  way  of  potentially  food 
a dense canopy.  resources for this species. 
Microbats               
Falsistrellus  Prefers moist habitats, with trees taller than 20 m;  Marginal  Possible:  The  development  footprint 
tasmaniensis  generally  roosting  in  eucalypt  hollows  or  under  supports a modified and largely cleared dry 
Eastern False  loose bark.   forest.  There are very few trees taller than 
V    Low  X 
Pipistrelle  20m  and  with  suitable  hollows  within  the 
development  footprint  that  are  subject  to 
removal. 
Miniopterus    Primarily  roosts  in  caves,  but  will  also  utilise  Absent  Unlikely:  Suitable  foraging  habitat  is 
schreibersii  derelict  mines,  storm‐water  tunnels  and  other  generally  absent  from  the  development 
V  No  X 
oceanensis  manmade  structures.  Utilises  maternity  caves  footprint,  although  may  be  present  in 
surrounding  forested  remnants.    No 

6385 Final V1  A‐XIX   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Species  TSC  EPBC  Ecology and distribution   Presence  Likelihood of occurrence  Possible  AoS? 

Act  Act  of  to be 
habitat  impacted? 
Eastern  with  specific  humidity.  Hunts  in  forested  areas  manmade  structures  likely  to  be  of  use  to 
Bentwing‐bat  above the tree tops.   this species for nesting sites were observed.
Reptiles               
Aprasia  Inhabits  sloping,  open  woodland  areas  with  Marginal  Unlikely.    The  site  supports  some  native 
parapulchella  predominantly  native  grassy  groundlayers,  grassland,  however  across  the  majority  of 
Pink‐tailed Worm  particularly  those  dominated  by  Kangaroo  Grass  the  site,  the  grassland  habitats  were 
Lizard  (Themeda australis).  considered  to  be  too  short/heavily  grazed 
Sites  are  typically  well‐drained,  with  rocky  and  lacked  any  typically  native  grassland 
outcrops or scattered, partially‐buried rocks.  structure,  and  with  little  or  no  Kangaroo 
Grass. 
V  V  The  rocky  outcrops  were  very  small  and  Low  X 
isolated,  and  consisted  primarily  of  buried 
rocks that had been exposed during pasture 
improvement  and  collected  into  small 
artificial piles.   
The  small  artificially  made  rocky  outcrops 
and modified grasslands are not considered 
to provide suitable habitat for this species. 
Delma impar  Found mainly in Natural Temperate Grassland but  Marginal  Unlikely.    The  site  supports  some  native 
Striped Legless‐ has also been captured in grasslands that have a  grassland,  however  across  the  majority  of 
lizard  high  exotic  component,  and  in  secondary  the  site,  the  grassland  habitats  were 
grassland near Natural Temperate Grassland and  considered  to  be  too  short/heavily  grazed 
occasionally in open Box‐Gum Woodland.  and  lacked  any  tussock  structure  required 
Habitat  is  where  grassland  is  dominated  by  by this species. 
V  V  Low  X 
perennial,  tussock‐forming  grasses  such  as  The  rocky  outcrops  were  very  small  and 
Kangaroo Grass, spear‐grasses and poa tussocks,  isolated,  and  consisted  primarily  of  buried 
and occasionally wallaby grasses.  rocks that had been exposed during pasture 
Sometimes  found  in  grasslands  with  significant  improvement  and  collected  into  small 
amounts  of  surface  rocks,  which  are  used  for  artificial piles.   
shelter. 

6385 Final V1  A‐XX   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Species  TSC  EPBC  Ecology and distribution   Presence  Likelihood of occurrence  Possible  AoS? 

Act  Act  of  to be 
habitat  impacted? 
The  small  artificially  made  rocky  outcrops 
and modified grasslands are not considered 
to provide suitable habitat for this species. 
Suta flagellum  Occurs  in  Natural  Temperate  Grasslands  and  Present  Possible.    The  site  supports  some  native 
Little Whip Snake  grassy woodlands, including those dominated by  grassland,  and  scattered  loos  rocks, 
Snow  Gum  or  Yellow  Box.    Also  occurs  in  however the areas of loos surface rock are 
secondary  grasslands  derived  from  clearing  of  not within the native grassland areas. 
woodlands.  The  rocks  are  generally  of  a  small  size  and 
Found on well drained hillsides, mostly associated  individually would not be suitable as shelter 
with scattered loose rocks.  Most specimens have  for  this  species.    Where  these  rocks  have 
V    been  found  under  rocks  or  logs  lying  on,  or  been  collected  into  small  (artificial)  piles,  Low  X 
partially embedded in the soil.  the  species  could  utilise  them,  however 
these  rock piles  are  located  within  pasture 
improved  paddocks,  and  so  may  not  be 
suitable  for  the  species.    Only  a  small 
number of these rock piles are present in the 
site, and therefore it is likely that even if the 
species  is  present  that  only  one  or  two 
individuals would be utilising the site. 
Varanus  Found in heath, open forest and woodland, where  Absent  Unlikely.    The  site  does  not  support  any 
rosenbergi  it  is  associated  with  termites,  the  mounds  of  termite  mounds  suitable  as  nest  sites  for 
Rosenberg’s  which this species nests in; termite mounds are a  laying eggs. 
Goanna  critical habitat component.  Suitable  hollow  logs  or  rock  crevices  for 
V    Individuals require large areas of habitat.  adult nesting sites are also absent from the  Low  X 
Shelters  in  hollow  logs,  rock  crevices  and  in  development site. 
burrows,  which  they  may  dig  for  themselves,  or 
they  may  use  other  species'  burrows,  such  as 
rabbit warrens. 

Key       

6385 Final V1  A‐XXI   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Species  TSC  EPBC  Ecology and distribution   Presence  Likelihood of occurrence  Possible  AoS? 

Act  Act  of  to be 
habitat  impacted? 
V: Vulnerable; E: Endangered; E*: Endangered population; CE: Critically Endangered; M: Migratory Terrestrial.  

   

6385 Final V1  A‐XXII   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

APPENDIX B FIELD SURVEY RESULTS 

B.1 FLORA SPECIES LIST 
Relative abundance is given by a cover abundance scale (modified Braun‐Blanquet): 
  1  1 to a few individuals present, less than 5% cover 
  2  many individuals present, but still less than 5% cover 
  3  5 ‐ < 20% cover 
  4  20 ‐ < 50% cover 
  5  50 ‐ < 75% cover 
6  75 ‐ 100% cover 
Cover/abundance scores relate to representative quadrats for Biometric plots and general abundance over 
the entire site for the random meander in which case a range of variables may be given. 
*Introduced species are preceded by an asterisk. 
 
   

6385 Final V1  B‐I 
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Scientific name Common name Family Abundance

DBP1 DBP2  DBP3 DBP4 DBP5 DBP6 DBP7 DBP8 RM 
Trees  
Acacia falciformis Broad‐leaved Hickory Fabaceae    X 
(Mimosoideae) 
Eucalyptus bridgesiana Apple Box  Myrtaceae   X 

Eucalyptus dives Broad‐leaved  Myrtaceae 3   3  

Peppermint 
Eucalyptus mannifera  Brittle Gum Myrtaceae 2   r  
subsp. mannifera 
Eucalyptus pauciflora Snow gum Myrtaceae   X 

Eucalyptus rossii Inland Scribbly Gum Myrtaceae   X 

Eucalyptus stellulata Black Sallee Myrtaceae   X 

Eucalyptus viminalis Ribbon Gum Myrtaceae   X 

Shrubs  
Acacia gunnii Ploughshare Wattle Fabaceae  +    
(Mimosoideae) 
Amyema pendula Mistletoe  Loranthaceae r    
Astroloma humifusum Native Cranberry Ericaceae   r  
Cassinia arcuata Sifton Bush Asteraceae r    
Hibbertia obtusifolia Grey Guinea Flower Dilleniaceae 1 r   
Melichrus urceolatus Urn Heath  Ericaceae 1 1   
*Rosa rubiginosa Sweet Briar Rosaceae   X 

6385 Final V1  B‐I   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Scientific name Common name Family Abundance

DBP1 DBP2  DBP3 DBP4 DBP5 DBP6 DBP7 DBP8 RM 
*Rubus fruticosus sp. agg.  Blackberry complex Rosaceae r  +  
Forbs  
*Acetosella vulgaris Sheep Sorrel Polygonaceae   r r 1  
*Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel Myrsinaceae   X 
*Arenaria leptoclados Lesser Thyme‐leaved  Caryophyllaceae   X 
Sandwort 
*Carthamus lanatus Saffron Thistle Asteraceae   1 r  
*Centaurium erythraea Common Centaury Gentianaceae r   
*Cerastium glomeratum  Mouse‐ear Chickweed Caryophyllaceae   X 
*Chondrilla juncea Skeleton Weed Asteraceae   r  
*Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle Asteraceae   r  
*Erodium cicutarium Storksbill  Geraniaceae   X 
Euchiton spp. A Cudweed Asteraceae r   
Gonocarpus tetragynus   Haloragaceae + 1   
Goodenia hederacea Forest Goodenia Goodeniaceae r    
Hydrocotyle laxiflora Stinking Pennywort Apiaceae   r r  
*Hypochaeris radicata Catsear  Asteraceae 1  1 1 1 1 +  
*Linaria pelisseriana Pellisser's Toadflax Scrophulariaceae   X 
Oxalis perennans   Oxalidaceae   X 
*Petrorhagia nanteuilii Proliferous Pink Caryophyllaceae +   
Poranthera microphylla  Small‐leaved  Phyllanthaceae r    
Poranthera 
Portulaca oleracea Pigwwed  Portulacaceae   X 
Rumex brownii Swamp Dock Polygonaceae   + r  
Scleranthus biflorus Knawel  Caryophyllaceae   +  
*Sisymbrium orientale Indian Hedge Mustard Brassicaceae   r  
*Stellaria media   Caryophyllaceae   X 

6385 Final V1  B‐II   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Scientific name Common name Family Abundance

DBP1 DBP2  DBP3 DBP4 DBP5 DBP6 DBP7 DBP8 RM 
*Trifolium arvense Haresfoot Clover Fabaceae (Faboideae)   X 

Wahlenbergia communis  Tufted Bluebell Campanulaceae   X 

Grasses  
*Agrostis capillaris Browntop Bent Poaceae   2 3 2 2  
*Aira spp.  A Hairgrass Poaceae 1   
*Anthoxanthum odoratum  Sweet Vernal Grass Poaceae 1  1 2 2 3  
Aristida ramosa Purple Wiregrass Poaceae +   
Austrostipa scabra subsp.  Corkscrew Grass Poaceae 1  2 2 1  
falcata 
Bothriochloa macra Red Grass  Poaceae   +  
*Bromus hordaceus Soft Brome Poaceae r   
*Cynodon dactylon Couch  Poaceae   +  
*Cynosaurus echinatus Dogs‐tail Grass Poaceae   r +  
*Dactylis glomerata Cocksfoot  Poaceae   1 1  
Echinopogon ovatus Hedgehog Grass Poaceae r    
Elymus scaber Common Wheatgrass Poaceae   1 1 r 1 1 r  
?Eragrostis leptostachya  Paddock Lovegrass Poaceae   1  
*Lolium perenne Perennial Ryegrass Poaceae   r  
Microlaena stipoides var.  Weeping Grass Poaceae r   2 1 r r 1  
stipoides 
*Nassella trichotoma Serrated Tussock Poaceae   X 
*Paspalum dilatatum Paspalum  Poaceae   X 
Panicum effusum Hairy Panic Poaceae r  r r  
Poa labillardieri River Tussock Poaceae   2  
Poa meionectes   Poaceae 1    

6385 Final V1  B‐III   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Scientific name Common name Family Abundance

DBP1 DBP2  DBP3 DBP4 DBP5 DBP6 DBP7 DBP8 RM 
Poa sieberiana var.  Snowgrass Poaceae +  r  
seiberiana 
Rytidosperma carphoides  Short Wallaby Grass Poaceae +   
Rytidosperma pallidum Red‐anther Wallaby  Poaceae 3 +   
Grass 
Rytidosperma racemosum  Wallaby Grass Poaceae 1  1 2 3 4  
Rytidosperma spp.   Poaceae   2 1 3  
*Setaria pumillo Pigeon Grass Poaceae   + r  
Themeda australis Kangaroo Grass Poaceae 4  4  
*Vulpia spp. Fescue  Poaceae   +  
Graminoids
Juncus subsecundus A Rush  Juncaceae   r  
Juncus usitatus A Rush  Juncaceae r  r r  
Lomandra filiformis subsp.  Wattle Matt‐rush Lomandraceae 1 2  1 r  
coriacea 
Luzula densiflora Woodrush Juncaceae r   r  
Schoenus apogon Fluke Bogrush Cyperaceae   X 

6385 Final V1  B‐IV   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

B.2 FLORA AND FAUNA SURVEY EFFORT AND RESULTS  
   

6385 Final V1  B‐I   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

R Gullen Range Wind Farm turbines

!
Existing Gullen Range Wind Farm
Substation
Gullen Range Wind Farm boundary
Gullen Solar Farm site boundary
) Biometric plots
"

Crown Road access to solar farm

Indicative access and cabling options to substation
Cabling and access option 1
Cabling and access option 2
DBP4
"
) Endangered Ecological Communities
"
)
DBP5 Tableland Basalt Forest in the Sydney Basin
and South Eastern Highlands Bioregions
Tablelands Snow Gum, Black Sallee, Candlebark
and Ribbon Gum Grassy Woodland in the South
Eastern Highlands, Sydney Basin, South East
DBP6
DBP3 "
) Corner and NSW South Western Slopes
"
) DBP7
"
) Bioregions
DBP8
"
) Vegetation type
Brittle Gum - Inland Scribbly Gum dry forest
Brittle Gum dry forest derived grassland
DBP2
"
) Exotic pasture
DBP1
Planted Pine shelter belt
"
)
Planted native vegetation
POM_01 Ribbon Gum - Narrow-leaved Peppermint Forest
R
! Ribbon Gum forest derived grassland
Snow Gum - Candlebark woodland

POM_02
R
! POM_05 0 100 200 400 Metres
R
!

POM_03
R
!
POM_04
Notes:
Indicative layout and subject to change
Ref:6385 Flora v3
Author: JB °
R
! - Data collected by nghenvironmental (April 2015)
- Aerial imagery Copyright Google Earth 2015
- Layout layers provided by Goldwind www.nghenvironm en tal.com .au  
Figure B‐1 Flora Survey Effort and Results 

6385 Final V1  B‐I   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

R Gullen Range Wind Farm turbines

!
16 Gullen Range Wind Farm boundary
15
(Pomeroy precinct)
14
Existing Gullen Range Wind Farm
13
Substation
12
10 Gullen Solar Farm site boundary
15 16 9 11
14 8 Development Envelope (including
13
12 10 access tracks and cabling to Storriers
9 811 Lane and south to substation) of
approx. 64Ha
Crown Road access to solar farm
Indicative access and cabling options to substation
17
Cabling and access option 1
19 Cabling and access option 2
*18
# 20 21 Fauna effort
#22
* ) Tile survey
"
30
23 * Stagwatching
#
)
" 24 25 26
@
29 28 Fauna results
7 g
h
27
)
" g Nest
h
6
Hollow-bearing tree
2 53 Rocky outcrops
4
1
POM_01
R
!

POM_02
R
! POM_05 0 100 200 400 Metres
R
!

°
Indicative layout and subject to change Ref: 6385 Fauna v3
POM_04 Author: JB
R
!
POM_03
R
! Notes:
- Data collelcted by NGH Environmental (2015)
- Aerial imagery copyright Google Earth 2015
- Layout layers provided by Goldwind www .nghenvironm en tal.com .au
 
Figure B‐2 Fauna Survey Effort and Results   

6385 Final V1  B‐II   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

B.3 HOLLOW‐BEARING TREE INVENTORY 
Tree  Species DBH  Height  Hollows Condition  Features Comments
No  (cm)  (m)  Small Medium Large
1  Eucalyptus mannifera  60  16  2  ‐  ‐  Live  Worn entrances  Possible removal for cabling and 
access 
2  Eucalyptus dives  80  10  1  3  2  Dead  ‐  Possible removal for cabling and 
access 
3  Eucalyptus mannifera  90  16  2  ‐  ‐  Live  ‐  Possible removal for cabling and 
access 
4  Eucalyptus mannifera  60  12  2  4  ‐  Dead  Ringtail possum observed  Possible removal for cabling and 
access 
5  Eucalyptus dives  120  10  P1  ‐  ‐  Dead  ‐  Possible removal for cabling and 
access 
6  Eucalyptus mannifera  80  12  ‐  1  ‐  Live  ‐  Possible removal for cabling and 
access 
7  Eucalyptus viminalis  100  20  2  2  ‐  Live  ‐  Possible removal for cabling and 
access 
8  Eucalyptus viminalis  120  18  4  3  ‐  Live  ‐  Possible removal for road access 

9  Eucalyptus viminalis  50  14  2  ‐  ‐  Live  ‐  Possible removal for road access 

10  Eucalyptus viminalis  160  20  2  ‐  ‐  Live  ‐  Possible removal for road access 

11  Eucalyptus viminalis  100  10  ‐  3  1  Live  ‐  Possible removal for road access 

12  Eucalyptus viminalis  80  12  2  2  ‐  Live  ‐  Possible removal for road access 

13  Eucalyptus viminalis  100  15  5  4  2  Live  ‐  Possible removal for road access 

14  Eucalyptus viminalis  200  15  4  2  1  Live  ‐  Possible removal for road access 

15  Eucalyptus viminalis  100  10  ‐  3  3  Dead  ‐  Possible removal for road access 

6385 Final V1  B‐I   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Tree  Species DBH  Height  Hollows Condition  Features Comments

No  (cm)  (m)  Small Medium Large
16  Eucalyptus viminalis  180  18  ‐  2  1  Live  ‐  Possible removal for road access 

17  Eucalyptus viminalis  150  10  ‐  ‐  1  Live  ‐  Removal‐ within solar array footprint 

18  Eucalyptus mannifera  100  15  ‐  ‐  1  Live  ‐  Removal‐ within solar array footprint 

19  Eucalyptus mannifera  100  15  1  ‐  ‐  Live  ‐  Removal‐ within solar array footprint 

20  Eucalyptus mannifera  90  15  1  1  1  Live  Worn at base of large  Removal‐ within solar array footprint 

hollow 
21  Stag  100  6  4  ‐  ‐  Dead  Dam nearby  Removal‐ within solar array footprint 

22  Eucalyptus mannifera  100  18  ‐  ‐  1  Live  Dam nearby  Removal‐ within solar array footprint 

23  Eucalyptus viminalis  100  20  2  2  ‐  Live  ‐  Removal‐ within solar array footprint 

24  Eucalyptus mannifera  30  15  1  ‐  ‐  Live  ‐  Retained within adjacent woodland 

25  Eucalyptus mannifera  50  15  ‐  1  ‐  Live  ‐  Retained within adjacent woodland 

26  Eucalyptus mannifera  70  10  ‐  1  ‐  Live  ‐  Retained within adjacent woodland 

27  Eucalyptus dives  110  10  ‐  1  ‐  Live  ‐  Retained within adjacent woodland 

28  Stag  40  6  ‐  1  ‐  Dead  Trunk hollow  Retained within adjacent woodland 

29  Eucalyptus mannifera  50  10  1  1  ‐  Live  Trunk hollow  Retained within adjacent woodland 

30  Eucalyptus dives  100  12  ‐  1  1  Live  Some fallen timber at base  Removal‐ within solar array footprint 

 
 

   

6385 Final V1  B‐II   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

B.4 FAUNA SPECIES LIST 
Note: Some species that were heard only may have occurred outside of the proposal footprint.   

Scientific name  Common name  Observation Method 

Amphibians
Crinia signifera  Common Eastern Froglet  Heard 
Crinia parinsignifera  Beeping Froglet  Heard 
Limnodynastes dumerili  Eastern Banjo Frog/Pobblebonk  Heard 
Limnodynastes peronii  Striped Marsh Frog  Heard 
Limnodynastes tasmaniensis  Spotted Marsh Frog  Heard 
Litoria peronei  Peron’s Tree Frog  Heard 
Verreaux's Tree Frog/Whistling 
Litoria verreauxii  Heard 
Tree Frog 
Uperoleia laevigata  Smooth Toadlet  Heard 
Birds 
Acanthiza chrysorrhoa  Yellow‐rumped Thornbill  Observed 
Anthochaera carunculata  Red Wattlebird  Observed 
Anthus novaeseelandiae  Australasian Pipit  Observed 
Artamus cyanopterus  Dusky Woodswallow  Observed 
Cacatua galerita  Sulphur‐crested Cockatoo  Observed 
Calyptorhynchus funereus  Yellow‐tailed Black Cockatoo  Observed/heard (flying over site) 
Chenonetta jubata  Australian Wood (Maned) Duck  Observed 
Coracina novaehollandiae  Black‐faced Cuckoo‐shrike  Observed 
Corvus coronoides  Australian Raven  Observed 
Cracticus tibicen  Australian Magpie  Observed 
Dacelo novaeguineae  Laughing Kookaburra  Observed/Heard 
Egretta (Ardea) novaehollandiae  White‐faced Heron  Observed 
Eolophus roseicapillus  Galah  Heard 
Falco cenchroides  Nankeen (Australian) Kestrel  Observed 
Grallina cyanoleuca  Magpie‐lark  Observed 
Malurus cyaneus  Superb Fairywren  Observed/heard 
Microcarbo (Phalacrocorax) melanoleucos  Little Pied Cormorant  Observed 
Microeca fascinans  Jacky Winter  Observed/Heard 
Ninox novaeseelandiae (boobook)  Southern Boobook  Observed/Heard 
*Passer domesticus  House Sparrow  Observed 
Philemon corniculatus  Noisy Friarbird  Observed/heard 
Platycercus elegans  Crimson Rosella  Observed/heard 
Platycercus eximilis  Eastern Rosella  Observed 
Rhipidura leucophrys  Willy Wagtail   
Strepera graculina  Pied Currawong  Observed/heard 
*Sturnus vulgaris  Common Starling  Observed 
Zosterops lateralis  Silvereye  Observed 
Mammals
*Lepus europaeus  European Hare  Observed 

6385 Final V1  B‐I   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

Scientific name  Common name  Observation Method 

Macropus giganteus  Eastern Grey Kangaroo  Observed 

*Oryctolagus cuniculus  European or Common Rabbit  Observed 
Tachyglossus aculeatus  Echidna  Observed 
Vombatus ursinus  Common Wombat  Evidence of Use (burrows) 
*Vulpes vulpes  European Red Fox  Observed 
Wallabia bicolor  Swamp Wallaby  Observed 
Reptiles
Ctenotus robustus  Eastern Striped Skink  Observed 
Hemiergis decresiensis   Three‐toed Skink  Observed 
Lampropholis delicata  Grass Skink  Observed 
Pseudonaja textilis  Eastern Brown Snake  Observed 
*Introduced Species 

   

6385 Final V1  B‐II   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

APPENDIX C ASSESSMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 
Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) specifies seven factors to 
be taken into account in deciding whether a development is likely to significantly affect threatened species, 
populations or ecological communities, or their habitats.  
The following Assessment of Significance assesses the significance of the likely impacts associated with 
the Capital Solar Farm Proposal on Endangered Ecological Communities and threatened flora and fauna 
species declared under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act). Species and 
communities listed as threatened under the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity 
Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) have also been included in the assessment.  
The following threatened species and communities have been included in the Assessment of Significance: 
Endangered Ecological Communities 

 Tableland Basalt Forest in the Sydney Basin and South Eastern Highlands Bioregions 
 Tablelands Snow Gum, Black Sallee, Candlebark and Ribbon Gum Grassy Woodland in the 
South Eastern Highlands, Sydney Basin, South East Corner and NSW South Western Slopes 
Bioregions  
 
FLORA AND ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES 

a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse 
effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of the species is likely to 
be placed at risk of extinction 

Not applicable. 

b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to have an 
adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered population such 
that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction 

No  populations  have  been  listed  for  the  local  area  under  Part  2  of  Schedule  1  of  the  TSC  Act  or  Part  2  of 
Schedule 4 of the FM Act. 
   

6385 Final V1  C‐I   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

c) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological 
community, whether the action proposed: 
i) is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its 
local occurrence is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction, or 
ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological 
community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction 

Tableland Basalt Forest 
I. The proposal will impact on up to 8.7 hectares of mostly low diversity native grasslands that 
are derived from the clearing of Tableland basalt Forest. This is a worst case scenario assuming 
the total loss of this vegetation when in reality this is unlikely to be the case. Large areas of 
the community in similar condition along with patches that include overstorey species occur 
adjacent to the proposal site and across the broader locality which would not be impacted by 
the  proposal.  The  worst  case  scenario  assessed  here  is  considered  unlikely  to  reduce  the 
extent of the local occurrence such that it would be placed at risk of extinction. 
II. As  discussed  in  section  5,  the  shading  effects  of  the  PV  array  are  likely  to  result  in  the 
dominance of C3 grasses such as Wallaby Grasses, Spear and Corkscrew Grass, Wheat Grass, 
Weeping Grass, Hairy Panic and the noxious weed Serrated Tussock over C4 grasses such as 
Kangaroo Grass and Red Grass. With respect to native groundcover, C3 grasses are already 
dominant within the community. It is likely that there will be some alterations to the relative 
abundance  of  grass  species  within  the  study  area  however,  given  that  the  community  is 
already highly modified this is not considered to be important. Recommendations to manage 
weeds  are  included  in  Section  6  and  with  the  implementation  of  these  recommendations, 
weeds are unlikely to adversely modify the composition of the community such that its local 
occurrence would be placed at risk of extinction.  
Tablelands Snow Gum, Black Sallee, Candlebark and Ribbon Gum Grassy Woodland 
I. The proposal may impact on up to 0.8 hectares of this community in the far east of the site 
however, as discussed in Section 5, it is unlikely that the final design would include this area. 
The  worst  case  scenario  would  be  that  two  trees  would  require  clearing  along  with  the 
removal  of  up  to  0.8  hectares  of  highly  disturbed  low  diversity  derived  grassland.  The 
community was observed to occur to the north and south of the proposal site along Saw Pit 
Creek and the loss of up to 0.8 hectares of the community in a highly disturbed state would 
be unlikely to place this local occurrence at risk of extinction.  
II. The conclusions reached for the Tablelands Basalt Forest above are also considered relevant 
to  the  Tablelands  Snow  Gum,  Black  Sallee,  Candlebark  and  Ribbon  Gum  Grassy  Woodland 
within the proposal site. 

d) in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community: 
i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action 
proposed, and 
ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas 
of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and 
iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated, to the 
long‐term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality 

Tableland Basalt Forest 
I. Up  to  8.65  hectares  of  this  community  could  be  impacted  by  the  proposal  of  which  8.62 
hectares is comprised of highly disturbed low diversity derived grassland. Impact calculations 
based on GIS mapping identified that up to 0.03 hectares of overstorey vegetation may be 
impacted. This is due to the mapped vegetation polygons included areas between trees but in 
reality it is unlikely that any trees would require removal and impacts to overstorey vegetation 
would be restricted to the trimming of the canopy for clearances if required. 

6385 Final V1  C‐II   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

II. As the proposal would impact almost entirely on low diversity derived grasslands, it would not 
result in any further fragmentation of existing remnants of the community or result in isolation 
of these remnants. It would not present a barrier to the dispersal of any flora or fauna species 
that comprise the community in the local area.  
III. In view of the long grazing history, the derived grasslands at the proposed solar farm site is 
unlikely to be capable of recovering flora diversity unassisted. Many native grassy understorey 
species do not appear to form a long term seed bank in the soil. This is supported by the results 
of experiments with daisy and lily species (Lunt 1990) and by the loss of species diversity which 
results  from  the  absence  of  fire  for  periods  greater  than  7‐10  years  (Scarlett  and  Parsons 
1990).  There  are  large  areas  of  the  community  in  similar  condition  and  patches  with  an 
overstorey present in the surrounding landscape that would not be impacted by the proposal. 
As such, the worst case loss of up to 8.65 hectares of highly disturbed low diversity derived 
grassland  is  not  considered  important  to  the  long  term  survival  of  the  community  in  the 
locality. 
Tablelands Snow Gum, Black Sallee, Candlebark and Ribbon Gum Grassy Woodland 
I. The proposal may impact on up to 0.8 hectares of this community. The worst case scenario 
would result in the loss of two trees and up to 0.8 hectares of highly disturbed low diversity 
derived grassland. 
II. Impacts would occur to disturbed vegetation on the western extent of the local occurrence. 
The proposal would not result in any fragmentation or isolation of habitat for the community. 
III. The loss of two Black Sallee trees is not considered important to the long‐term survival of the 
local occurrence. With regards to the importance of the ground cover habitat, the conclusions 
reached for the Tablelands Basalt Forest above are also considered relevant to the Tablelands 
Snow Gum, Black Sallee, Candlebark and Ribbon Gum Grassy Woodland within the proposal 
site. 

e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly 
or indirectly) 

No areas of critical habitat have been declared within the locality. 

f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or action of a recovery plan or threat 
abatement plan 

No recovery or threat abatement plans have been prepared for the Tablelands Basalt Forest and Tablelands 
Snow Gum, Black Sallee, Candlebark and Ribbon Gum Grassy Woodland EECs. 

g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result 
in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process  

Two listed Key Threatening Processes are relevant to the impacts on EECs:
1. Clearing of native vegetation. In the determination, the NSW Scientific Committee found that ‘clearing 
of any area of native vegetation, including areas less than two ha in extent, may have significant impacts 
on biological diversity’. Clearing can lead to direct habitat loss, habitat fragmentation and associated 
genetic impacts, habitat degradation, loss of the leaf litter layer increased habitat for invasive species 
and off‐site impacts such as downstream sedimentation. The proposal would not contribute significantly 
to the operation of clearing as a threatening process at the local or regional level, since the bulk of the 
subject  site  is  already  cleared  of  tree  cover  and  given  the  depauperate  condition  of  the  derived 
grasslands that would be affected by the works. 
2. Invasion of native vegetation by exotic perennial grasses. The Tablelands Basalt Forest and Tablelands 
Snow  Gum,  Black  Sallee,  Candlebark  and  Ribbon  Gum  Grassy  Woodland  EECs  are  vulnerable  to  the 
introduction  and  spread  of  perennial  grasses  such  as  African  Love  Grass,  Serrated  Tussock,  Phalaris, 
Cocksfoot, Yorkshire Fog and Paspalum. Serrated Tussock is a significant problem in areas adjacent to 

6385 Final V1  C‐III   
 Biodiversity Assessment 
Gullen Solar Farm – Biodiversity Assessment 

the  proposal  site  and  is  readily  spread  by  wind  and  stock.  Safeguards  have  been  included  in  the  in 
Section 6 to ensure that risks to these communities on and off the site are minimised. Given best practice 
weed hygiene and control during and following the works, this KTP is not likely to be exacerbated by the 
proposed works. 

 
Conclusion 
Tablelands Basalt Forest 
Considering  the  worst  case  scenario,  up  to  8.65  hectares  of  this  community  could  be  impacted  by  the 
proposal of which 8.62 hectares is comprised of highly disturbed low diversity derived grassland. Impact 
calculations based on GIS mapping identified that up to 0.03 hectares of overstorey vegetation may be 
impacted however, this is unlikely to require the removal of trees and would be limited to the trimming of 
the canopy if required for clearances. The proposal is unlikely to substantially modify the composition of 
the community such that it would threaten the viability of the local occurrence. 
The proposal would be unlikely to result in the fragmentation or isolation of remnants of the community 
and would not present a barrier to the dispersal of any flora or fauna species that comprise the community 
in the local area. The habitat to be impacted is not considered to be important habitat. 
Given  the  highly  disturbed  and  modified  nature  of  the  vegetation  to  be  impacted  and  that  similar 
vegetation is widespread in areas adjacent to the proposal site and in the local area, the worst case loss of 
8.7 hectares is not considered to be significant. Further, in reality, impacts are likely to be considerably less. 
Tablelands Snow Gum, Black Sallee, Candlebark and Ribbon Gum Grassy Woodland 
The proposal may impact on up to 0.8 hectares of this community. The worst case scenario would result in 
the loss of two trees and up to 0.8 hectares of highly disturbed low diversity derived grassland. The proposal 
is  unlikely  to  substantially  modify  the  composition  of  the  community  such  that  it  would  threaten  the 
viability of the local occurrence. 
Impacts would occur to disturbed vegetation on the western extent of the local occurrence. The proposal 
would not result in any fragmentation or isolation of habitat for the community. 
The worst case scenario would result in the loss of two Black Sallee trees which is not considered important 
to the long‐term survival of the local occurrence. Groundcover vegetation is comprised of low diversity 
derived  grassland  widespread  in  the  local  area.  Given  the  highly  disturbed  and  modified  nature  of  the 
vegetation to be impacted and that the community was observed to extent further north and south of the 
proposal site along Sawpit Creek, the worst case loss of 0.8 hectares is not considered to be significant. 
 
 
 
 

6385 Final V1  C‐IV   
 New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd ACN 106044366
__________________________________________________________

Final
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Date: November 2015

Author: Dr Julie Dibden
Proponent: Gullen Solar Farm Pty Ltd
Local Government Area: Upper Lachlan Shire Council

www.nswarchaeology.com.au
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY....................................................................................................................1
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................4
1.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................4
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA – BACKGROUND INFORMATION .....................7
2.1 THE PHYSICAL SETTING OR LANDSCAPE ................................................................7
2.2 HISTORY OF PEOPLES LIVING ON THE LAND ....................................................... 10
2.3 MATERIAL EVIDENCE .......................................................................................... 15
2.3.1 Previous Environmental Impact Assessment ................................................... 19
2.3.2 Predictive Model of Aboriginal Site Distribution .............................................. 23
2.3.3 Field Inspection – Methodology ....................................................................... 29
2.3.4 Field Inspection – Results ................................................................................ 32
3. CONSULTATION PROCESS................................................................................... 60
4. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................... 62
5. CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUES AND STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ...... 63
5.1 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................................. 64
6. THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY ................................................................................. 67
6.1 PROPOSED IMPACTS ............................................................................................. 67
6.2 TYPE OF HARM .................................................................................................... 68
7. AVOIDING AND/OR MINIMISING HARM ........................................................... 70
7.1 MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES - OPTIONS ..................................... 70
7.1 MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES ...................................................... 72
8. STATUTORY INFORMATION .............................................................................. 74
9. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 75
10. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 77
GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................. 84
APPENDIX 1 ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS ............................... 85
APPENDIX 1 ABORIGINAL SITE MAPS ................................................................. 95
 TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 The layout of the proposed Gullen Solar Project (map supplied by the
proponent). .................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2 Location of previously recorded Aboriginal sites (AHIMS Sites and sites
recorded by Jackie Taylor, OEH)..................................................................................18
Figure 3 Location of Survey Units in respect of proposed layout. ..................................35
Figure 4 Location of Aboriginal locales in respect of proposed layout. ...........................36

TABLE OF PLATES

Plate 1 Gullen Solar Farm Site 1; looking 150°. .............................................................38

Plate 2 Gullen Solar Farm Site 2; looking 180°. .............................................................39
Plate 3 Gullen Solar Farm Site 2; looking 70°. Note, terrace to east of site denoted with
an arrow. ......................................................................................................................39
Plate 4 Gullen Solar Farm Site 3; looking 180°. .............................................................40
Plate 5 Gullen Solar Farm Site 4; looking 80°. ...............................................................40
Plate 6 Gullen Solar Farm Site 5; looking 110°. .............................................................41
Plate 7 GSF Site 5 - Broken ground edge hatchet head: plan view. ................................41
Plate 8 GSF Site 5 - Broken ground edge hatchet head: ground edge .............................41
Plate 9 Gullen Solar Farm Site 6; looking 90°. ...............................................................42
Plate 10 Gullen Solar Farm Site 7; looking 220°. Note, artefact under tree to left of
figure. ...........................................................................................................................43
Plate 11 GSF Site 7 - Broken ground edge hatchet head: plan view. ..............................43
Plate 12 GSF Site 7 - Broken ground edge hatchet head: damaged ground edge. ............43
Plate 13 Gullen Solar Farm Site 8; looking 140°. Note, artefact at figure with ranging
pole. .............................................................................................................................44
Plate 14 Gullen Solar Farm Site 9; looking 180°. Note, artefact at paperwork on ground
near ranging pole. .........................................................................................................44
Plate 15 Gullen Solar Farm Site 10; looking 130°...........................................................45
Plate 16 Gullen Solar Farm Site 11; looking 260°...........................................................46
Plate 17 Gullen Solar Farm Site 12; looking 180°...........................................................46
Plate 18 Gullen Solar Farm Site 12: artefacts. ...............................................................47
Plate 19 Gullen Solar Farm Site 13; looking 210°...........................................................47
Plate 20 Gullen Solar Farm Site 13: artefact in situ. ......................................................48
Plate 21 Gullen Solar Farm Site 14; looking 30°. Dashed line indicates extent of
landform.......................................................................................................................48
Plate 22 Milky quartz outcrops in Gullen Solar Farm Site 14; looking 120°. ...................49
Plate 23 Gullen Solar Farm Site 14; Hertzian cone fractures on milky quartz boulder. ...49
Plate 24 Gullen Solar Farm Site 15; looking 100°...........................................................50
Plate 25 Gullen Solar Farm Site 15. Example of two artefacts including milky quartz
bipolar core...................................................................................................................50
Plate 26 Gullen Solar Farm Site 16; looking 220°...........................................................51
Plate 27 Gullen Solar Farm Site 16: ?greywackie outcrop; looking north. ......................51
Plate 28 Gullen Solar Farm Site 16: bifacially flaked edge on ?greywackie outcrop. .......52
Plate 29 Gullen Solar Farm Site 17; looking 90°. ...........................................................52
Plate 30 Gullen Solar Farm Site 18; looking 90°. ...........................................................53
Plate 31 Gullen Solar Farm Site 19; looking 180°...........................................................54
Plate 32 Gullen Solar Farm Site 20; looking 90°. ...........................................................54
Plate 33 Gullen Solar Farm Site 21; looking 250°...........................................................55
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 List of AHIMS Aboriginal sites.........................................................................17

Table 2 Description of Survey Units..............................................................................33
Table 3 List of Aboriginal object sites in the subject area. .............................................37
Table 4 Stone artefacts recorded in subject area. ...........................................................56
Table 5 Archaeological significance of Aboriginal object locales in the subject area. .......64
Table 6 Impact Assessment. ..........................................................................................68
Table 7 Management and mitigation strategies for each Survey Unit. ...........................72
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

SUMMARY

This summary presents an overview of the legislative context, proposed impacts, subject
area, and study aims, conclusions and recommendations.

The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act) is the primary legislation for the
protection of some aspects of Aboriginal cultural heritage in NSW. One of the objectives
of the NPW Act is:
… the conservation of objects, places or features (including biological diversity) of
cultural value within the landscape, including but not limited to: (i) places,
objects and features of significance to Aboriginal people … (s.2A(1)(b)).

Part 6 of the NPW Act is administered by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage
(NSW OEH) and provides specific protection for Aboriginal objects and declared
Aboriginal places by establishing offences of harm. Harm is defined to mean destroying,
defacing or damaging an Aboriginal object or declared Aboriginal place, or moving an
object from the land. Anyone proposing to carry out an activity that may harm an
Aboriginal object or declared Aboriginal place must investigate, assess and report on
harm that may be caused.

An Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) may be required if harm to Aboriginal

objects and/or declared Aboriginal places is proposed. When this is the case, an
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (ACHAR) is necessary to support the
AHIP application.

This ACHAR is prepared for Gullen Solar Farm Pty Ltd who propose to construct a solar
photovoltaic (PV) plant of up to 11 megawatt (MW) capacity (‘the project’) south of
Crookwell in south-eastern New South Wales (the subject area). Aboriginal object sites
are known to be present and, accordingly, an AHIP is required. NSW Archaeology Pty
Ltd has been engaged to prepare an ACHAR to support an AHIP application.

The assessment has been conducted in accordance with the NSW Office of Environment
and Heritage’s Guide to investigating, assessing and reporting on Aboriginal cultural heritage
in NSW (OEH 2011) and Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal
Objects in New South Wales (NSW DECCW 2010a).

A process of Aboriginal community consultation has been undertaken in accordance with

the guidelines as set out in OEH’s Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation requirements for
proponents 2010 (NSW DECCW 2010b). There are three Registered Aboriginal Parties for
the process of consultation conducted for the project.

The study has sought to identify and record Aboriginal cultural areas, objects or places,
assess the archaeological potential of the proposal area and formulate management
recommendations based on the results of the community consultation, background
research and a significance assessment.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 1

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

A search of the NSW OEH Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System

(AHIMS) has been conducted for this project (AHIMS Reference: 192262). Some 18
Aboriginal object sites are listed for the search area, all of which were recorded during the
2007 survey of the Gullen Range Wind Farm.

A field survey for Aboriginal areas, objects and places has been undertaken. Twenty one
Aboriginal objects locales are present in the proposal area.

As a result of the assessment the following conclusions and recommendations are made
(see Section 7 for detailed recommendations in regard to management and mitigation):

o There are no archaeological heritage constraints in regard to the proposed activity,

however, no harm should occur to any Aboriginal objects within the development
area unless an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) has been issued by
NSW OEH.

o No further archaeological investigations are required in respect of the proposal.

o Management and mitigation strategies are set out in Section 7. These strategies
should be used to formulate appropriate conditions in the Development Approval
process.

It is recommended that a management strategy of active conservation be

implemented in regard to GSF 14, GSF 16 and the terrace east of GSF 2. This
would act as a form of impact mitigation to off-set overall development impacts. If
conservation is not feasible, salvage excavation would be an appropriate form of
impact mitigation.

o A Cultural Heritage Management Plan should be developed for the appropriate

management and mitigation of development impacts during any further planning
and project construction. The development of an appropriate Cultural Heritage
Management Plan should be undertaken by the project archaeologist in
consultation with the proponent, registered Aboriginal parties and the NSW Office
of Environment and Heritage.

The Cultural Heritage Management Plan would be prepared to guide the process
for the management and mitigation of impacts to Aboriginal cultural heritage and
to set out procedures relating to the conduct of additional archaeological
assessment, if required.

o Personnel involved in the construction and management phases of the project

should be trained in procedures to implement recommendations relating to cultural
heritage, as necessary.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 2

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

o Cultural heritage should be included within any environmental audit of impacts

proposed to be undertaken during the construction phase of the development.

Acknowledgments

Julie Dibden, NSW Archaeology Pty Ltd, acknowledges the assistance in this project
provided by:
Brooke Marshall, nghenvironmental
Glen Freeman, Gulgunya Ngunawal Heritage Aboriginal Consultancy, for assistance
with field work

Archaeological evidence confirms that Aboriginal people have had a long and continuous
association with the region for thousands of years. We would in particular like to acknowledge
and pay our respects to the traditional owners of the country which is encompassed by the
proposal.
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 3
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Gullen Solar Farm Pty Ltd proposes to construct a solar photovoltaic (PV) plant of up to
11 megawatt (MW) capacity south of Crookwell in south-eastern New South Wales. The
subject area is adjacent to the 165.5 MW Gullen Range Wind Farm. The development of
additional renewable energy infrastructure at this location would make use of existing
electricity generation and transmission infrastructure used for the wind farm.

A Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) has been prepared by NGH Environmental

on behalf of Gullen Solar Farm Pty Ltd. This Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment
report forms a component of the SEE and will support the application for an AHIP.

The SEE has been prepared in line with Environmental Planning and Assessment
Regulation 2000, in support of a Development Application (DA) to Upper Lachlan Shire
Council under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A
Act). Being private infrastructure with a capital cost of over $5 million, the project
would be deemed regional development under the provisions of Part 4 clause 20 of the
State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011. Given
these provisions, the final determination of the application would be made by the
Southern Region Joint Planning Panel.

The subject area is situated to the north of the Pomeroy precinct boundary of the Gullen
Range Wind Farm and covers an area of approximately 25 hectares. The land has been
acquired by Goulbourn Land (subsidiary of Goldwind) and earmarked for the
construction and operation of the solar farm.

The proposal is comprised of the installation and construction, operation and

decommissioning of the following infrastructure:
o Approximately 40,000 solar PV panel modules (indicative module size 992
mm by 1956 mm in area, standing up to 3-4m high).
o Panel support frames, supported by posts either driven or concreted into the
ground.
o 1000-1500 Volt junction boxes.
o 5 or 6 x 1.8 MW – 2 MW inverters and step up transformers, to convert direct
current (DC) electricity produced by the solar panel modules into alternating
current (AC) capable of being connected to the existing electrical substation.
o Up to 3 km of 33 kilovolt (kV) underground reticulation (cabling to the
existing substation).
o 33 kV switchgear within the existing Wind Farm switchroom (to allow
connection to the existing substation).
o Minor earthworks.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 4

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

o Access roads up to 8m wide. These would provide site access from the north-
west, access to the substation, to the south-west, as well as internal access
around the arrays.
o A central control and monitoring system.
o The entire facility will be fenced with a 2.4m high chain mesh fence.

The aim of this Aboriginal heritage project is to:

o provide an assessment of the cultural and archaeological significance of the
Aboriginal objects and the subject area;
o document the nature of the impact;
o formulate appropriate management and mitigation strategies for all stakeholders
to consider;
o provide the necessary documentation to support an AHIP determination.

The content and format of this report is set out in accordance with the NSW OEH (2011)
Guide to investigating, assessing and reporting on Aboriginal cultural heritage in NSW
document. The report aims to document:
o The Aboriginal objects and declared Aboriginal places (as relevant) located within
the area of the proposed activity;
o The cultural heritage values, including the significance of the Aboriginal objects
and declared Aboriginal places that exist across the whole area that will be affected
by the proposed activity, and the significance of these values for the Aboriginal
people who have a cultural association with the land;
o How the requirements for consultation with Aboriginal people have been met (as
specified in clause 80C of the NPW Regulation);
o The views of those Aboriginal people regarding the likely impact of the proposed
activity on their cultural heritage (if any submissions have been received as a part
of the consultation requirements, these are included and our response outlined);
o The actual or likely harm posed to the Aboriginal objects or declared Aboriginal
places from the proposed activity, with reference to the cultural heritage values
identified;
o Any practical measures that may be taken to protect and conserve those
Aboriginal objects or declared Aboriginal places; and
o Any practical measures that may be taken to avoid or mitigate any actual or likely
harm, alternatives to harm, or, if this is not possible, to manage (minimise) harm.

The cultural heritage assessment has been managed by Julie Dibden (Australian National
University: BA with honours; PhD), NSW Archaeology Pty Ltd. The field work
component has been conducted by Julie Dibden and Tom Knight, NSW Archaeology Pty
Ltd, and Glen Freeman, Gulgunya Ngunawal Heritage Aboriginal Consultancy, a
Registered Aboriginal Party.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 5

 Gullen Solar Project
 
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report
 
!
R
!

R
!
R
! (
!
(
! (
!
R
!
R
! (
!
R
!

R
!
R
! R
!

R
! ( !
! (
(
!

r La n e
(
!

Ba n niste
!!
((
(
!
(
! Le a hy L Ra ng
(
!
a ne e Ro a
(
!
(
!
(!
! ( d
!
( (
! (
! Walko m
s L a ne

L an e
(
! (
!
(
!
(
!

Sto rr ie rs
(
!

(
!
(
! (
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
e

(
! (
!
an
Price s L

(
! R
!

R
! R
!
R
!
R
!
(
!
(
!

R
!

(
! R
!

R
!
R
!
R
!

R
! R
!
R
!
R
! R
!
Indicative layout and subject to change
d
oa
Notes: yR
R
!
- Aerial imagery Copyright Google Earth 2015 m er o
- Layout layers provided by Goldwind R
! Po
- Transport layers sourced from ESRI
R
!
(
! Residences Lot 100 DP1026064
Lot boundaries Crown Road access to solar farm 0 200 400 800 Meters

Existing 330kV transmission line Development Envelope (including

Gullen Range Wind Farm turbines access tracks and cabling to Storriers

°
R
! Ref:6385 2-1 v3
Existing Gullen Range Wind Farm Lane and south to substation) of Author: JB
Substation approx. 64Ha
Gullen Range Wind Farm boundary Proposed road upgrades
(Lot 2 DP 1168750) Gullen Solar Farm site boundary
(Lot 1 DP 1196222) www.nghenvironm ental. com .au
 
Figure 1 The layout of the proposed Gullen Solar Project (map supplied by the
proponent).
 
 
 
 
 
 
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 6
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA – BACKGROUND INFORMATION

In this section, background and relevant contextual information is complied, analysed

and synthesised. The purpose of presenting this material is to gain an initial
understanding of the cultural landscape. The following topics are addressed (cf. OEH
2011: 5):

o The physical setting or landscape;

o History of peoples living on that land; and
o Material evidence of Aboriginal land use.

2.1 The Physical Setting or Landscape

A consideration of landscape is necessary in archaeological work in order to characterise

and predict the nature of Aboriginal occupation across the land. In Aboriginal society,
landscape could be both the embodiment of Ancestral Beings and the basis of a social
geography, and economic and technological endeavour. The various features and
elements of the landscape are/were physical places that are known and understood within
the context of social and cultural practice.

Given that the natural resources that Aboriginal people harvested and utilised were not
evenly distributed across landscapes, Aboriginal occupation and the archaeological
manifestations of that occupation will not be uniform across space. Therefore,
examination of the environmental context is valuable for predicting the type and nature
of archaeological sites which might be expected to occur. Factors which typically inform
the archaeological potential of a landform include the presence or absence of water,
animal and plant foods, stone and other resources, the nature of the terrain and the
cultural meaning associated with a place.

Additionally, geomorphological and humanly activated processes need to be defined as

these will influence the degree to which archaeological sites may be visible and/or
conserved. Land which is heavily grassed and geomorphologically stable will prevent the
detection of archaeological material, while places which have suffered disturbance may
no longer retain artefacts or stratified deposits. A consideration of such factors is
necessary in assessing site significance and formulating mitigation and management
recommendations. The following information describes the landscape context of the
study area.

The proposed Gullen Solar Farm would be located south of Crookwell and west of
Goulburn, in south-eastern New South Wales. The property is 131 Storriers Lane,
Bannister NSW 2580 and occupies Lot 1 DP 1196222 and Lot 2 DP 1168750.

The site extends in a east/west alignment measuring approximately two kilometres along
an undulating ridge.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 7

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

The district around Crookwell is mountainess (sic), and the scenery generally bold, and
some of it very fine; but even the tops of the ranges and on the slopes - and of course always
in the valleys - there is splendid land, while around there is an immensity of country most
of which is probably not worth taking up, though there is undoubtedly some that will yet, as
the population increases, be cleared and turned to account (By the Scout: The Sydney Mail
Saturday November 20, 1886).

The subject area is situated in the Southern Tablelands of New South Wales and is part
of the Eastern Uplands of south-eastern Australia (Jennings and Mabbutt 1977). The
Eastern Uplands consists of a wide plateau which extends from the coastal escarpment
on the east, to the slopes of its western side. The landscape has low relative relief, lies
generally below 600m altitude and possesses slopes generally less that 5º with about 20%
of the area containing steeper hills and ranges. The wind farm site is situated within the
steeper country. The area has a strongly seasonal thermal climate (Jennings and
Mabbutt 1977).

The site is undulating and part of a larger plateau formation. The site slopes down to the
north and east. Locally steep areas border the site to the south. Gully systems are present
to the south in larger areas of contiguous forest.

Land use within the local area is dominated by rural activities on large holdings.
Population density is low. The operational Gullen Range Wind Farm is located south-
west and to the north-west of the site.

The project would be built on the generally broad, undulating ridge of the Gullen Range.
The highest elevation at the site is approximately 1,000 metres. The landform elements
located within the zones of proposed impact include ridge crests, simple slopes and
drainage depressions. Soils within valleys on basal slopes or flats are both alluvial and
colluvial and, while undoubtedly disturbed, are usually of reasonable depth. In areas
adjacent to drainage lines, Post Settlement Alluvium is likely to be present above the
original land surface.

The proposal area is drained by intermittent 1st and 2nd order drainage depressions; the
majority of the immediate local area would not have provided Aboriginal land users with
a source of reliable or abundant water. Accordingly, the area of proposed impacts is
unlikely to have been utilised for long-term or repeated Aboriginal occupation.

The development envelope is cleared and currently utilised for grazing. Much of the land
has been pasture improved. Prior to European land clearance, the proposal area would
have been covered with woodland tree species and can, accordingly, be characterised as a
woodland resource zone. The immediate local area possesses limited biodiversity; the
proposal area is situated away from a confluence of resource zones. Accordingly, the area
would have been utilised by Aboriginal people for a limited range of activities which may
have included hunting and gathering and travel through country. Such activities are
likely to have resulted in low levels of artefact discard distributed in a spatially dispersed
rather than focused manner. The nature of stone artefacts discarded can be expected to

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 8

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

have been correspondingly limited in terms of artefact diversity and complexity. The
exception is the land situated in the east of the subject area in close proximity to Sawpit
Creek. Being close to reasonably reliable water, the eastern area may have been used for
higher levels of land use. It is noted that the presence of quartz (cobbles and outcrops)
suitable for artefact manufacture in this eastern area is likely to have increased activity
in the area.

Land clearance commenced in the region with its occupation by early settlers during the
early to mid 1800s. Following clearance, the arable land was utilised for both grazing and
various cultivation endeavours including pasture improvement and cropping, while hilly
land has been used exclusively for grazing.

As a result of the long history of grazing and cultivation, the proposal is located within a
highly degraded landscape, where vegetation, soils and geomorphological processes have
been dramatically altered by clearing, cropping and grazing (Wasson et al. 1998). Tree
clearance, the grazing of sheep and cultivation in the Southern Tablelands, has resulted
in increased runoff and erosion, both on hill slopes and valley floors, much of which
commenced very soon after initial European occupation (Wasson et al. 1998). These
erosional processes have led to significant changes to landscape processes. More recently
dryland salinity has become a problem in the area as a result of earlier vegetation
clearance.

Prior to European settlement, the vegetation on hill slopes was open forest dominated by
Eucalyptus species; valley floors contained extensive grasslands and swamps (Wasson et
al. 1998). The botanist and explorer Allan Cunningham visited the region in 1824 and
described the vegetation structure and stream character he observed at that time. From
descriptions by Cunningham, and others, Wasson et al. (1998) have concluded that
streams in the region with a catchment of greater than 1000 km² possessed a continuous
channel, while streams with smaller catchments had less distinct channels often described
by early commentators as chains of ponds. The naturalist Lhotsky, in 1834 described the
ponds as follows: ‘They are commonly round or oval basins of from 20 – 200 feet in
diameter or length, excavated or sunk in the superficies of an alluvial soil, which is
commonly of a rich kind ...’ (cited in Wasson et al. 1998). The creeks located within the
proposal area would all fall within the smaller catchment category as described above
and, accordingly, are likely to have similarly possessed indistinct channels and chains of
ponds. Now, however, these features are absent and instead channel incision has created
eroded channels.

No major rivers flow through the immediate local area, however, there are numerous
lower order creeks which are likely to have been discontinuous channels with chains of
ponds prior to European impacts. While not necessarily being places of abundant water,
they are likely to have provided Aboriginal land users with a seasonal water source. The
elevated hill landforms (crests and slopes), by and large, are unlikely to have provided
any potable water.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 9

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

2.2 History of Peoples Living on the Land

Aboriginal people have occupied Australia for at least 40,000 years and possibly as long
as 60,000 (Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999: 2). By 35,000 years before present (BP), all
major environmental zones in Australia, including periglacial environments of Tasmania,
were occupied (Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999: 114). At the time of early occupation,
Australia experienced moderate temperatures. However, between 25,000 and 12,000
years BP (the Last Glacial Maximum), dry and either intensely hot or cold temperatures
prevailed over the continent (Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999: 114). At this time, the
mean monthly temperatures on land were 6 - 10ºC lower; in southern Australia coldness,
drought and winds acted to change the vegetation structure from forests to grass and
shrublands (Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999: 115-116).

During the Last Glacial Maximum at about 24 - 22,000 years ago, sea levels fell to about
130 metres below present and, accordingly, the continent was correspondingly larger.
With the cessation of glacial conditions, temperatures rose with a concomitant rise in sea
levels. By c. 6,000 BP sea levels had more or less stabilised to their current position. With
the changes in climate during the Holocene Aboriginal occupants had to deal not only
with reduced landmass, but changing hydrological systems and vegetation; forests again
inhabited the grass and shrublands of the Late Glacial Maximum. As Mulvaney and
Kamminga (1999: 120) have remarked:
When humans arrived on Sahul’s1 shores and dispersed across the continent, they
faced a continual series of environmental challenges that persisted throughout the
Pleistocene. The adaptability and endurance in colonising Sahul is one of
humankinds’ inspiring epics.

In the late Pleistocene much of the land in the region was covered in snow, with glaciers
in the mountains and the lower plains being treeless. Over time, the Aboriginal people
experienced and adapted to steady and considerable changes in conditions associated
with gradual climatic warming, including the alteration of vegetation and variation in
the distribution of wildlife (Young 2000).

Human occupation of south-east NSW dates from at least 20,000 years ago as evidenced
by dated sites including the Burrill Lake rock shelter (Lampert 1971), Cloggs Cave (Flood
1980) and New Guinea 2 (Ossa et al. 1995). The Bulee Brook 2 site in the south coast
hinterland ranges, excavated by Boot (1994), provides evidence that occupation of this
zone had occurred by at least 18,000 years ago. In the south-eastern highlands,
excavation of the Birrigai rock-shelter has provided dates of occupation from 21,000±200
years BP (Flood et al. 1987: 16). Pleistocene occupation sites are rare, however, and the
majority of recorded sites date from the mid to late Holocene. It is nevertheless
reasonable to assume that the Crookwell area was occupied and utilised by Aboriginal
people from the late Pleistocene onwards.

1Sahul is the name given to the single Pleistocene era continent which combined Australia with
New Guinea and Tasmania.
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 10
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

As far as possible, an ethnographic and historical review of Aboriginal life in the region
will be outlined below. However, our understanding of Aboriginal people in this area, and
the historical dimension of the colonial encounter has been reconstructed from scant
historical records produced during a context of death and dispossession (Swain 1993:
115), and is sketchy and severely limited. Stanner (1977) has described the colonial and
post-colonial past as a ‘history of indifference’, and this portrays both the substantive
situation which prevailed and the general lack of regard for this history. The earliest
European reports regarding the Aborigines of the region are provided through the
written observations of the first explorers, adventurers and settlers to the district. These
sources present only fragmentary and incomplete accounts of the traditional culture of
those Aboriginal groups who inhabited the area. Very soon after European contact, with
increasing numbers of white settlers after the 1820s, much of the Aboriginal language and
lifestyle had changed before it could accurately be recorded. Because of this, reliable
information is limited regarding traditional Aboriginal culture and social geography at
the time of European arrival.

Prior to the 1960s, most archaeological research was aimed at defining change in the
archaeological record. This was before direct dating techniques became available and,
accordingly, the issue of time was handled by identifying differences in archaeological
materials in archaeological deposit – specific artefacts in different layers of deposits were
used to define different cultural periods. With the application of direct dating techniques
in the 1960s, research shifted away from the use of artefacts for defining different time
periods, towards seeking to explain the nature of different artefacts and assemblages of
artefacts and food remains in terms of adaptation to the environment. The 1960s also saw
a shift towards the use of explicit scientific methods of reasoning in archaeological
practice. This impetus influenced archaeologists to focus on research topics which were
believed to be answerable within a scientific methodology. Topics dealing with site
locational models, subsistence, technology and environmental adaptation were addressed.

Thus, the primary focus of archaeological research in Australia throughout the 1960s,
1970s and 1980s was the examination of the relationship between Aboriginal people and
their environment, and the mechanisms of adaptation in what was apparently a land of
harsh conditions and scanty, or at best, seasonal resources. The bulk of archaeological
research that has been undertaken in the region has been focused on examining these
issues.

Witter (1980) constructed a model of site distribution for the area situated between
Canberra and Dalton. He argued that large lowland camps were found exclusively in
river valleys or gently sloping land, while medium sized lowland camps were found
mainly on escarpments and saddles. Witter (1980) suggested that mid to late Holocene
occupation of the area was focused around both tributary and major stream valleys. He
argued that seasonal movement entailed occupation of the tributary valleys and lower
slopes during winter in order to be above cold air drainage but below cooler elevations.
Additionally, these locations would have provided reliable water and the exploitation of
a diversity of resource zones. During summer the larger valley bottoms and higher
elevated zones were predicted to have been used.
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 11
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Witter (1980) constructed two models of Holocene adaptation which he termed Riverine
Oriented and Plateau Oriented. The Riverine model was defined as a subsistence regime
based on the semi-arid plains which was focused on the exploitation of aquatic plants
such as Typha and Triglochia and animals such as fish and crustacea. This economy was
focused on the plains woodlands close to major rivers with seasonal usage of semi-arid
and dry temperate uplands. The Plateau subsistence regime was considered to be based
on Acacia as a vegetable staple. This economy was focused on ridges slopes and flats,
however, with camp sites tethered to water.

Pearson (1981) completed a regionally based investigation of Aboriginal and early

European settlement patterns in the Upper Macquarie River region. He excavated three
rock shelters which revealed Aboriginal occupation of the area dating from 7,000 years
BP. Pearson characterised Aboriginal site patterning as follows:
o Aboriginal sites were strongly related to water sources. Distance to water varied
from 10 to 500 m and generally the average distance to water decreased as site size
increased;
o Sites were located on hilly and undulating landforms rather than on river flats or
the banks of waterways. However, the regional incidence of landform variation
biased this sample;
o Site location was influenced by good drainage and views over water courses and
river flats;
o Most sites were located in open woodland contexts with smaller numbers being
present in grassland or forest contexts;
o Burial sites and grinding grooves were situated close to habitation areas;
o Ceremonial sites were located away from habitation areas;
o Stone arrangements were located away from campsites in isolated places; they are
associated with small hills and knolls or flat land;
o Quarry sites were located where suitable sources were present and reasonably
accessible.

Based on an examination of early historical material, Pearson (1981) argued that the
region was inhabited by a small number of clan groups each of which were comprised of
80 to 150 people. These groups were divided into smaller ‘daily’ units of up to 20 people.
Pearson (1981) suggests that the ‘daily’ units made short moves between camp sites
which resulted in elongated site formation such as continuous artefact scatters along
creeks. Pearson presented ethnographic evidence which suggested that camp sites were
not used for longer than three nights and that large sites therefore probably represented
accumulations of short term visits.

Pearson (1981) also considered the issue of the reliance upon food staples. He argued that
rather than a reliance on a singular food type, a wider based economy was practised with
the implication that such a non-specialised economy would probably not have been
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 12
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

affected by periodic shortfalls in certain foods and that human movement would have
been similarly unaffected.

According to Witter and Hughes (1983), the low hill areas of the Lachlan catchment
contained sites which are generally situated on valley flanks. They noted that sites are
widely distributed with a higher frequency situated along water courses than in less well
drained areas away from creeks and rivers. They posited a model suggesting that the
economic focus was within major streams and valleys, with occasional usage of the dryer
inland zones. Witter and Hughes (1983) suggested that during dry periods occupation
was confined to major stream valleys and that in wetter times people would have moved
along temporarily watered headwater streams and onto plateau areas.

White (1986) conducted a general study of the Wiradjuru in which the Witter model (as
outlined above) was applied. White (1986) however, explored the basic notions of
Riverine and Plateau further, emphasizing the regional division by stressing the
comparative importance of less seasonally influenced terrestrial hunting in the east. In
the Western Slopes region, riverine plains ‘… interfinger (sic) with the higher land’, and
White argued that the economy in such country probably consisted of an annual regime
which was dependant on the use of both riverine and plateau environments.

Tindale (1974) determined that the area of present-day Goulburn was situated at the
boundary of two tribes – the Gandangara to the north and the Ngun(n)awal to the south.
Tribal boundaries are derived principally from linguistic evidence and a virtually
identical correspondence in word lists recorded from both the Ngun(n)awal and
Gandangara languages has been observed (Eades 1976:6). Because of this there remains
conjecture as to which of these two groups actually occupied the region in which the
study area is situated at the time of European settlement.

Smith (1992) suggests that the current location of Goulburn fell within the territory of
the Gandangara and was in effect an intersection of boundaries and a ‘cross roads’ for at
least six Gandangara ‘bands’, including the Burra Burra, Tarlo, Wollondilly, Cookmai,
Parramarrago and Pajong (Smith 1992: 45). According to Smith’s research (1992: 5) at
least one of these ‘bands’, the Burra Burra, had strong links with the Gandangara of the
O’Connell Plains south of Bathurst and may have occupied a traditional range extending
as far south as Lake George. Reference to Smith’s (1992) map indicates that the proposal
area is situated between the Burra Burra band area (to the north) and Pajong band area
(to the south).

The paucity of reliable ethno-historic sources for this early period of European settlement
also means that an estimate of the pre-European Aboriginal population of the district
cannot confidently be established. By the time any dependable observations were made
small pox, influenza and the effects of European settlement had devastated the local
Aboriginal populations. The number of Aborigines estimated to occupy the Goulburn
Plains in 1827 was 45 (Smith 1992: 22). It is variously estimated that by the last years of
the 1840s the local Aboriginal population had been reduced to 25 individuals (Smith
1992: 30) or less than 20 (Lance and Koettig 1986:13). This is a slight number when one
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 13
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

considers that in 1839 Aborigines are said to have outnumbered Europeans by 10 to 1 at

the first Goulburn horse races to be held. Unfortunately the number of Europeans who
attended the outing is not noted in this account.

Attempts to reconstruct the home territories occupied by the various Aboriginal cultural
groups of the broader Goulburn/Canberra region are in large part reliant on evidence
drawn from ethnohistorical sources. Unfortunately, when the early European settlers
first came into contact with these Aboriginal groups, generally a higher priority appears
to have been given to the exploration and assumption of land rather than the recording
of detailed information concerning the Aboriginal peoples they were displacing. Very
soon after European contact, introduced diseases devastated the Aboriginal population
and thereafter, with an increasing number of white settlers from the 1820s, much of the
Aboriginal language and lifestyle had changed before it could be accurately recorded. The
earliest European reports regarding the Aborigines of the region are provided through the
often cursory written observations made by the first explorers, adventurers and settlers
to the district. However, given the aforementioned circumstances, these sources can only
present fragmentary and incomplete accounts of the traditional culture of those
Aboriginal groups who inhabited the area. Because of this, reliable information is limited
regarding traditional Aboriginal culture and the extent of group territories at the time of
European arrival.

Based on linguistic evidence collected in the late nineteenth century, primarily by

anthropologists Curr, Howitt and Mathews, Tindale (1974) determined that the area of
present-day Goulburn was situated at the boundary of two Aboriginal ‘tribes’ – the
Gandangara to the north and the Ngunawal to the south. Traditional Ngunawal lands
are described as extending north from Queanbeyan to Goulburn, and west to Tumut and
Gundagai, so that the region of present day Collector fell within these traditional
boundaries of the Ngunawal cultural group (Avery 1994). Bluett indicates that the
Ngunawal in turn were comprised of three subgroups, each based within the three
different regions of Yass, Lake George and Canberra/Queanbeyan within their overall
territory. A ceremonial ground being located in each of these three regions. However,
George Augustus Robinson in 1844 designated the Onerwal of Yass and the Koronial or
Yammoit Mittung on the Limestone Plains as being the two groups that comprised the
Ngunnawal (Avery 1994).

William Wright recorded that at the time of initial white settlement, the Aboriginal
population of the broader Canberra district numbered between 400 and 500 people. This
group came together once a year for a large ceremony, and then dispersed to spend the
remainder of the time in small mobile groups of 20 to 30 individuals. From records made
during the distribution of blankets to Aboriginal people, it appears that Aboriginal
groups within the region had widespread affiliations with other groups, extending as far
as the Tumut Valley, Yass, Boorowa, Goulburn, Gundaroo, Braidwood, Cooma and the
Illawarra area. The groups whose territory incorporated the Canberra area are indicated
to have made frequent travels to Braidwood in order to barter for salt, to the Yass Plains
to hunt kangaroo and gather grass seed, to the Shoalhaven to procure sandstone for spear

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 14

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

sharpening, the Monaro to obtain volcanic stone to make hatchets, to Kiandra to harvest
bogong moths, and to the South Coast for fishing (Avery 1994).

Ethnohistorical sources indicate that within the southern tablelands a broad range of
resources were accessed by the Ngunawal as they moved through their country. Open
plains surrounded by woodland attracted kangaroos, wallabies, wallaroos, wombats,
emus and a variety of other fauna which were hunted by men and older boys. Meanwhile,
women and children collected small game and vegetable foods that included birds,
lizards, possums, native cats, fish, mussels, bird eggs, yams, berries, grubs and grass seed.
In particular, the various swamps and waterways with their thick reed beds were an
abundant food source which included many types of aquatic birds (Avery 1994).

For the Aboriginal people of today, there continues to exist a strong connection with
their past, their cultural inheritance and their country. Cultural knowledge has been
passed on and arising from this is the desire to conserve their heritage, especially given all
that has been lost since the arrival of Europeans. Because of this there is a variance
between the cultural significance and the scientific significance of Aboriginal objects.
Scientific significance places higher values on an Aboriginal object or suite of objects
from which new information can potentially be derived and is, accordingly, linked with
considerations of rarity or the number of associated objects. However, Aboriginal
cultural significance places value on each object as a physical connection to their cultural
past and their current identity.

Aboriginal people continue to live in Goulburn and surroundings areas and maintain
strong links and concerns for the sites of their ancestors.

2.3 Material Evidence

A search of the NSW OEH Aboriginal Heritage Management Information System

(AHIMS) has been conducted for this project on the 27 September 2015 (Client Service
ID: 192262). The search area measured 30 km² and encompassed the area between
eastings 723000 – 729000, and northings 6164000 – 6169000.

Eighteen Aboriginal object sites are recorded on AHIMS as present in the search area
(Table 1; Figure 2), all of which were recorded during the Gullen Range Wind Farm
survey (Dibden 2008). The AHIMS register only includes sites which have been reported
to NSW OEH. Generally, sites are only recorded during targeted surveys undertaken in
either development or research contexts. Accordingly, this search cannot be considered to
be an actual or exhaustive inventory of Aboriginal objects situated within the local area
or indeed within the subject area itself.

The most common Aboriginal object recordings in the region are distributions of stone
artefacts. Rare site types include rock shelters, scarred trees, quarry and procurement
sites, burials, stone arrangements, contact sites, carved trees and traditional story or
other ceremonial places. The distribution of each site type is related, at least in part, to
variance in topography and ground surface geology.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 15

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Searches have been conducted of the NSW State Heritage Inventory and the Australian
Heritage database. No Aboriginal heritage sites are listed on these as being in the
proposed activity area.

Jackie Taylor, NSW OEH. conducted an inspection of the subject area on 27 February
2015 at which time eight stone artefact sites were recorded (not listed on AHIMS when
the site search was conducted). These sites have all been re-located during the current
assessment (Figure 2: Sites GSF 1-8).

The following discussion in Section 2.3.1 will present a review of previous archaeological
work in the region for the purposes of producing a predictive model of site type and
location relevant to the study area.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 16

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Table 1 List of AHIMS Aboriginal sites.

Site ID Site name Easting Northing Context Site status Site features
51-5-0134 Pomeroy Survey Unit 7/Locale 1 724828 6164202 Open site Destroyed Artefact : 3
51-5-0136 Pomeroy Survey Unit 8/Locale 1 724412 6164870 Open site Valid Artefact : 11
51-5-0137 Pomeroy Survey Unit 8/locale 2 724450 6164896 Open site Valid Artefact : 1
51-5-0138 Pomeroy Survey Unit 11/Locale 1 724480 6165733 Open site Valid Artefact : 1
51-5-0139 Pomeroy Survey Unit 14/Locale 1 726912 6166101 Open site Destroyed Artefact : 6
51-5-0140 Pomeroy Survey Unit 16/Locale 1 726558 6166634 Open site Destroyed Artefact : 1
51-5-0141 Pomeroy Survey Unit 16/Locale 2 726178 6166607 Open site Partially Destroyed Artefact : 2
51-5-0142 Pomeroy Survey Unit 19/Locale 1 726003 6166282 Open site Destroyed Artefact : 6
51-5-0118 Pomeroy Survey Unit 1/Locale 3 725514 6165113 Open site Valid Artefact : 1
51-5-0119 Pomeroy Survey Unit 1/Locale 4 725603 6165064 Open site Valid Artefact : 1
51-5-0120 Pomeroy Survey Unit 1/Locale 5 725595 6164734 Open site Partially Destroyed Artefact : 7
51-5-0121 Pomeroy Survey Unit 1/Locale 6 724723 6164483 Open site Partially Destroyed Artefact : 7
51-5-0122 Pomeroy Survey Unit 1/Locale 7 724355 6164489 Open site Valid Artefact : 19
51-5-0123 Pomeroy Survey Unit 1/Locale 8 724656 6165210 Open site Valid Artefact : 1
51-5-0124 Pomeroy Survey Unit 1/Locale 9 724440 6165245 Open site Destroyed Artefact : 4
51-5-0125 Pomeroy Survey Unit 1/Locale 10 724906 6166180 Open site Valid Artefact : 5
51-5-0212 Pomeroy Survey Unit 16/Locale 3 726545 6166081 Open site Valid Artefact : 1
51-5-0213 Pomeroy Survey Unit 14/Locale 2 726997 6165848 Open site Valid Artefact : 1

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 17

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Figure 2 Location of previously recorded Aboriginal sites (AHIMS Sites and sites
recorded by Jackie Taylor, OEH).

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 18

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

2.3.1 Previous Environmental Impact Assessment

Prior to the Gullen Range Wind Farm survey (Dibden 2008), there have been no
previous archaeological studies conducted within the subject area and few had been
undertaken within the immediate local area. However, a number have been undertaken
in the broader region in response to statutory requirements for environmental impact
assessment. The following discussion includes a review of archaeological work and its
results conducted within the region.

Koettig (1983) conducted on of the first studies in the region when she surveyed the
proposed highway by-pass route in areas to the south and east of the Goulburn township.
Twenty two sites were located, all of which were surface scatters of stone artefacts
situated within 200 metres of watercourses, but distributed over a variety of landform
units. Fifty four percent were located on slopes, 23% on ridges and 23% along creeks or
river flats. Most of the artefact scatters were distributed at low density but one site
(G17), located on a low sandbar on the eastern bank of the Mulwaree River near its
junction with Gundary Creek, was found to be a high density site with stratified deposit.
Koettig (1883) recovered 650 artefacts from test pits.

Paton (1990) subsequently conducted test excavation at site G17 as 15% of the site was
to be effected by the proposed Goulburn highway by-pass construction. Paton (1990)
retrieved a total of 15,257 stone artefacts, several European artefacts and several bone
fragments from 29 trenches. Raw material proportions for the stone artefacts were:-
quartz 85%, silcrete 10%, chert 2%, quartzite 1.2%, volcanic 0.8%, basalt 0.2% and
others 0.8%, noting that quartz is known to outcrop on a hill about 750 metres from the
site. There was little evidence of the manufacture of formal tool types at the site, with
less than 1% of artefacts being identified as formal tools. One bone fragment was
identified as being a 4cm section of a human bone. Dating of the site suggested that it
was up to 5,000 years old, and occupied up until the present.

Extrapolating from the excavated area, Paton (1990) estimated that the site held about
4.5 million artefacts, indicating that it was probably occupied on a regular basis over
several thousand years. Situating his findings within the models of occupation and site
patterning for the area proposed by Koettig (1983), Lance and Koettig (1986) and Fuller
(1989), G17 is characterized as being a site which was the focus of human activity,
regularly used as a base camp by Aboriginal groups ‘because of its reliable resources and
comfortable camping conditions’.

Lance (1984) surveyed the route of a proposed pipeline between Sooley Dam and Rossi
Weir on the Wollondilly River, finding a single quartz flake adjacent to Sooley Creek in
conditions of reduced exposure.

Lance and Koettig (1986) compiled an Aboriginal Resources Planning Study for the City
of Goulburn. Using ethnographic, environmental, archaeological and sampled field
survey data, an Aboriginal site location model for the Goulburn area was proposed. Four
landform zones were designated (major watercourses, undulating hills and plains, hill
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 19
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

tops and built-up areas), and each assigned an archaeological sensitivity and site
significance rating. The most common site-type within the Goulburn region was found to
be stone artefact scatters situated within the undulating hills and plains zone and
predominantly on basal slopes adjacent to watercourses.

Silcox (1988) conducted a survey at a reopened slate quarry at Chatsbury. Three surface
scatters of stone artefacts were located (C1 – 33 artefacts; C2 - 25 artefacts; C3 – 23
artefacts) with quartz being the dominant raw material, and silcrete, chert, acid volcanic
and ‘other’ also present. These sites were all located within 50 metres of the Tarlo River,
on lower slopes. The characteristic landform of the area consisted of prominent rounded
hills with moderate to steep slopes and sloping valley floors. The survey area was situated
at the junction of the Tarlo River and Kings Creek. Site C1 was located on a gentle to
moderate slope leading down to the original course of the Tarlo River (the river having
been diverted when the original mine operated). Site C2 was located on the lower slopes
of a spur ridge adjacent to the river. Site C3 was found along a steep eroding bank of
Kings Creek. Silcox (1988) identified several potential campsite locations, and it was
determined that excavation should be carried out at two of these (CA & CB). CA was an
area of moderately sloping land on both sides of the original course of the Tarlo River.
Location CB consisted of an expanse of flat ground bordering the west bank of the
original Tarlo River.

Test excavations were subsequently carried out (Silcox 1989) at both locations near to
the river, however, only five artefacts were recovered. The artefacts were all from the
uphill end of location CA. The absence of subsurface material from the majority of the
test locations was explained to be the result of a real absence of past activity on the sites.

Fuller (1989) conducted a further archaeological investigation of Aboriginal site location

within the Goulburn area, and in so doing, explored and developed Lance and Koettig’s
(1986) model. Locating 17 artefact scatters and five isolated finds during field survey, it
was found that the majority of sites were small low density scatters of less than 10
artefacts. However, at one site (GC5) more than 100 artefacts were located, while at
another (GC4) an estimated 1,000 artefacts were scattered over an area measuring 1 km².
Quartz, chert and silcrete were the most common stone from which artefacts were made.
Fuller’s analysis largely supported Lance and Koettig’s (1986) model and added further
refinement with regard to the landform unit ‘undulating hills and plains’ (discussed
further below).

Silcox (1991) conducted a field survey and test excavation at a proposed storm flow
detention pond in Goulburn, adjacent to the Wollondilly River. The area was situated on
an extensive elevated surface overlooking the wide floodplain. No artefacts were found
and this was attributed to thick grass cover producing low levels of ground visibility.
Subsequent subsurface testing recovered 97 artefacts from a total of 30 pits (Silcox 1991).
Artefacts were found to be present in variable and low numbers on average; density
ranged between 36/m² and 1.5/m². The stone artefact assemblage was dominated by
quartz (78%) with silcrete representing the next most common raw material.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 20

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Williams (1992) surveyed archaeologically sensitive areas located on a proposed Optus

cable route between Goulburn and Campbelltown. In the Goulburn district he conducted
both surface survey and subsurface testing in the vicinity of G17, the site previously
located by Koettig (1983) adjacent to the Mulwaree River and later reinvestigated by
Paton (1990). While no artefacts were located on the western side of the river, some were
recovered from surface survey and deposits at G17. Examination of Koettig’s (1983) site
G19/20 led to the relocation of 53 of 191 artefacts originally recorded at that site.

Australian Archaeological Survey Consultants (1993) surveyed some five kilometres of a

proposed Telstra optical fibre cable route between Goulburn and ‘The Forrest’, and
located three very low density artefact scatters, four isolated finds and a possible scarred
tree.

Silcox (1993a) carried out test excavations at a proposed ironstone mine access road
situated ca. five kilometres north of the proposal area, near Breadalbane. While no sites
had been identified in a previous survey (Silcox 1992), two areas of potential
archaeological sensitivity were noted, one on a gentle slope and the other on a flattish
saddle at the end of a ridge. The excavation work conducted at these two locations
retrieved four artefacts from a total of 57 pits at the site situated on the gentle slope. At
the ironstone mine site, situated on the broad flatfish saddle, no Aboriginal objects were
found.

Effenberger (1994) conducted a survey of the new Goulburn racecourse, an area of 93 ha,
and located two isolated finds.

Silcox (1995) surveyed the route of a proposed power line and Telstra radio base at
Sunnyside, some 14 kilometres southwest of Goulburn. Two artefact scatters and one
isolated find were located. Site S1, an extensive but low density scatter calculated to be
comprised of at least 2,500 lithic artefacts, was situated on a low, broad spur ridge at the
base of a major ridge system some 3.75 kilometres west of the Mulwaree River and 100
metres from a tributary creekline. S2 consisted of four artefacts distributed across an area
of 50 metres on the opposite side of the tributary creekline.

Stuart (1995) carried out a survey for proposed effluent irrigation areas east of Goulburn
and near to the Wollondilly River. Two small artefact scatters and two isolated finds
were located, both of which were situated in Lance and Koettig’s (1986) high potential
‘zone 1’, which in this instance was near to the Wollondilly River.

Kuskie (1996) surveyed the proposed site of a rural residential development on Lots 2-4
DP835933, just southwest of the Goulburn township. One small artefact scatter and one
isolated find were recorded. The scatter was located in the middle of a lower slope, 150
metres east of a minor drainage line, and consisted of two silcrete flakes.

Navin Officer Heritage Consultants (2000) conducted an archaeological assessment for

the raising of Sooley Dam, 5.5 kilometres northwest of Goulburn, as part of the Goulburn
Water Supply Augmentation Project. The survey encompassed low hills and gently
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 21
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

undulating land in areas on both sides of creeks subsequently inundated by Lake Sooley.
The area was assessed to be of low archaeological potential. No Aboriginal sites or areas
with archaeological sensitivity were recorded.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology (2003) conducted a survey in relation to the

proposed Goulburn Sewerage Augmentation works within Goulburn itself, in the areas of
Ross Street, Gorman Road and sections of Kenmore Hospital. The proposal area was
situated predominantly on flat and/or undulating elevated land overlooking the
Wollondilly River. The area was found to have been significantly disturbed by European
development. One scarred tree was recorded, two possible scarred trees identified, and
one quartz flake was located. It was assessed that the proposal had low potential to cause
impacts to subsurface deposits of significance.

Navin Officer Heritage Consultants (2003) carried out a survey for the proposed Pictura
Tourist Complex on the lower catchment of the Run of Waters Creek immediately to the
southwest of Goulburn. The study area is situated on a broad low gradient ridge and
adjoining low to moderate gradient mid and upper slopes. A 1 st to 2nd order tributary
stream traversed one corner of the 37.8 ha property. One low density artefact scatter was
found situated on a broad, low gradient spur top over 700 metres from the watercourse,
and consisting of one chert flake and one silcrete flaked piece.

Jo McDonald Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd (JMcCHM 2003) undertook a

survey of the Gunning Wind Farm, situated on the Cullerin Range. The Gunning Wind
Farm proposal area consists of range crest and valley topography elevated at 840 meters
(asl). Four sites containing stone artefact scatters and three isolated artefacts were
recorded across the proposal area (JMcCHM 2003). One of the scatters was identified as a
quartz quarry; blocky quartz was found to outcrop at the site (Later found to be not a
quarry). The majority of recorded artefacts were identified as quartz, however, quartzite,
silcrete and red agate was also recorded. Steep hill tops were considered to be of low
archaeological potential, while elevated contexts close to water were considered to be of
higher sensitivity.

Dibden (2004a and 2004b) carried out a survey of the Greenwich Park subdivision area
situated northeast of Goulburn. A large number artefact scatters were recorded on spur
crests, spur side slopes and drainage depression/spur side slope interface landforms in
conditions of very good archaeological visibility. Artefact density, calculated according
to effective archaeological visibility, was found to be extremely low.

Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd (2005) conducted a program of subsurface test excavation
at the proposed Gunning Wind Farm site. The works entailed grader scrapes and, rather
spectacularly, no artefacts were recovered. The result is not surprising.

Saunders (2007) conducted a survey in relation to proposed subdivisions on Pomeroy and

Gurrundah Roads, Parkesbourne, c. 14 kilometres northeast of the current study area.
Situated along low gradient basal slopes immediately adjacent to the Wollondilly River,
14 Aboriginal object locales were identified, comprised of 12 artefact scatters and two
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 22
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

isolated finds. All but two of the locales were assessed to have the potential to contain
further artefacts.

Dibden (2006b) recorded four locales containing stone artefacts during the study of the
proposed Cullerin Wind Farm, situated north of Yass. Four locales containing stone
artefacts were recorded. Artefact density calculations based on a consideration of
effective survey coverage indicated that all artefact locales, and the Survey Units in
which they are situated, contain low density artefact distributions.

Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd (2008) surveyed a transmission line associated with the
Gunning Wind Farm and a number of other small discrete impact proposals. Some 25
sites were recorded, defined as 13 open artefacts scatters, nine isolated finds, two areas of
PAD and a scarred tree. The majority of finds were located on ridgetops, which Austral
Archaeology Pty Ltd (2008) suggest reflects the use of these landforms for vantage points
and movement through country. Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd (2008) argued that the
diversity of the raw materials, lack of conjoined artefacts and related materials found in
proximity suggested sporadic use over a long time rather than focused activities which
might be expected to have taken place in more permanent habitation sites.

Dibden (2008) recorded 48 Aboriginal object sites in the form of stone artefacts during
the assessment of the Gullen Range Wind Farm. The model of Aboriginal occupation
indicates that the area would have been used for low levels of occupation that probably
included intermittent hunting and gathering activities conducted away from base camp
locations, movement through country and so on. Such land use is predicted to have
resulted in a corresponding low level of artefact discard. It was predicted that additional
stone artefacts are likely to be present in either low or very low density in a subsurface
context across the majority of the proposal area.

Based on the above review and a consideration of the topography, geomorphology and
hydrology of the study area, the type of sites known to occur in the region and the
potential for their presence within the study area are described in Section 2.3.2 below.

2.3.2 Predictive Model of Aboriginal Site Distribution

The type of sites known to occur in the region and the potential for their presence within
the subject area are listed as follows:

Stone Artefacts
Stone artefacts will be widely distributed across the landscape in a virtual continuum,
with significant variations in density in relation to different environmental contexts.
Artefact density and site complexity is expected to be greater near reliable water and the
confluence of a number of different resource zones.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 23

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

The detection of artefact scatters depends on ground surface factors and whether or not
the potential archaeological bearing soil profile is visible. Prior ground disturbance,
vegetation cover and surface wash can act to obscure artefact scatter presence.

A pattern of low artefact density in elevated contexts has been confirmed by numerous
previous wind farm studies in the region (for example, see Austral Archaeology PL 2005,
2008, 2009; Dibden 2006a, 2006b, 2008, 2012, 2013a & 2013b; Reeves and Thomson
2004).

Given the environmental context of the proposed wind farm, stone artefacts are
predicted to be present in variable density across the landscape. On ridge and hill crests
and simple slopes, artefacts are likely to be present in a patchy and very low density
distribution. In open valleys it is predicted that artefact density is likely to be higher and
also, artefacts can be expected to be distributed as continuous occurrences across discrete
landforms, especially in flat areas close to streams.

Grinding Grooves
The location of sites with grinding grooves is dependent on the presence of a suitable rock
surface, usually fine grained homogeneous sandstone, and a water source. Grinding
groove sites may consist of a single groove, or a large number which are sometimes
arranged in patterns and groups. They commonly occur as an open site, however, are
sometimes found in shelter contexts. Usually grinding grooves are located on horizontal
sandstone exposures, but they can occasionally be found on vertical surfaces.

A broad temporal framework for the age of grinding groove sites can be inferred on the
basis of the age of ground-edge hatchet heads found within archaeological deposits.
Across Australia, there is significant variation in the timing of the introduction of
ground-edge hatchet technology, and in the south-east, the earliest hatchet heads date to
the fourth millennium BP (Dibden 1996: 35; Attenbrow 2004: 241), and no earlier than
3,500 years ago (Hiscock 2008: 155). Grinding groove sites in the local area can be no
older than 3,500 years. Given that hatchets were used at the time of European
occupation, the use of some grinding groove sites may have spanned this temporal range.

Grinding hatchet heads on stone creates indelible marks on the rock surface and land.
Grinding groove sites may have become significant and meaningful locales over time
given their reference to an important item of material culture and their strong material
presence in the landscape. Sites containing high groove counts are now visually
significant marked locales. While the original motivation which led people to choose to
grind hatchet heads at a specific place is now not well understood, it is possible over time
and as a place became increasingly embellished with grooves, that the meaning and
significance of that locale was changed correspondingly. Grinding groove sites may have
provided a physical and conceptual reference to the ancestral past and activities of
previous generations (Dibden 2011). Because of the enduring materiality of grinding
grooves, they may have been meaningfully constituted expressions of place and
mnemonic of past events and personal and group history (cf. Peterson 1972: 16).

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 24

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Given the absence of suitable rock exposures in the study area grinding groove sites are
unlikely to be present.

Burials Sites
In the region, traditionally Aboriginal people buried their dead in dug graves in rocky
soils, usually on the tops of stony hills (White and Cane 1986). Other practices included
the disposal of dead in caves (such as that on the Murrumbidgee near Burrinjuck
described by Bennett in 1834), hollow trees and in graves dug into antbeds. White and
Cane (1986) note that traditional burial practices continued throughout the early period
of European occupation into the 1870s.

The potential for burials to be present is always possible. Given the nature of this site
type they are rarely located during field survey. However, given that burials in the local
area were reportedly on stony hills it is probable that given the high erosional contexts of
these landforms, they are unlikely to have survived.

Rock Shelter Sites

Rock shelters sites are unlikely to be present in the study area given the absence of large
vertical stone outcrops.

Scarred and Carved Trees

Scarred and Carved trees result from either domestic or ceremonial bark removal. Carved
trees associated with burial grounds and other ceremonial places have been recorded in
the wider region. In an Aboriginal land use context this site type would most likely have
been situated on flat or low gradient landform units in areas suitable for either habitation
and/or ceremonial purposes.

Bark removal by European people through the entire historic period and by natural
processes such as fire blistering and branch fall make the identification of scarring from a
causal point of view very difficult. Accordingly, given the propensity for trees to bear
scarring from natural causes their positive identification is impossible unless culturally
specific variables such as stone hatchet cut marks or incised designs are evident and
rigorous criteria in regard to tree species/age/size and it specific characteristics in regard
to regrowth is adopted.

Nevertheless, the likelihood of trees bearing cultural scarring remaining extant and in
situ is low given events such as land clearance and bushfires. Generally scarred trees will
only survive if they have been carefully protected (such as the trees associated with
Yuranigh’s grave at Molong where successive generations of European landholders have
actively cared for them).

The study area has been extensively cleared and the vast majority of live trees are young.
While not impossible this site type is unlikely to have survived and therefore be present.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 25

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Stone Quarry and Procurement Sites

A lithic quarry is the location of an exploited stone source (Hiscock & Mitchell 1993:32).
Sites will only be located where exposures of a stone type suitable for use in artefact
manufacture occur. Quarries are rare site types in the region. One has been recorded near
Galong west of the proposal area. This site is an intrusive dike of a dacite-like material
which was extracted for flaked stone (Witter and Hughes 1983). However, caution is
required in regard to determining the natural or artefactual status of quartz outcrops
which may be fractured by farming practices (cf. National Heritage Consultants 2010) or
prospecting.

Ceremonial Places and Sacred Geography

Burbung and ceremonial sites are places which were used for ritual and ceremonial
purposes. Possibly the most significant ceremonial practices known were those which
were concerned with initiation and other rites of passage such as those associated with
death. Sites associated with these ceremonies are burbung grounds and burial sites.
Additionally, secret rituals were undertaken by individuals such as clever men. These
rituals were commonly undertaken in ‘natural’ locations such as water holes. Pearson
(1981) made the following predictions in regard to ceremonial site patterning in the
region:
o Burial sites were situated close to habitation areas;
o Ceremonial sites were located away from habitation areas;
o Stone arrangements were located away from campsites in isolated places; they are
associated with small hills and knolls or flat land.

In addition to site specific types and locales, Aboriginal people invested the landscape
with meaning and significance; this is commonly referred to as a sacred geography.
Natural features are those physical places which are intimately associated with spirits or
the dwelling/activity places of certain mythical beings (cf. Knight 2001; Boot 2002). Boot
(2002) refers to the sacred and secular meaning of landscape to Aboriginal people which
has ‘… legitimated their occupation as the guardians of the places created by their
spiritual ancestors’.

Knight’s (2001) Masters research conducted in the area of the Weddin Mountains
examined the cultural construction and social practice of inhabiting a sacred landscape.
This approach is a departure from a consideration of the land and its resources as being a
determinant of behaviour, to one in which land is regarded as a text – within this
conception, land and its individual features, are redolent with meanings and significances
which are religiously and ritually centred, rather than economically based.

Knight’s (cf. 2001:1) work was possible in great measure by the historical record which
explicitly defines Weddin as a site of ritual significance. However, the research was
additionally driven by a theoretical approach to ‘cultural landscapes’. Landscape is
redefined away from considerations of its material features which provide a backdrop to
human activity, towards a view that a landscape is rather, a conceptual entity. According
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 26
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

to this view the natural world does not exist outside of its conceptual or cognitive
apprehension. The landscape becomes known within a naming process or narrative; thus
the landscape is brought into being and understanding – within this process: - ‘…
explanatory parables…’ such as legends and mythology are the embodiment of the
landscape narrative (Knight 2001: 6).

These narratives are relative to a particular culture, and it is this, which makes an
archaeological investigation of the cultural landscape such a thorny one. At distance in
time and cultural geography, and especially in the absence of specific ethnographic
information, how can the archaeologist attempt to investigate and know these
narratives? Knight (2001: 11) employed the concept of the landscape as mentifact,
whereby archaeological interpretation is concerned with the reconstruction of the
landscape as a reflection of prehistoric cosmologies. He argued that this can be
reconstructed by exploring the systematic relationships between sites and their
topographic setting. This is defined as an inherent approach as it is concerned with the
role of landscape in both everyday and sacred life. This view is concerned with an
integration of the sacred and profane rather than their existence as separate categories of
social life: - where “Cult activity may have existed as an inextricably ‘embedded’
component of daily life, where significant locations and ritual aspects of material culture
were thoroughly incorporated into secular ranges and uses” (Knight 2001:13). In this
regard Knight (2001: 14) correctly points out that no dichotomy between the material
and ideational world existed within Aboriginal life.

Knight (2001: 15) argued that the notion of sacred space is of central concern within an
inherent perspective on interpreting cultural landscape. Within human cosmologies
locales within the landscape are constructed as being sacred space; this process of the
construction of sacred space has been termed hierophany by Eliade (1961 in Knight 2001:
15). However, while Knight (2001: 15) suggests that physical entities such as stones,
trees, or topographic features such as mountains, caves and rocky outcrops may be
subject to such processes of transformation or construction, in reality in Aboriginal
society any natural feature of less obvious significance can and should be included within
this listing. Aboriginal constructions of heirophany can include the most insignificant
landscape feature and objects of less fixed temporal existence such as animals and plants.
While the outside observer readily ‘sees’ and apprehends mountains and rocky features,
more subtle elements of the natural world are easily passed ‘unseen’. This point is one
which suggests that the personal cultural geography of the archaeologist can severely
impact upon the interpretation of the sacred landscape. Knight (2001) does acknowledge
this to some extent illustrating the issue by referring to the example of “Jump Up Rock”
situated north of Weddin. This place is only understood to have been an important
landscape feature by recourse to prior knowledge regarding the meaning of the site name;
the hill itself is insignificant and therefore not readily apprehended through an outsiders
gaze as being of special significance.

Knight (2001: 16) refers to the issue of peculiarities of form (eg shape, colour, size or
texture) and natural distinctiveness (e.g. isolated mountains or rocky features within a
plains context) as being an important distinguishing feature of sacred locales. Knight
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 27
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

(2001: 16) argues that the construction of sacred space in such a manner is particularly
relevant to people for whom the natural domain is the dwelling place of/or the
manifestation of their deities. Knight (2001: 16) again draws from Eliade (1964) to
suggest that it is at the sacred place that the three fundamental cosmological worlds, the
everyday, the upper and underworld may converge; typically the upper world will be
associated as a point of ‘access’ with tall things such as trees while the underworld will be
associated with pools and caves. Eliade contends that places where all three worlds can
possibly connect, the axis mundi, are of a heightened order of sacredness. Hierophanies
are therefore natural features which are ascribed sacredness. Additionally, Knight (2001:
17) refers to their ability to provide a landscape based opportunity for people to
commune with other worldly deities and associated power because they may constitute
spatial access between worlds via ritual.

Guided by these theoretical considerations Knight (2001: 20) engaged with Bradley’s
(cited in Knight 2001) model of the ‘archaeology of natural places’ in order to provide
guidance for investigating the cultural landscape of the Weddin Mountains and its
environs. Bradley (2000) has argued that natural places can be explored archaeologically
in order to determine the nature of their role in human cosmologies by attending to four
archaeological categories: - Votive offerings, rock art, production sites and monuments.
This model was developed within a European context, with its attendant biases of
concepts and archaeological categories; clearly not all concepts, some of which are clearly
Eurocentric, will be applicable in Australia. Nor will all these data sets be found within
the Australian context.

Knight (2001) gives consideration to the types of natural places which might be ascribed
sacred significance. These include mountains, woodlands and groves, springs pools and
lagoons, rock outcrops and caves and sinkholes. He argues that Aboriginal cosmology is
expressed via the natural landscape and sacred places were those which were directly
related to the Dreaming. He says that these sacred sites typically are those which are
remarkable or important physiographically such as caves, rocks and so on.

Given the potential for natural features to have been important places within an
Aboriginal cosmological frame of reference, the survey has sought to identify outstanding
natural features present in the study area. It is, however, noted that the landscape of the
entire proposal area is expressed as an abundance of hills and ridges and that, therefore,
high places are unlikely to standout as unusual or significant.

Contact Sites
These sites are those which contain evidence of Aboriginal occupation during the period
of early European occupation in a local area. Evidence of this period of ‘contact’ could
potentially be Aboriginal flaked glass, burials with historic grave goods or markers, and
debris from ‘fringe camps’ where Aborigines who were employed by, or traded with, the
white community may have lived or camped. The most likely location for contact period
occupation sites would be camp sites adjacent to permanent water, and located in
relative proximity to centres of European occupation such as towns and homesteads. The

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 28

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

potential for such sites to be present in the proposal area is possible, however, considered
to be unlikely given the location of impacts away from towns or homesteads.

2.3.3 Field Inspection – Methodology

The methodological approach adopted in this assessment attends particularly to location

and relationality as a means of contextualising the material evidence of cultural practice
across space. Given the nature of the physiography, different places within the region are
likely to have been utilised for different purposes, and also by different categories of
people. Landscape is more than a set of ‘objective’ topographic features. Landscapes are
constructed out of cultural and social engagement; they are ‘... topographies of the social
and cultural as much as they are physical contours’ (David & Thomas 2008: 35). The
conceptual approach to understanding landscape in this assessment is based on a concern
with experience, occupation and bodily practice (cf. Thomas 2008: 305). The location of
material evidence in different environmental and topographic contexts across the study
area has the potential to be informative of different activities and social contexts.
Landform and environmental elements, as measurable empirical space, will be employed
methodologically to explore landuse, occupation and the nature of both recorded and
unseen (ie subsurface) material evidence. Given the vast space encompassed by the
subject area, this methodology allows for the identification, at a fine level of spatial
resolution, of elements representative of the patterns of social life and how these may
vary over space.

The practical methodology for the field survey entailed a pedestrian traverse of the
proposed activity area. The field survey was aimed at locating Aboriginal objects. An
assessment was also made of prior land disturbance, survey coverage variables (ground
exposure and archaeological visibility) and the potential archaeological sensitivity of the
land.

The approach to recording in the current study has been a ‘nonsite’ methodology (cf.
Dunnell 1993; Shott 1995). The density and nature of the artefact distribution will vary
across the landscape in accordance with a number of behavioural factors which resulted
in artefact discard. While cultural factors will have informed the nature of land use, and
the resultant artefact discard, environmental variables are those which can be utilised
archaeologically in order to analyse the variability in artefact density and nature across
the landscape. Accordingly, in this study, while the artefact is the elementary unit
recorded, Survey Units are utilised as a framework of recording, analysis (cf. Wandsnider
and Camilli 1992) and ultimately, the formulation of recommendations.

The variables recorded are defined below.

Survey Unit Variables

Landscape variables utilised are conventional categories taken from the Australian Soil
and Land Survey Field Handbook (McDonald et al. 1998):

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 29

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Landforms form the primary basis for defining Survey Unit boundaries. The following
landform variables were recorded:

Morphological type:
o Crest: - element that stands above all or almost all points in the adjacent terrain
– smoothly convex upwards in downslope profile. The margin is at the limit of
observed curvature.
o Simple slope: - element adjacent below crest or flat and adjacent above a flat or
depression.
o Flat: - planar element, neither crest or depression and is level or very gently
inclined.
o Open depression: - extends at same elevation or lower beyond locality where it is
observed.

Slope class and value:

o Level: 0 - 1%.
o Very gentle: 1 - 3%.
o Gentle: 3 - 10%.
o Moderate: 10 - 32%.
o Steep: 32 - 56%.

Geology
The type of geology was recorded and as well the abundance of rock outcrop – as defined
below. The level of visual interference from background quartz shatter was noted.
o No rock outcrop: - no bedrock exposed.
o Very slightly rocky: - <2% bedrock exposed.
o Slightly rocky: - 2-10% bedrock exposed.
o Rocky : - 10-20 % bedrock exposed.
o Very rocky: - 20-50% bedrock exposed.
o Rockland: - >50% bedrock exposed.

Soil
Soil type and depth was recorded. The potential for soil to contain subsurface
archaeological deposit (based on depth) was recorded as Low, Moderate or High. This
observation is based solely on the potential for soil to contain artefacts; it does not imply
that artefacts will be present or absent.

Geomorphological processes
The following gradational categories were recorded:
o eroded
o eroded or aggraded
o aggraded
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 30
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Geomorphological agents
The following geomorphological agents were recorded:
o gravity: collapse or particle fall
o precipitation: creep; landslide; sheet flow
o stream flow: channelled or unchannelled
o wind
o biological: human; nonhuman

Survey coverage variables were also recorded; these are described further below.

Aboriginal Object Recording

For the purposes of defining the artefact distribution in space it has been labelled as a
locale (eg. Survey Unit 1/Locale 1).

The measurable area in which artefacts are observed has been noted and if relevant, a
broader area encompassing both visible and predicted subsurface artefacts has been
defined. In addition, locale specific assessments of survey coverage variables have been
made. The prior disturbance to the locale has been noted. Artefact numbers in each locale
have been recorded and a prediction of artefact density noted, based on observed density
taking into consideration Effective Survey Coverage, and a consideration of
environmental context.

Survey Coverage Variables

Survey Coverage Variables are a measure of ground surveyed during the study and the
type of archaeological visibility present within that surveyed area. Survey coverage
variables provide a measure with which to assess the effectiveness of the survey so as to
provide an informed basis for the formulation of management strategies.

Specifically, an analysis of survey coverage is necessary in order to determine whether or

not the opportunity to observe stone artefacts in or on the ground was achieved during
the survey. In the event that it is determined that ground exposures provided a minimal
opportunity to record stone artefacts, it may be necessary to undertake archaeological
test excavation for determining whether or not stone artefacts are present. Conversely, if
ground exposures encountered provided an ideal opportunity to record the presence of
stone artefacts, the survey results may be considered to be adequate and, accordingly, no
further archaeological work may be required.

Two variables were used to measure ground surface visibility during the study; the area
of ground exposure encountered, and the quality and type of ground visibility
(archaeological visibility) within those exposures. The survey coverage variables
estimated during the survey are defined as follows:

Ground Exposure – an estimate of the total area inspected which contained exposures of
bare ground; and
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 31
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Archaeology Visibility – an estimate of the average levels of potential archaeological

surface visibility within those exposures of bare ground. Archaeological visibility is
generally less than ground exposure as it is dependent on adequate breaching of the bare
ground surface which provides a view of the subsurface soil context. Based on subsurface
test excavation results conducted in a range of different soil types across New South
Wales it is understood that artefacts are primarily situated within 10 - 30 cm of the
ground profile; reasonable archaeological visibility therefore requires breaching of the
ground surface to at least a depth of 10 cm.

Based on the two visibility variables as defined above, an estimate (Net Effective
Exposure) of the archaeological potential of exposure area within a survey unit has been
calculated. The Effective Survey Coverage (ESC) calculation is a percentage estimate of
the proportion of the Survey Unit which provided the potential to view archaeological
material.

The data collected forms the basis for the documentation of survey results outlined in the
section below.

2.3.4 Field Inspection – Results

A field survey was conducted 29 and 30 September 2015. The results are described below.
Survey Units are listed in Table 2. Aboriginal object locales are listed in Table 3. The
location of Survey Unit areas and Aboriginal object site recordings are shown on Figures
3 and 4 respectively.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 32

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Table 2 Description of Survey Units.

Name Comments Aboriginal objects Proposed impacts

SU1 SU1 is a gently undulating crest in the Gullen Range Wind Farm. The geology is shale/slate and Predicted artefact Access road and electrical
soils are very rocky with high levels of shale shatter. The landform is eroded and highly disturbed. density: very low. connection to substation
Exposures were primarily a formed road and adjacent bare earth and erosion. The existing road is
well formed and disturbed over a width of c. 6m.
Ground exposures in SU1 were fairly sparse bare ground (sheet erosion). Ground exposure was
estimated to be c. 20 sq m. Of that exposure c. 90% was assessed to be archaeological visibility.
NEE is therefore calculated to be 18 sq m.
SU2 SU2 is a north facing simple slope of gentle gradient. The geology is shale/slate and soils are very Predicted artefact Access road and electrical
rocky with high levels of shale shatter. The landform is eroded and highly disturbed. density: very low. connection to substation
Ground exposures in SU2 were extensive areas of bare ground (sheet erosion). Ground exposure GSF1
was estimated to be c. 300 sq m and were mostly confined to the upper slope near to the treeline. GSF11
Of that exposure c. 90% was assessed to be archaeological visibility. NEE is therefore calculated
to be 270 sq m.
SU3 SU3 is a north facing simple slope (basal) of moderate gradient. The geology is shale/slate and Predicted artefact Access road and electrical
soils are very rocky with high levels of shale shatter. The landform is eroded and highly disturbed. density: very low. connection to substation
Ground exposures in SU3 were fairly sparse bare ground (sheet erosion) in an area where vehicles GSF2
cross a minor drainage line. Ground exposure was estimated to be c. 40 sq m. Of that exposure c.
80% was assessed to be archaeological visibility. NEE is therefore calculated to be 32 sq m.
SU4 SU4 is a south facing simple slope of moderate gradient. The geology is shale/slate and soils are Predicted artefact Access road and electrical
very rocky with high levels of shale shatter. The landform is eroded and highly disturbed. density: very low. connection to substation
Ground exposures in SU4 were sparse bare ground (gully erosion) in a minor drainage line.
Ground exposure was estimated to be c. 10 sq m. Of that exposure c. 30% was assessed to be
archaeological visibility. NEE is therefore calculated to be 3 sq m.
SU5 SU5 is a gently undulating crest. The geology is shale/slate and soils are very rocky with high Predicted artefact Solar arrays
levels of shale shatter. The landform is eroded and highly disturbed. Exposures were primarily a density: very low,
formed road, bare earth, ploughed paddock and erosion scours. The SU contains a road various with the potential
sheds, yards and a dwelling. At its eastern end, milky quartz cobbles occur across the landscape. A to increase in
small outcrop of what appears to be greywacke is present. density near to the
Ground exposure was estimated to be c. 5 hectares. Of that exposure c. 10% was assessed to be eastern end.
archaeological visibility. NEE is therefore calculated to be 5,000 sq m. GSF 3
GSF 4
GSF 5
GSF 6

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 33

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Name Comments Aboriginal objects Proposed impacts

GSF 7
GSF 8
GSF 9
GSF 10
GSF 12
GSF 13
GSF 15
GSF 16
GSF 18
GSF 19
GSF 20
GSF 21
SU6 SU6 is a north facing simple slope of gentle/moderate gradient. The geology is shale/slate and soils Predicted artefact Solar arrays
are very rocky with high levels of shale shatter. The landform is eroded and highly disturbed. density: very low.
Ground exposure was estimated to be c. 20 sq m. Of that exposure c. 80% was assessed to be GSF 17
archaeological visibility. NEE is therefore calculated to be 16 sq m.
SU7 SU7 is an elevated creek terrace/flat. It is an aggrading landform adjacent to a bend in Sawpit Predicted artefact Solar arrays
Creek. The site has the potential to contain deep colluvium and relatively undisturbed density: moderate.
archaeological deposit. Given the favourable nature of the landform (large and flat), situated GSF 14
adjacent to a source of reasonably reliable water, it is expected to have been a focal point in the
immediate local landscape for Aboriginal land uses. A large milky quartz outcrop of boulders is
present near to the creek in the SU.
The landform possessed no ground exposure at the time of the field inspection.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 34

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Figure 3 Location of Survey Units in respect of proposed layout.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 35

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Figure 4 Location of Aboriginal locales in respect of proposed layout.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 36

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Aboriginal Object Recordings

The Aboriginal object locales recorded during the survey (including those previously
recorded by OEH) are summarised in Table 3 and described in detail below. The stone
artefacts are listed in Table 4. Individual site maps are presented in Appendix 2.

Table 3 List of Aboriginal object sites in the subject area.

Name Description easting northing
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 1 4 stone artefacts in bare earth exposures 726001 6167094
AHIMS 51-5-0238 on a gentle, north facing simple slope in
SU2
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 2 8 stone artefacts in sheet erosion on a 726014 6167257
AHIMS 51-5-0239 basal simple slope in SU3
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 3 3 stone artefacts over a large area 726990 6167330
AHIMS 51-5-0240 measuring approximately 40 x 40m in
SU5
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 4 2 stone artefacts in an erosion scour in 727251 6167322
AHIMS 51-5-0241 SU5
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 5 8 stone artefacts in an area measuring 50 727442 6167349
AHIMS 51-5-0242 x 20m in SU5
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 6 4 stone artefacts in an area measuring 50 727655 6167208
AHIMS 51-5-0243 x 20m in SU5
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 7 1 broken ground edged hatchet head in 726518 6167460
AHIMS 51-5-0244 SU5
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 8 1 stone artefact on the edge of a farm 726478 6167524
AHIMS 51-5-0245 road in SU5
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 9 1 stone artefact in a cultivated paddock 726160 6167826
AHIMS 51-5-0250 in SU5
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 10 1 stone artefact at the edge of a paddock 726211 6167314
AHIMS 51-5-0251 outside development area
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 11 12 stone artefacts at the edge of a the 725816 6167162
AHIMS 51-5-0252 tree line in SU2
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 12 12 stone artefacts (a single knapping 726034 6167462
AHIMS 51-5-0253 event) in an erosion scour in SU5
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 13 1 stone artefact in a cultivated paddock 726131 6167536
AHIMS 51-5-0254 in SU5
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 14 A Sensitive Archaeological Landform 727672 6167409
AHIMS 51-5-0255 and Stone Procurement Area = SU7 (see
Figure 3)
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 15 3 stone artefacts in an area of bare earth 727388 6167421
AHIMS 51-5-0256 measuring 5 x 5m in SU5
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 16 A Stone Procurement Area with artefacts 727239 6167381
AHIMS 51-5-0257 in SU5
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 17 1 stone artefact in a paddock in SU6 727175 6167502
AHIMS 51-5-0258
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 18 1 stone artefact in a paddock in SU5 727118 6167451
AHIMS 51-5-0259
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 19 1 stone artefact in a paddock in SU5 727131 6167392
AHIMS 51-5-0260
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 20 5 stone artefacts on a track in SU5 726776 6167399
AHIMS 51-5-0261
Gullen Solar Farm - Site 21 1 stone artefact adjacent to a track in 726613 6167433
AHIMS 51-5-0262 SU5

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 37

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Gullen Solar Farm 1

This site was originally recorded by Jackie Taylor, NSW OEH in February 2015. The site
was re-recorded during the current field survey. Stone artefacts were recorded in bare
earth exposures at the edge of the tree line on a simple slope (Plate 1; Figure 4). The
landform faces north and has a gradient of 6°. Four artefacts were recorded and another
five or so milky quartz pieces were observed which may well be artefactual. It is noted
that the background gravels contain high levels of natural quartz. The broad area of
exposure measures c. 50 x 10m, of which 50% was ground exposure, possessing 60-70%
archaeological visibility. The geomorphological context is erosional. Accordingly, the site
has limited subsurface potential. The site is highly disturbed. The artefacts are present in
very low density and are assessed to be part of the distribution across the wider landform
rather than a discrete 'site' occurrence.

Plate 1 Gullen Solar Farm Site 1; looking 150°.

Gullen Solar Farm 2

This site was recorded by Jackie Taylor, NSW OEH. Stone artefacts were recorded in an
area of sheet erosion on a basal simple slope (Plate 2; Figure 4). The slope faces north and
has a gradient of 11°. The site is immediately adjacent to a 1st order drainage depression
which was flowing at the time of the field survey but is an ephemeral water course. Eight
artefacts were recorded in detail, two of which are retouched artefacts (Bondi Points).
Another 20 or so milky quartz pieces were observed and may well be artefactual. The
area of erosion measures c. 15 x 4m, of which 80% was ground exposure, possessing 80%
archaeological visibility. The geomorphological context is erosional. Accordingly, the site
has limited subsurface potential. The site is likely to be confined to the edge of the
drainage line given that the adjacent slope rises steeply. A small, flat terrace situated
downslope (east) of the site is likely to be archaeologically sensitive and to contain
archaeological deposit (Plate 3).

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 38

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Plate 2 Gullen Solar Farm Site 2; looking 180°.

Plate 3 Gullen Solar Farm Site 2; looking 70°. Note, terrace to east of site denoted with
an arrow.

Gullen Solar Farm 3

This site was originally recorded by Jackie Taylor, NSW OEH (Plate 4; Figure 4). The
landform is a crest with an open aspect. Three artefacts are present over a large area
measuring approximately 40 x 40m of which 30% was ground exposure, possessing 90%
archaeological visibility. The geomorphological context is erosional and bedrock shatter
and outcrops are exposed. Accordingly, the site has limited subsurface potential. The site
is highly disturbed. The locale is assessed to be a very low density artefact distribution
likely to extend across the wider landform.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 39

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Plate 4 Gullen Solar Farm Site 3; looking 180°.

Gullen Solar Farm 4

This site was originally recorded by Jackie Taylor, NSW OEH (Plate 5; Figure 4). The
landform is a crest with a gentle gradient and easterly aspect. Two artefacts are present
in an area of erosion measuring approximately 40 x 30m of which 40% was ground
exposure, possessing 90% archaeological visibility. The geomorphological context is
erosional. Accordingly, the site has limited subsurface potential. The site is disturbed.
The locale is assessed to be a very low density artefact distribution likely to extend across
the wider landform.

Plate 5 Gullen Solar Farm Site 4; looking 80°.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 40

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Gullen Solar Farm 5

This site was originally recorded by Jackie Taylor, NSW OEH. Eight stone artefacts
occur in a broad area measuring c. 50 x 20m. (Plate 6; Figure 4). The landform is a
relatively flat ridge crest with an open aspect. A transversely broken hatchet head is
present (Plates 7 & 8). Ground exposure at the site is c. 2%, of which 80% is estimated to
be archaeological visibility. The geomorphological context is erosional. Soils possess high
levels of shale shatter. The site has limited subsurface potential. A graded pile of cobbles
occurs in the area: the site is highly disturbed. The locale is assessed to be a low density
artefact distribution likely to extend across the wider landform.

Plate 6 Gullen Solar Farm Site 5; looking 110°.

Plate 7 GSF Site 5 - Broken ground edge Plate 8 GSF Site 5 - Broken ground edge
hatchet head: plan view. hatchet head: ground edge

Gullen Solar Farm 6

This site was originally recorded by Jackie Taylor, NSW OEH. (Plate 9; Figure 4). The
landform is a terminal ridge crest and faces north with a very gentle gradient. The site
area measures c. 100 x 20m. Four stone artefacts were recorded in that area. The site

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 41

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

possesses abundant background quartz, most of which is of poor quality. However,

numerous pieces of good quality milky quartz were observed, although their artefactual
status is questionable. The area has been mechanically disturbed by grading up piles of
cobbles. The broad area of exposure measures c. 100 x 20m, of which 30% was ground
exposure, possessing an estimated 70% archaeological visibility. The geomorphological
context is erosional. Given the prior grading and disturbance, the subsurface potential of
the site is low. The locale is assessed to be a very low density artefact distribution likely
to extend across the wider landform.

Plate 9 Gullen Solar Farm Site 6; looking 90°.

Gullen Solar Farm 7

This site was originally recorded by Jackie Taylor, NSW OEH. The landform is a
crest/simple slope interface with a northerly aspect and gentle gradient (Plate 10; Figure
4). A cutting end of a transversely broken hatchet head is present (Plates 11 & 12).
Ground exposure at the site is estimated to be 10%, of which 80% archaeological
visibility. The geomorphological context is erosional. Soils possess high levels of shale
shatter. The site has limited subsurface potential. The locale is assessed to be a low
density artefact distribution likely to extend across the wider landform.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 42

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Plate 10 Gullen Solar Farm Site 7; looking 220°. Note, artefact under tree to left of
figure.

Plate 11 GSF Site 7 - Broken ground edge Plate 12 GSF Site 7 - Broken ground edge
hatchet head: plan view. hatchet head: damaged ground edge.

Gullen Solar Farm 8

This site was originally recorded by Jackie Taylor, NSW OEH. One stone artefact was
recorded at the south-west edge of the farm road on a simple slope (Plate 13; Figure 4).
The slope faces north and has a gentle gradient. The artefact is a grey silcrete flake. The
soils contain abundant shale shatter and background gravels contain high levels of
natural quartz. The broad area of exposure measures c. >50 x 1m, of which c. 70% was
ground exposure, possessing an estimated 80% archaeological visibility. The
geomorphological context is erosional. Accordingly, the site has limited subsurface
potential. The site is disturbed. Artefacts are apparently present in very low density and
artefact is assessed to be part of the distribution across the wider landform rather than a
discrete 'site' occurrence.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 43

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Plate 13 Gullen Solar Farm Site 8; looking 140°. Note, artefact at figure with ranging
pole.

Gullen Solar Farm 9

One stone artefact was recorded in a recently cultivated paddock (Plate 14; Figure 4).
The landform is a very gently undulating broad plateau/crest. The artefact is a milky
quartz compression flake. Ground exposure is c. 2% of which an estimated 40% is
archaeological visibility. The geomorphological context is relatively stable. Accordingly,
the site has subsurface potential. The site is disturbed. Artefacts are apparently present
in very low density and artefact is assessed to be part of the distribution across the wider
landform rather than a discrete 'site' occurrence.

Plate 14 Gullen Solar Farm Site 9; looking 180°. Note, artefact at paperwork on ground
near ranging pole.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 44

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Gullen Solar Farm 10

One stone artefact was recorded at the edge of a paddock (Plate 15; Figure 4). The
landform is a very gently undulating broad plateau/crest. The artefact is milky quartz
compression flake. The broad area of exposure measures c. 10 x 10m, of which c. 10% was
ground exposure, possessing an estimated 80% archaeological visibility. The
geomorphological context is erosional and the soil is a shallow lithosol. Accordingly, the
site has limited subsurface potential. The site is very rocky with bedrock exposures.
Artefacts are apparently present in very low density and the artefact is assessed to be
part of the distribution across the wider landform rather than a discrete 'site' occurrence.

Plate 15 Gullen Solar Farm Site 10; looking 130°.

Gullen Solar Farm 11

Stone artefacts were recorded in bare earth exposures at the edge of the tree line at the
interface between a ridge crest and simple slope (Plate 16; Figure 4). The slope faces
north and has a gradient of 4°. Twelve artefacts were recorded in bare earth erosional
exposures. Background gravels contain low levels of natural quartz. The broad area of
exposure measures c. 40 x 10m, of which c. 30-40% was ground exposure, possessing an
estimated 60-70% archaeological visibility. The geomorphological context is erosional.
Soils are lithosols. Accordingly, the site has limited subsurface potential. The site is
highly disturbed. The artefacts are present in very low density and are assessed to be part
of the distribution across the wider landform rather than a discrete 'site' occurrence.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 45

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Plate 16 Gullen Solar Farm Site 11; looking 260°.

Gullen Solar Farm 12

Stone artefacts were recorded in bare earth exposures at a farm gate (Plate 17; Figure 4).
The landform is a crest/plateau which is very gently undulating. Twelve artefacts were
recorded most of which appear to be a part on an individual knapping event (Plate 18).
Background gravels contain natural quartz. The exposure measures c. 10 x 5m, of which
c. 5% was ground exposure, possessing an estimated 80% archaeological visibility. The
geomorphological context is relatively stable. The soil is a silty loam with some
background shatter. The site has some subsurface potential. The site is disturbed. The
artefacts occur as an individual knapping event and are assessed to be part of the patchy
artefact distribution across the wider landform.

Plate 17 Gullen Solar Farm Site 12; looking 180°.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 46
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Plate 18 Gullen Solar Farm Site 12: artefacts.

Gullen Solar Farm 13

One stone artefact was recorded in a recently cultivated paddock (Plate 19; Figure 4).
The landform is a very gently undulating broad plateau/crest. The artefact is a milky
quartz flake fragment (Plate 20). Ground exposure is c. 2% of which an estimated 40% is
archaeological visibility. The geomorphological context is relatively stable. Accordingly,
the site has subsurface potential. The site is disturbed. Artefacts are apparently present
in very low density and artefact is assessed to be part of the distribution across the wider
landform rather than a discrete 'site' occurrence.

Plate 19 Gullen Solar Farm Site 13; looking 210°.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 47

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Plate 20 Gullen Solar Farm Site 13: artefact in situ.

Gullen Solar Farm 14

This recording is a Sensitive Archaeological Landform with a Stone Procurement Area.
The landform is a terrace adjacent to a bend in Sawpit Creek - Survey Unit 7 (Plate 21;
Figures 3 & 4). The terrace is likely to contain archaeological deposit and also has a large
quartz outcrop which has almost certainly has been used for stone procurement (Plate
22). The geomorphological context is aggrading and relatively stable. The quartz outcrop
occurs as boulders in an area measuring c. 15 x 15 m. The evidence of use is Herztian cone
fractures on some boulders (Plate 23).

Plate 21 Gullen Solar Farm Site 14; looking 30°. Dashed line indicates extent of
landform.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 48

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Plate 22 Milky quartz outcrops in Gullen Solar Farm Site 14; looking 120°.

Plate 23 Gullen Solar Farm Site 14; Hertzian cone fractures on milky quartz boulder.

Gullen Solar Farm 15

Stone artefacts were recorded in bare earth exposures in a paddock (Plate 24; Figure 4).
The landform is a crest/plateau which is very gently undulating with a northerly aspect.
Three artefacts were recorded in an area measuring c. 7 x 2m (Plate 25). Quartz cobbles
are present in the area and one of the artefacts appears to be a reduced local cobble. The
exposure measures c. 5 x 5m, of which c. 5% was ground exposure, possessing an
estimated 70% archaeological visibility. The geomorphological context is relatively
stable. The soil is silty loam with moderate shale shatter and some natural quartz. The
site has some subsurface potential. The site is disturbed.
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 49
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Plate 24 Gullen Solar Farm Site 15; looking 100°.

Plate 25 Gullen Solar Farm Site 15. Example of two artefacts including milky quartz
bipolar core.

Gullen Solar Farm 16

This site is a Stone Procurement Area consisting of a small stone outcrop (believed to be
greywackie) which has evidence of extraction (Plates 26, 27 & 28; Figure 4). The
landform is a crest/plateau which is very gently undulating with an easterly aspect. The
site area extends c. 15 x 15 m. The greywackie outcrops are at the south end. The
outcrops consist on a low rounded boulder measuring c. 2 x 1 m and a smaller fractured
piece which exhibits bifacial flaking. Elsewhere three quartz artefacts including a quartz
pebble were recorded. The geomorphological context is relatively stable. The soil is silty
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 50
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

loam with moderate shale shatter and some natural quartz. The site has some subsurface
potential. The site is disturbed.

Plate 26 Gullen Solar Farm Site 16; looking 220°.

Plate 27 Gullen Solar Farm Site 16: ?greywackie outcrop; looking north.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 51

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Plate 28 Gullen Solar Farm Site 16: bifacially flaked edge on ?greywackie outcrop.

Gullen Solar Farm 17

One stone artefact was recorded in a paddock (Plate 29; Figure 4). The landform is a
simple slope with a gentle gradient and northerly aspect. The artefact is a translucent
quartz flake fragment. Ground exposure is c. 2% of which an estimated 40% is
archaeological visibility. The geomorphological context is erosional. Accordingly, the site
has limited subsurface potential. The site is disturbed. Artefacts are apparently present
in very low density and the artefact is assessed to be part of the distribution across the
wider landform rather than a discrete 'site' occurrence.

Plate 29 Gullen Solar Farm Site 17; looking 90°.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 52

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Gullen Solar Farm 18

One stone artefact was recorded in a paddock (Plate 30; Figure 4). The landform is a
simple slope with a gentle gradient and northerly aspect. The artefact is a translucent
quartz flake fragment. Ground exposure is c. 2% of which an estimated 40% is
archaeological visibility. The geomorphological context is erosional. Accordingly, the site
has limited subsurface potential. The site is disturbed. Artefacts are apparently present
in very low density and artefact is assessed to be part of the distribution across the wider
landform rather than a discrete 'site' occurrence.

Plate 30 Gullen Solar Farm Site 18; looking 90°.

Gullen Solar Farm 19

Four stone artefacts were recorded in a an erosion scour in a paddock (Plate 31; Figure 4).
The landform is a crest with a gentle gradient and easterly aspect. Ground exposure is c.
15% of which an estimated 60% is archaeological visibility. The geomorphological
context is erosional. Accordingly, the site has limited subsurface potential. The site is
disturbed. Artefacts are apparently present in very low density and artefact is assessed to
be part of the distribution across the wider landform rather than a discrete 'site'
occurrence.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 53

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Plate 31 Gullen Solar Farm Site 19; looking 180°.

Gullen Solar Farm 20

Five stone artefacts were recorded on a farm track over a distance of c. 40 m in a paddock
(Plate 32; Figure 4). The landform is a crest with a gentle gradient and easterly aspect.
Ground exposure is c. 10% of which an estimated 80% is archaeological visibility. The
geomorphological context is erosional. Accordingly, the site has limited subsurface
potential. The site is disturbed. Artefacts are apparently present in very low density and
artefact is assessed to be part of the distribution across the wider landform rather than a
discrete 'site' occurrence.

Plate 32 Gullen Solar Farm Site 20; looking 90°.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 54

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Gullen Solar Farm 21

One stone artefact was recorded adjacent to a farm track (Plate 33; Figure 4). The
landform is a crest with a gentle gradient and open aspect. Ground exposure over an area
measuring 30 x 5m is c. 30% of which an estimated 40% is archaeological visibility. The
geomorphological context is erosional. Accordingly, the site has limited subsurface
potential. The site is disturbed. Artefacts are apparently present in very low density and
artefact is assessed to be part of the distribution across the wider landform rather than a
discrete 'site' occurrence.

Plate 33 Gullen Solar Farm Site 21; looking 250°.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 55

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Table 4 Stone artefacts recorded in subject area.

Site # Material Colour Type Dimensions Plat. Term. Comments
GSF 1 ?tuff proximal flake 3 focal
portion
GSF 1 quartz milky flake fragment 2
GSF 1 quartz milky bipolar flake 3 crushed both ends
GSF 1 quartz milky flake fragment 4
GSF 2 tuff/chert? grey flake 2 broad feather
GSF 2 quartz milky flake 4 broad feather
GSF 2 silcrete brown flake 4 focal feather
GSF 2 silcrete brown flake fragment 3
GSF 2 silcrete brown proximal flake 3 broad
portion
GSF 2 quartz milky bondi point 17 x 8 x 5
medial portion
GSF 2 quartz milky proximal flake 3 focal
portion
GSF 2 silcrete red/brown bondi point 14 x 6 x 5 broken tip
GSF 3 quartz milky possible flake 3
GSF 3 silcrete brown flake 2
GSF 3 silcrete brown flake 3
GSF 9 quartz milky compression flake 33 x 22 x
12
GSF 4 quartz milky flaked piece 5
GSF 4 quartz milky possible flake 3
fragment
GSF 5 uncertain grey hatchet head 73 x 73 x broken, edge rounded
25 possibly from reuse as
anvil
GSF 5 quartz grey flake 3 broad feather

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 56

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Site # Material Colour Type Dimensions Plat. Term. Comments

GSF 5 quartz milky proximal flake 2 broad
portion
GSF 5 quartz grey flake fragment 3
GSF 5 quartz grey flaked piece 3
GSF 5 quartz milky flake portion 3 longitudinally split
GSF 5 silcrete brown core fragment 4
GSF 6 silcrete brown flake fragment 2
GSF 6 quartz milky flake fragment 3
GSF 6 quartz milky flake 3 broad feather
GSF 6 silcrete brown flake 2 broad feather
GSF 7 uncertain grey hatchet head 73 x 76 x laterally broken, ground
38 edge, edge damage
GSF 8 silcrete grey flake 45 x 36 x broad feather
15
GSF 9 quartz milky compression flake 3
GSF 10 quartz milky compression flake 5
GSF 11 quartz milky core fragment 4
GSF 11 quartz milky flake 3 outre
passe
GSF 11 quartz milky flake fragment 4
GSF 11 quartz milky flake fragment 3
GSF 11 quartz milky flake fragment 2
GSF 11 quartz milky flake 4 broad
GSF 11 quartz milky flake 2 broad feather
GSF 11 silcrete brown flake portion 3 longitudinally split
GSF 11 quartz milky flake 2 broad feather
GSF 11 silcrete brown flake focal feather pot lid scar
GSF 11 silcrete brown flake broad feather

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 57

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Site # Material Colour Type Dimensions Plat. Term. Comments

GSF 11 quartz milky flake fragment 2
GSF 12 quartz milky flake 4 broad feather
GSF 12 quartz milky flake portion 3 longitudinally split
GSF 12 quartz milky flake portion 3 longitudinally split
GSF 12 quartz milky flake piece 3
GSF 12 quartz milky flake fragment 2
GSF 12 quartz milky medial flake 2
portion
GSF 12 quartz milky medial flake 2
portion
GSF 12 quartz milky flake fragment 1
GSF 12 quartz milky flake 2 broad feather
GSF 12 quartz milky flake fragment 2
GSF 12 quartz milky flake fragment 2
GSF 12 quartz milky flake fragment 1
GSF 13 quartz milky flake fragment 3
GSF 15 quartz milky bipolar core 69 x 58 x crushed both ends, one
35 side missing
GSF 15 silcrete brown flake fragment 3
GSF 15 quartz milky bifacial core crushing around margins
GSF 16 quartz milky possible flake 3
fragment
GSF 16 quartz milky possible core 4
GSF 16 quartz milky pebble, probable 68 x 66 x fluvial piece, possibly
hammerstone 30 from conglomerate rock,
with crushing on one end
GSF 17 quartz transparent flake fragment 3
GSF 18 quartz milky possible flake

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 58

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Site # Material Colour Type Dimensions Plat. Term. Comments

GSF 19 tuff brown flake fragment 3
GSF 19 quartz milky possible flake 3
GSF 19 quartz milky possible flake 3
GSF 19 quartz milky possible flake 3
GSF 20 silcrete brown flake fragment 2
GSF 20 silcrete grey flake fragment 3
GSF 20 silcrete grey flake fragment 4
GSF 20 silcrete grey flake 3 focal feather
GSF 20 quartzite brown core fragment 6 one platform, three
negative scars
GSF 21 silcrete brown flake 2 focal feather

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 59

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

3. CONSULTATION PROCESS

A process of Aboriginal community consultation has been undertaken in

accordance with the guidelines as set out in the OEH’s Aboriginal cultural heritage
consultation requirements for proponents 2010 (NSW DECCW 2010b).

3.1 Consultation

In order to identify, notify and register Aboriginal people who may hold cultural
knowledge relevant to determining the cultural significant of Aboriginal objects and/or
places in the area of the proposed project, the following procedure was implemented (see
Appendix 1)

Correspondence dated 20 January 2015 was sent to:

o OEH Queanbeyan office

o Onerwal Local Aboriginal Land Council
o the Registrar, Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983
o the National Native Title Tribunal, requesting a list of registered native title
claimants, native title holders and registered Indigenous Land Use Agreements
o Native Title Services Corporation Limited (NTSCORP Limited)
o Upper Lachlan Shire Council

In addition an advertisement was placed in the 23 January 2015 edition of the Goulburn
Post newspaper (closing date for registration of interest was noted as 6 February 2015).

The Office of the Registrar Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, responded indicating that
there does not appear to be Registered Aboriginal Owners for the project area. The
ntscorp responded indicating that they would pass our details on to the relevant people.
The Upper Lachlan Shire Council provided contact details for Onerwal and Pejar Local
Aboriginal councils. The National Native Title Tribunal responded and indicated that
native title had been extinguished over the area.

Following advice received from NSW OEH (22 January 2015), further correspondence
was sent to:
o Alice Williams
o Cowra LALC
o Peter Falk Consultancy
o Pejar Local Aboriginal Land Council
o Buru Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation
o Gundungurra Aboriginal Heritage Association

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 60

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

o Koomurri Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation

The registered Aboriginal parties for this project are:

o Peter Falk
o Tyronne Bell
o Glen Freeman on behalf of Koomurri Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation and
Gulgunya Ngunawal Heritage Aboriginal Consultancy

An outline of the scope of the project, the proposed cultural heritage assessment process
and the heritage assessment methodology was forwarded to the registered parties on
varying dates, immediately following receipt of their registration of interest. Glen
Freeman, Gulgunya Ngunawal Heritage Aboriginal Consultancy, responded via email on
the 20th February 2015 indicating that he had no issues with the methodology.

A further letter was provided to Registered Aboriginal Parties dated 11 May 2015
indicating that the project was on hold as some development issues are being ironed out.

The three Registered Aboriginal Parties were provided with an opportunity to

participate in the field survey, and all applied to do so. However, at the end of the day,
two were unable to attend and only Glen Freeman did so.

For review and comment, a copy of the draft report was forwarded to the registered
parties and Onerwal LALC on the 22 October 2015. The following response has been
received:

Email dated 9/11/15

Dear Julie,
After due perusal of this comprehensive document the RAP'S of KNAC and GNHAC wish to
advise that we are in support of all recommendations and mitigation strategies proposed for
this project. As such we also support the granting of an AHIP.
Kind Regards,
Glen Freeman(KNAC/GNHAC)
Gulgunya Ngunawal Heritage Aboriginal Consultancy
Koomurri Ngunawal Aboriginal Corporation

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 61

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

4. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION

In the previous section of this report, the results of the background research and the field
survey have been outlined. The purpose of this section of the Aboriginal cultural heritage
assessment report is to explain the results.

The proposal area is likely to contain stone artefacts across the majority, if not all the
Survey Units defined during this assessment. Accordingly, the stone artefact locales
recorded are expected to be indicative of the archaeological status of the proposal area
only, rather than a comprehensive inventory.

The proposed impact area on the central ridge (SU5) and north face simple slope (SU6) is
assessed to contain very low density and patchy artefact distribution. Generally however,
it is possible that artefact density may increase to low towards the east end of the two
survey units. This is likely to be a factor of proximity to a higher order water course and
the relative abundance of local milky quartz (outcrops and large cobbles) likely to have
been used for stone extraction.

From an archaeological perspective, the results can be compared and contrasted to

previous studies. Packard and Hughes (1983) found that sites were rarely present on the
elevated topographies of the region. A pattern of low or low/moderate artefact density in
elevated contexts has been confirmed by numerous previous wind farm studies in the
region (for example, see Austral Archaeology PL 2005, 2008, 2009; Dibden 2006a, 2006b,
2008, 2012, 2013a & 2013b; Reeves and Thomson 2004).

In open valleys it is predicted that artefact density is likely to be higher and, also,
artefacts can be expected to be distributed as continuous occurrences across discrete
landforms, especially close to streams. The flat terrace in the bend of Sawpit Creek (SU7)
is predicted to contain moderate artefact density in a relatively deep and largely
undisturbed deposit. The milky quartz outcrop on this terrace is predicted to contain
flaking debris associated with stone extraction.

It is concluded that there are no information gaps which are of a significant magnitude to
warrant any further consideration at this time.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 62

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

5. CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUES AND STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The following significance assessment criteria is derived from the relevant aspects of
ICOMOS Burra Charter (Australian ICOMOS 1999).

Aboriginal cultural heritage sites are assessed under the following categories of
significance:

o Social or cultural value to contemporary Aboriginal people;

o Historical value;
o Scientific/archaeological value;
o Aesthetic value.

Aboriginal cultural significance

The Aboriginal community will value a place in accordance with a variety of factors
including contemporary associations and beliefs and historical relationships. Most
heritage evidence is highly valued by Aboriginal people given its symbolic embodiment
and physical relationship with their ancestral past.

Archaeological value
The assessment of archaeological value involves determining the potential of a place to
provide information which is of value in scientific analysis and the resolution of potential
archaeological research questions. Relevant research topics may be defined and addressed
within the academy, the context of cultural heritage management or Aboriginal
communities. Increasingly, research issues are being constructed with reference to the
broader landscape rather than focusing specifically on individual site locales. In order to
assess scientific value sites are evaluated in terms of nature of the evidence, whether or
not they contain undisturbed artefactual material, occur within a context which enables
the testing of certain propositions, are very old or contain significant time depth, contain
large artefactual assemblages or material diversity, have unusual characteristics, are of
good preservation, or are a part of a larger site complex. Increasingly, a range of site
types, including low density artefact distributions, are regarded to be just as important
as high density sites for providing research opportunities.

In order to assess the criteria of archaeological significance further, and also to consider
the criteria of rarity, consideration can be given to the distribution of stone artefacts
across the continent. There are two estimates of the quantity of accumulated stone
artefacts in Australia (Wright 1983:118; Kamminga 1991:14; 2002). Wright estimated an
average of 500,000 débitage items and 24,000 finished tools per square kilometre, which
equates to a total of about 180 billion finished stone tools and four trillion stone débitage
items in Australia. Kamminga’s estimates, which were determined from a different set of
variables, provide a conservative estimate of 200 billion stone tools and 40 million tonnes
of flaking débitage (see Kamminga 1991:14; 2002). These two estimates are similar, and
suggest that the actual number of stone tools and items of flaking débitage in Australia is

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 63

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

in the trillions. The stone artefacts distributed in the proposed activity area cannot,
therefore, be considered to be rare.

The vast majority of stone artefacts found in Australia comprise flaking debris (termed
débitage) from stone tool making. While it can be reasonably inferred from a range of
ethnographic and archaeological evidence that discarded stone artefacts and flaking
debris was not valued by the maker, in certain circumstances these objects may to
varying degrees have archaeological research potential and/or Aboriginal social value.
However, only in very exceptional circumstances is archaeological research potential
high for particular sites (Kamminga, J. pers. comm. June 2009).

Aesthetic value
Aesthetic value relates to aspects of sensory perception. This value is culturally
contingent.

5.1 Statement of Significance

The Indigenous cultural value of the landscape in general, as well as the Aboriginal
objects it contains, is considerably higher than the scientific value. Both the landscape
and the objects which are encompassed within it, are material testament to the lives of
Indigenous people’s ancestors and the focus of their current identity, concerns and
aspirations. Therefore, the proposed impacts will have an impact on the cultural
significance which attaches to the area.

The archaeological significance of each Aboriginal artefact locale in the subject area is set
out in the table below.

Table 5 Archaeological significance of Aboriginal object locales in the subject area.

Name Description Significance Criteria
Gullen Solar 4 stone artefacts in Low local scientific Common site type
Farm - Site 1 bare earth exposures significance. Low educational value
on a gentle, north Low aesthetic value
facing simple slope Low research potential:
in SU2 disturbed; predicted very low
density.
Gullen Solar 8 stone artefacts in Low local scientific Common site type
Farm - Site 2 sheet erosion on a significance. Low educational value
basal simple slope in However, small Low aesthetic value
SU3 terrace east of the Low research potential:
site may be of some disturbed; predicted very low
higher density.
archaeological value
Gullen Solar 3 stone artefacts Low local scientific Common site type
Farm - Site 3 over a large area significance. Low educational value
measuring Low aesthetic value
approximately 40 x Low research potential:
40m in SU5 disturbed; predicted very low
density.
Gullen Solar 2 stone artefacts in Low local scientific Common site type
Farm - Site 4 an erosion scour in significance. Low educational value

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 64

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Name Description Significance Criteria

SU5 Low aesthetic value
Low research potential:
disturbed; predicted very low
density.
Gullen Solar 8 stone artefacts in Low local scientific Common site type
Farm - Site 5 an area measuring significance. Low educational value
50 x 20m in SU5 However, the Low aesthetic value
hatchet head is of Low research potential:
some individual disturbed; predicted very low
value. density.
Gullen Solar 4 stone artefacts in Low local scientific Common site type
Farm - Site 6 an area measuring significance. Low educational value
50 x 20m in SU5 Low aesthetic value
Low research potential:
disturbed; predicted very low
density.
Gullen Solar 1 broken ground Low local scientific Common site type
Farm - Site 7 edged hatchet head significance. Low educational value
in SU5 However, the Low aesthetic value
hatchet head is of Low research potential:
some individual disturbed; predicted very low
value. density.
Gullen Solar 1 stone artefact on Low local scientific Common site type
Farm - Site 8 the edge of a farm significance. Low educational value
road in SU5 Low research potential:
disturbed; predicted very low
density.
Gullen Solar 1 stone artefact in a Low local scientific Common site type
Farm - Site 9 cultivated paddock significance. Low educational value
in SU5 Low research potential:
disturbed; predicted very low
density.
Gullen Solar 1 stone artefact at Low local scientific Common site type
Farm - Site 10 the edge of a significance. Low educational value
paddock outside Low aesthetic value
development area Low research potential:
disturbed; predicted very low
density.
Gullen Solar 12 stone artefacts at Low local scientific Common site type
Farm - Site 11 the edge of a the tree significance. Low educational value
line in SU2 Low aesthetic value
Low research potential:
disturbed; predicted very low
density.
Gullen Solar 12 stone artefacts (a Low local scientific Common site type
Farm - Site 12 single knapping significance. Low educational value
event) in an erosion Low aesthetic value
scour in SU5 Low research potential:
disturbed; predicted very low
density.
Gullen Solar 1 stone artefact in a Low local scientific Common site type
Farm - Site 13 cultivated paddock significance. Low educational value
in SU5 Low aesthetic value
Low research potential:
disturbed; predicted very low
density.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 65

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Name Description Significance Criteria

Gullen Solar A Sensitive Potentially Common site type, however SPA
Farm - Site 14 Archaeological moderate local is relatively uncommon
Landform and Stone significance. Low educational value
Procurement Area = Low aesthetic value
SU7 Moderate research potential:
relatively undisturbed; predicted
moderate density.
Gullen Solar 3 stone artefacts in Low local scientific Common site type
Farm - Site 15 an area of bare earth significance. Low educational value
measuring 5 x 5m in Low aesthetic value
SU5 Low research potential:
disturbed; predicted very low
density.
Gullen Solar A Stone Potentially Rare site type
Farm - Site 16 Procurement Area moderate local Low educational value
with artefacts in significance Low aesthetic value
SU5 Moderate research potential:
relatively undisturbed; predicted
moderate density.
Gullen Solar 1 stone artefact in a Low local scientific Common site type
Farm - Site 17 paddock in SU6 significance. Low educational value
Low aesthetic value
Low research potential:
disturbed; predicted very low
density.
Gullen Solar 1 stone artefact in a Low local scientific Common site type
Farm - Site 18 paddock in SU5 significance. Low educational value
Low aesthetic value
Low research potential:
disturbed; predicted very low
density.
Gullen Solar 1 stone artefact in a Low local scientific Common site type
Farm - Site 19 paddock in SU5 significance. Low educational value
Low aesthetic value
Low research potential:
disturbed; predicted very low
density.
Gullen Solar 5 stone artefacts on Low local scientific Common site type
Farm - Site 20 a track in SU5 significance. Low educational value
Low aesthetic value
Low research potential:
disturbed; predicted very low
density.
Gullen Solar 1 stone artefact Low local scientific Common site type
Farm - Site 21 adjacent to a track significance. Low educational value
in SU5 Low aesthetic value
Low research potential:
disturbed; predicted very low
density.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 66

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

6. THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY

In this section the nature and extent of the proposed activity and any potential harm to
Aboriginal areas, objects and/or places is identified.

A full description of the proposal and its potential impact on the landscape and heritage
resource is described. A summary of the impact history of the study area has been
described in Section 2 and is not repeated here. However, it is emphasised that prior and
existing land uses are likely to have caused significant changes to geomorphological
processes in the area with an associated effect on the archaeological resource.

Potential impacts to archaeology and heritage during the construction phase of the
proposal relate to site preparation, operation of vehicles and machinery and the
installation of infrastructure. This may involve earthworks and excavations and
vegetation clearing.

6.1 Proposed Impacts

Gullen Solar Farm Pty Ltd proposes to construct a solar photovoltaic (PV) plant of up to
11 megawatt (MW) capacity south of Crookwell in south-eastern New South Wales. The
subject area is adjacent to the 165.5 MW Gullen Range Wind Farm. The development of
additional renewable energy infrastructure at this location would make use of existing
electricity generation and transmission infrastructure used for the Wind Farm.

The proposal is comprised of the installation and construction, operation and

decommissioning of the following infrastructure:
o Approximately 40,000 solar PV panel modules (indicative module size 992
mm by 1956 mm in area, standing up to 3-4m high).
o Panel support frames, supported by posts either driven or concreted into the
ground.
o 1000-1500 Volt junction boxes.
o 5 or 6 x 1.8 MW – 2 MW inverters and step up transformers, to convert direct
current (DC) electricity produced by the solar panel modules into alternating
current (AC) capable of being connected to the existing electrical substation.
o Up to 3 km of 33 kilovolt (kV) underground reticulation (cabling to the
existing substation).
o 33 kV switchgear within the existing Wind Farm switchroom (to allow
connection to the existing substation).
o Minor earthworks.
o Access roads up to 8m wide. These would provide site access from the north-
west, access to the substation, to the south-west, as well as internal access
around the arrays.
o A central control and monitoring system.
o The entire facility will be fenced with 2.4m high chain mesh fence (for
electrical safety reasons).

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 67

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

6.2 Type of Harm

The proposed works would entail ground disturbance and, accordingly, the construction
of the solar farm has the potential to cause impacts to any Aboriginal areas, places or
objects which may be present within the zones of direct impact.

Impacts will be located on land currently utilised for stock grazing. Previous land use has
resulted in relatively significant environmental impacts and a generally degraded
landscape. European activated geomorphological processes and other natural processes
associated with land degradation, will have caused significant prior impacts to Aboriginal
objects within the proposal area.

However, irrespective of prior impacts the proposed works entail ground disturbance
and, accordingly, the project has the potential to cause additional impacts to any
Aboriginal objects which may be present within the individual components of the
proposal. The nature of impacts relating to each Aboriginal object locale is set out in the
table below.

Table 6 Impact Assessment.

Survey Unit Type of harm Degree of harm Consequence of
harm
SU1 Direct Partial Partial loss of
Nil known Impacts will be small and value
Aboriginal objects discrete
SU2 including: Direct Partial Partial loss of
GSF 1 Impacts will be small and value
GSF 11 discrete
SU3 including: Direct Partial Partial loss of
GSF 2 Impacts will be small and value
discrete
SU4 Direct Partial Partial loss of
Nil known Impacts will be small and value
Aboriginal objects discrete
SU5 including: Direct Partial Partial loss of
GSF 3 Impacts will be small and value
GSF 4 discrete.
GSF 5 In some cases sites will be
GSF 6 avoided but there is no
GSF 7 imperative to do so with the
GSF 8 exception of GSF16, if at all
GSF 9 possible.
GSF 10
GSF 12
GSF 13
GSF 15
GSF 16
GSF 18
GSF 19
GSF 20
GSF 21
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 68
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Survey Unit Type of harm Degree of harm Consequence of

harm
SU6 including: Direct Partial Partial loss of
GSF 17 Impacts will be small and value
discrete
SU7 including: Direct Partial Partial loss of
GSF 14 Impacts will be small and value
discrete. It is however,
recommended that no impacts
occur in this Survey Unit, if at
all possible

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 69

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

7. AVOIDING AND/OR MINIMISING HARM

Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) is defined in the Protection of the

Environment Administration Act 1991. Section 6(2) of that Act states that ESD requires
the effective integration of economic and environmental considerations in decision-
making processes and that ESD can be achieved through the implementation of:
(a) the precautionary principle,
(b) inter-generational equity,
(c) conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity,
(d) improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms.

The principles of ecologically sustainable development and the matter of cumulative

harm have been considered for this project. However, the proposed impacts will take
place within an area that has sustained a high level of prior impact associated with
agriculture. The works would therefore occur in areas which have already received a
certain level of impact and harm. Accordingly, considerations of ecologically sustainable
development and cumulative impacts can be considered largely irrelevant in the matter
at hand.

Nevertheless it is recognised that the area is in a vast rural region and hence existing and
future impacts are low. The majority of cultural values, including archaeological, which
attach to the landform and the broader landscape remain intact across the region.

Avoidance or the mitigation of harm has been considered as an option in relation to the
proposed activities. The cultural and archaeological heritage significance of the proposal
area has not been assessed to be of sufficient significance to warrant the implementation
of avoidance strategies for all sites (the exception to this is in regard to the terrace east of
GSF2, GSF 14 and GSF 16 – see below).

However, a program of impact mitigation in the form of site conservation is proposed to

off-set overall development impacts. If, however, impacts to GSF 14 and GSF 16 cannot
be avoided, it is recommended that a program of salvage excavation be undertaken as a
form of impact mitigation.

A number of management strategies are possible and these are each given consideration
below.

7.1 Management and Mitigation Strategies - Options

Further Investigation
The field survey has been focused on recording artefactual material present on visible
ground surfaces. Further archaeological investigation would entail subsurface excavation

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 70

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

undertaken as test pits for the purposes of identifying the presence of artefact bearing soil
deposits and their nature, extent, integrity and significance.

Further archaeological investigation in the form of subsurface test excavation can be

appropriate in certain situations. These generally arise when a proposed development is
expected to involve ground disturbance in areas which are assessed to have potential to
contain high density artefactual material and when the Effective Survey Coverage
achieved during a survey of a project area is low due to ground cover, vegetation etc.

No areas of the proposal area have been identified which warrant further archaeological
investigation in order to formulate appropriate management and mitigation strategies.
Based on a consideration of the predictive model of site type applicable to the
environmental context in which impacts are proposed, the archaeological potential of the
proposed impact areas is assessed not to warrant further investigation.

It is possible that Aboriginal objects with potential conservation value may be present in
the subject area (ie GSF 14 and GSF 16). However, given it is recommended that these
sites be conserved or salvaged, test excavation conducted under OEH’s Code of Practice
for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW 2010:
24) is not necessary.

Conservation
Conservation is a suitable management option in any situation, however, it is not always
feasible to achieve. Such a strategy is generally adopted in relation to sites which are
assessed to be of high cultural and scientific significance, but can be adopted in relation
to any site type.

In the case at hand, avoidance of impacts (or minimisation of impacts) in regard to the
recorded artefacts locales is not considered warranted (with the exceptions listed below).
Such a strategy, would in any case, likely result in impacts to other Aboriginal objects (as
predicted) which may not have been recorded because of subsurface incidence or lack of
obtrusiveness.

In respect of GSF 14 and GSF 16, it is recommended, that given the probability that
they are stone procurement areas which would have elevated archaeological and cultural
significance, these should be avoided during construction. An active strategy of impact
avoidance would need to be implemented in order to ensure their conservation, and this is
considered to be warranted.

It is also recommended the terrace to the east of GSF 2 be avoided during construction.

Mitigated Impacts
Mitigated impact usually takes the form of partial impacts only (i.e. conservation of part
of an Aboriginal artefact locale or Survey Unit) and/or salvage in the form of further
research and archaeological analysis prior to impacts. Such a management strategy is

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 71

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

generally appropriate when Aboriginal objects are assessed to be of moderate or high

significance to the scientific and/or Aboriginal community and when avoidance of
impacts and hence full conservation is not feasible. Salvage can include the surface
collection or subsurface excavation of Aboriginal objects and subsequent research and
analysis.

It is assessed that the majority of the archaeological resource in the proposal area does
not surpass significance thresholds which warrant any form of impact mitigation in this
regard. However, note recommendations above under heading Conservation in regard to
GSF 14, GSF 16 and terrace east of GSF 2. If conservation is not feasible, a program of
salvage excavation is recommended in regard to these sites.

Consideration should also be given to whether or not the broken hatchet heads in GSF 5
and GSF 7 should be salvaged.

Unmitigated Impacts
Unmitigated impact to Aboriginal objects can be given consideration when they are
assessed to be of low archaeological and cultural significance and otherwise in situations
where conservation is simply not feasible.

The majority of Aboriginal object locales identified (with the exception of GSF 14, GSF
16 and terrace to the east of GSF 2) have been assessed to be of low cultural and
archaeological heritage significance. In addition, any undetected or subsurface artefacts
are likewise assessed to be of low archaeological sensitivity. Given the nature and artefact
density in the proposal area, and the low scientific significance rating they been accorded,
unmitigated impacts are appropriate.

7.1 Management and Mitigation Strategies

Specific management and mitigation strategies for each Survey Unit are outlined in the
table below.

Table 7 Management and mitigation strategies for each Survey Unit.

Survey Unit Degree of harm Management
SU1 nil n/a
Nil known
Aboriginal objects
SU2 including: Partial Unmitigated impact
GSF 1
GRSF 11
SU3 including: Partial Unmitigated impact, however
GSF 2 avoid the terrace on the east
side of GSF 2
SU4 nil n/a
Nil known
Aboriginal objects
SU5 including: Partial Unmitigated impact, with the

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 72

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Survey Unit Degree of harm Management

GSF 3 exception of GSF 16 for
GSF 4 which a strategy of
GSF 5 conservation or salvage is
GSF 6 proposed; it is recommended
GSF 7 that no impacts occur within
GSF 8 a 20 m radius of the grid
GSF 9 reference for the site.
GSF 10 Possible salvage of hatchet
GSF 12 heads in GSF 5 and GSF 7.
GSF 13
GSF 15
GSF 16
GSF 18
GSF 19
GSF 20
GSF 21
SU6 including: Partial Unmitigated impact
GSF 17

SU7 including: Nil Conservation; no impacts in

GSF 14 this survey unit. If
conservation is not feasible,
salvage excavation is
recommended

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 73

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

8. STATUTORY INFORMATION

The NPW Act provides statutory protection for all Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal
Places.

An ‘Aboriginal object’ is defined as

‘any deposit, object or material evidence (not being a handicraft for sale)
relating to Aboriginal habitation of the area that comprises New South
Wales, being habitation before or concurrent with the occupation of that
area by persons of non-Aboriginal extraction, and includes Aboriginal
remains’.

An Aboriginal place is an area declared by the Minister to be an Aboriginal place for the
purposes of the Act (s84), being a place that in the opinion of the Minister is or was of
special significance with respect to Aboriginal culture.

Part 6 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act) provides specific
protection for Aboriginal objects and declared Aboriginal places by establishing offences
of harm. Harm is defined to mean destroying, defacing, damaging or moving an object
from the land. There are a number of defences and exemptions to the offence of harming
an Aboriginal object or place. One of the defences is that the harm is carried out under an
Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP).

A s90 AHIP will need to be sought from the NSW OEH prior to undertaking the
proposed activities for those sites listed in Table 6 in Section 6.2 of this report. The AHIP
would be sought for 20 years.

The AHIP would be sought for the whole of subject area, inclusive of the AHIMS sites
identified in Table 6.

This Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment has been prepared to support an AHIP
application.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 74

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

9. RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are made on the basis of:

o A consideration of the relevant section of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act (see Section 8 Statutory Information).

o The results of the investigation as documented in this report.

o Consideration of the type of development proposed and the nature of proposed

impacts.

o The discussion in Section 7 regarding impact mitigation and management.

The following recommendations are provided:

1. No further archaeological investigations are required in respect of the proposal.

2. Management and mitigation strategies are set out in Table 7, Section 7. These
should be used to formulate appropriate conditions in the Development Approval
process.

It is recommended that a management strategy of active conservation be

implemented in regard to GSF 14, GSF 16 and the terrace east of GSF 2 as a form
of impact mitigation to off-set overall development impacts.

If conservation is not feasible, salvage excavation should be undertaken in order to

mitigate development impacts. Salvage excavation would occur after Development
Consent (and an AHIP) is granted and prior to construction.

3. A Cultural Heritage Management Plan should be developed for the appropriate

management and mitigation of development impacts during any further planning
and project construction. The development of an appropriate Cultural Heritage
Management Plan should be undertaken by the project archaeologist in
consultation with the proponent, registered Aboriginal parties and the NSW Office
of Environment and Heritage.

The Cultural Heritage Management Plan would be prepared to guide the process
for the management and mitigation of impacts to Aboriginal cultural heritage and
to set out procedures relating to the conduct of additional archaeological
assessment, if required, and the management of any further Aboriginal cultural
heritage values which may be identified.

4. Personnel involved in the construction of the project should be trained in

procedures to implement recommendations relating to cultural heritage, as
necessary.
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 75
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

5. Cultural heritage should be included within any environmental audit of impacts

proposed to be undertaken during the construction phase of the development.

6. No works should take place until an AHIP is received from the NSW OEH.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 76

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

10. REFERENCES

Anon 2002 The Pattern of Our Days Memoirs of the Descendents of Crookwell Pioneering
Families Continuing the Celebration of the Centenary of Federation.
Goulburn: Crookwell and District Historical Society.

Attenbrow, V. 1987 The Upper Mangrove Creek Catchment. A Study of Quantitative

Changes in the Archaeological Record. Unpublished PhD thesis, University
of Sydney.

Attenbrow, V. 2002 Sydney’s Aboriginal Past: Investigating the archaeological and

historical records. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.

Attenbrow, V. 2004 What’s changing: population size or land use patterns? The archaeology
of Upper Mangrove Creek, Sydney Basin. Pandanus Books, Canberra.

Attenbrow, V., Robertson, G. & P. Hiscock 2009 The changing abundance of backed
artefacts in south-eastern Australia: a response to Holocene climate change?
Journal of Archaeological Science. Vol. 36; pp. 2765 - 2770.

Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd 2005 Archaeological Test Excavation at Proposed Gunning
Wind Farm NSW, Test Excavation Report. Prepared for Connell Wagner PPI.

Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd 2008 Aboriginal Archaeological and Cultural heritage
Assessment Gunning Wind Farm NSW Additional Assessment Report.
Prepared for ACCIONA Energy.

Australian Archaeological Survey Consultants 1993 An Archaeological Survey of the

Proposed Optic Fibre Cable Route, from Goulburn to ‘The Forrest’. Report
to Telecom Australia.

Bayley, W. 1975 Uplands Pastures: History of Crookwell Shire, New South Wales.
Crookwell: Crookwell Shire Council.

Boot, P. 1994 Recent Research into the Prehistory of the Hinterland of the South Coast
of New South Wales. In Sullivan, M, Brockwell, S. and Webb, A. (eds)
Archaeology in the North: Proceedings of the 1993 Australian Archaeological
Association Conference. NARU: Darwin.

Boot, P. personal communication February 2009.

Branagan, D. and G. Packham 2000 Field Geology of New South Wales. NSW Department
of Mineral Resources: Sydney.

Carter, C. 1994 The Archaeology of the Robertson Land Acts. Unpublished BA Honours
Thesis, Australian National University.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 77

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Clark, P. 1977. Aboriginal campsites along Waterhole Flat Creek. Unpublished BA

Honours Thesis, Department of Prehistory and Anthropology: Australian
National University.

Dallas, M. 1985 A preliminary archaeological study of the Cullerin Range Deviation of

State Highway No. 2 between Breadalbane and Gunning NSW.

David, B. & J. Thomas 2008 Landscape Archaeology: Introduction. In David, B. & J.

Thomas (eds). Handbook of Landscape Archaeology. pp. 27 – 43. Left Coast
Press Inc., Walnut Creek.

DPWS Heritage Design Services 2001, Greater Burrinjuck Dam Precinct Heritage
Assessment, report for State Water.

Dean-Jones, P. 1990 Report of an archaeological survey of a proposed hard rock quarry near
Gunning.

Department of Mineral Resources 1994 Gold in New South Wales, Sydney.

Dibden, J. 1996 Hatchet Hatchment: A Study of Style in a Collection of Ground-edge

Hatchet Heads from South Eastern NSW. Unpublished BA Honours thesis,
The Australian National University.

Dibden, J. 2006a Taurus Energy Proposed Wind Farm – Conroys Gap, via Yass
Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment. A report to nghenvironmental.

Dibden, J. 2006b Taurus Energy Proposed Wind Farm – Cullerin, via Goulburn
Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment. A report to nghenvironmental.

Dibden, J. 2008 Proposed Gullen Range Wind Farm Archaeological and Cultural
Heritage Assessment. A report to Epuron.

Dibden, J. 2011 Drawing in the Land: Rock-art in the Upper Nepean, Sydney Basin.
Unpublished PhD thesis; Australian national University.

Dibden, J. 2013a Rye Park Wind Farm. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment. A
report to Epuron Pty Ltd.

Dibden, J. 2013b Bango Wind Farm. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment. A report
to Wind Prospect CWP Pty Ltd.

Dickson, F. 1978 Australian Ground Stone Hatchets. Unpublished PhD thesis,

Macquarie University.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 2003 Aboriginal Archaeological Survey and

Assessment Report – Proposed Goulburn Sewerage Augmentation Proposal.
A Report Prepared for The Department of Public Works & Services DPWS
Wollongong Branch.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 78

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Dorrough, J., A Yen, V. Turner, S. Clark, J. Crosthwaite and J. Hirth 2004 Livestock
grazing management and biodiversity conservation in Australian temperate
grassy landscapes. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. Vol 55; pp 279
– 295.

Dunnell, R. 1993 The Notion Site in J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider eds Space, Time and
Archaeological Landscapes. New York: Plenum, pgs 21-41.

Eades, D. 1976 The Dharawal and Dhurga Languages of the New South Wales South Coast.
Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Effenberger, S. 1994 Archaeological Survey Proposed Goulburn Racecourse Kenmore.

Report to Department of Public Works.

Ellis, N. 1997 Braidwood, Dear Braidwood A History of Braidwood and Districts. N. N.

and N. M. Ellis: Braidwood, NSW.

Flood, J. 1980 The Moth Hunters. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies: Canberra.

Flood, J. 1995 Archaeology of the Dreamtime (Revised ed.) Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Flood, J., David, B., Magee, J. & English, B. 1987 Birrigai: A Pleistocene Site in south-
eastern highlands. Archaeology in Oceania. 22: 9-26.

Fuller, N. 1989 Goulburn City – An Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Site

Location. Report to Goulburn City Council.

Hiscock, P. 2008 Archaeology of Ancient Australia. Routledge, London.

Hiscock, P. & Mitchell, S. 1993 Stone Artefact Quarries and Reduction Sites in Australia:
Towards a Type Profile. AGPS: Canberra.

Jennings, J. and J. Mabbutt 1977 Physiographic outlines and regions. In: Jeans, D. (ed):
Australia: a Geography. Sydney University Press; Sydney: PP 38 – 52.

Jo McDonald Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd 2003 Archaeological Survey for an
Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Gunning Wind Farm, Gunning, NSW.
Report prepared for Connell Wagner PPI.

Kamminga, J. 1991 Report on the Archaeological Collection, National Museum of

Australia. Report to the National Museum of Australia, Canberra. April
1991. (3 vols).

Kamminga, Jo. Personal communication Oct 2007.

Kamminga, Jo. Personal communication 19th June 2009.

Kabaila, P. 1998 Wiradjuri Places. The Murrimbidgee River Basin with a section on
Ngunawal Country. ACT: Black Mountain Projects.
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 79
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Jo McDonald Cultural Heritage Management 1998 Salvage Excavation at the Proposed

Crookwell Wind Farm, Crookwell, NSW.

Jo McDonald Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd. 2003 Archaeological Survey for
an Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Gunning Wind Farm, Gunning, NSW.
Report prepared for Connell Wagner PPI.

Koettig, M. 1983 Survey for Aboriginal and Historic Archaeological Sites along the
Proposed Goulburn By-Pass Route .Report to the Department of Main
Roads, NSW.

Koettig, M. 1986 Excavation and assessment of artefacts from CR14, Southern

Tablelands NSW. Report to the Dept of Main Roads, NSW.

Koettig, M. and R. Silcox 1985 Supplementary Report to ‘A preliminary archaeological

study of the Cullerin Range Deviation of State Highway No 2 between
Breadalbane and Gunning, NSW’ – M. Dallas, 1985. Report to Department
of Main Roads.

Kuskie, P. 1996 An Archaeological Assessment of Lots 2-4 DP835933, Goulburn, NSW.

Report to Reme Pty Ltd.

Knight, T. 2001 Stepping Stones to the Sky Archaeological Perspectives on the Cultural
Significance of the Weddin Mountains in Recent Prehistory. Unpublished
Master of Arts by Research Thesis. School of Archaeology and Anthropology
Australian National University, Canberra.

Kuskie, P. 1992 An Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Route of Optus

Commission's Fibre Optic Cable Between Cootamundra, NSW, and Hall, ACT.
Report to Landscan Pty Ltd.

Kuskie, P. 2000 An Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Mount Arthur

North Coal Mine, Near Muswellbrook, Hunter Valley, New South Wales.
Unpublished report to Dames and Moore.

Lance, A. 1984 An Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Water Supply Pipeline

between Sooley Dam and Rossi Weir, Goulburn, NSW. Report to Public
Works Department of NSW.

Lance, A. and Koettig. M. 1986 An Aboriginal resources planning study for the city of
Goulburn, NSW. Report to Goulburn City Council.

Lunt, I., D. Eldridge, J. Morgan and G. Witt 2007 A framework to predict the effects of
livestock grazing and grazing exclusion on conservation values in natural
ecosystems in Australia. Australian Journal of Botany. Vol 55; No 4; pp 401 -
415.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 80

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

McDonald. J. J. 1994 Dreamtime Superhighway: An Analysis of Sydney Basin Rock Art

and Prehistoric Information Exchange. Unpublished PhD thesis, The
Australian National University.

McDonald, R. Isbell, R, Speight, J. Walker, J. and M. Hopkins 1998 Australian Soil and
Land Survey Field Handbook. CSIRO Australia.

Mulvaney, J. and J. Kamminga 1999 Prehistory of Australia. Allen and Unwin: St

Leonards.

National Heritage Consultants 2010 Archaeological inspection if a quartz vein exposure

near Nimmitabel, NSW. Report to Country Energy.

Navin Officer Heritage Consultants 2000 Aboriginal Archaeological Survey Sooley Dam
Raising Project, Goulburn, NSW. Report to Connell Wagner Pty Ltd.

Navin Officer Heritage Consultants 2003 Pictura Tourist Complex Goulburn, NSW –
Cultural Heritage Assessment. Report to URS Australia Pty Ltd.

NSW Department of Environment and Conservation 2005 Guidelines for Aboriginal

Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and Community Consultation.

NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water 2007 Data Audit and
overview of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in the Lachlan Catchment.
Report to the Lachlan CMA Regional Aboriginal Reference Group.

New South Wales Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water 2010a Code
of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South
Wales 2010.

New South Wales Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water 2010b
Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation requirements for proponents 2010.

New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage 2011 Guide to investigating,
assessing and reporting on Aboriginal cultural heritage in NSW.

Olley, J. and R. Wasson 2003 Changes in the flux of sediment in the Upper
Murrumbidgee catchment, Southeastern Australia, since European
settlement. Hydrological Processes. Vol 17; pp 3307 – 3320.

Ossa, P., Marshall, B. & Webb, C. 1995 New Guinea 2 cave: A Pleistocene site on the
Snowy River, Victoria. Archaeology in Oceania 30(1):22-35.

OzArk Environment & Heritage Management P/L 2004 Indigenous and Non-Indigenous
Heritage Assessment: Taralga Wind Farm. Report for Geolyse P/L on behalf
of RES Southern Cross.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 81

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Paton, R. 1990 Archaeological Excavation at Site G17, Goulburn, NSW. Report to

Roads and Traffic Authority, Goulburn.

Pearson, M. 1981 Seen Through Different Eyes: Changing Land Use and Settlement
Patterns in the Upper Macquarie River Region of NSW from Prehistoric
Times to 1860. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Prehistory and Anthropology,
Australian National University, Canberra.

Reeves, J. & M. Thomson An archaeological survey of the proposed Woodlawn Wind

Farm, Tarago, New South Wales. Report for EHN (Oceania Australia &
URS Australia Pty Ltd.

Saunders, P. 2007 Proposed Rural Subdivisions, Pomeroy and Gurrundah Roads,

Parkesbourne, NSW. Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment. A report to
Laterals Environmental.

Seddon, J., A. Zerger, S Doyle and S Briggs 2007 The extent of dryland salinity in
remnant woodland and forest within an agricultural landscape. Australian
Journal of Botany. Vol. 55; No. 5; pp 533- 540.

Shott, M. 1995 Reliability of Archaeological Records on Cultivated Surfaces: A Michigan

Case Study. Journal of Archaeological Field Archaeology. Vol 22; pp. 475 –
490.

Silcox, R. 1988 Chatsbury Slate Quarry: Archaeological Survey of Proposed Mining

Lease at Middle Arm, near Goulburn, NSW. Report to R.W. Corkery and Co,
Pty Ltd.

Silcox, R. 1989 Chatsbury Slate Quarry: Test Excavations on a Proposed Mining Lease
at Middle Arm, NSW. Report to R.W. Corkery and Co, Pty Ltd.

Silcox, R. 1991 Survey and Test Excavation on the Site of a Proposed Stormflow
Detention Pond, Ross Street, Goulburn, New South Wales. Report to Kinhill
Engineers, Sydney.

Silcox, R. 1992 Archaeological Survey on Proposed Ironstone Mine Access Road,

Breadalbane, Southern Tablelands, NSW. Report to Barnu Pty Ltd.

Silcox, R. 1993a Test Excavations on Proposed Ironstone Mine Access Road,

Breadalbane, Southern Tablelands, NSW. Report to Barnu Pty Ltd.

Silcox, R. 1993b Archaeological Survey of Proposed Kialla Road Pipeline Route,

Crookwell, NSW. Report to Public Works Department, Wollongong.

Silcox, R. 1995 Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Power Route for a Telstra Radio
Base Station, ‘Sunnyside’, Goulburn, NSW. Report to Urban Concepts.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 82

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Smith, J 1992 Aborigines of the Goulburn District. Goulburn Historical Society.

Stuart, I. 1995 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Sewage Effluent Irrigation

Areas Goulburn Sewerage Scheme NSW. Report to Goulburn City Council.

Stanner, W. E. H. 1977 ‘The History of Indifference Thus Begins’. Aboriginal History.

Vol. 1; No. 1; pp. 3 – 26.

Stewart, J. and Hassall, D. 1998 The Hassall Family. Celebrating 200 years of Australia
1798-1998. The Hassall Family Bicentenary Association Inc.

Swain, T. 1993 A Place for Strangers Towards a History of Australian Aboriginal Being.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Thomas, J. 2008 Archaeology, Landscape and Dwelling. In David, B. & J. Thomas (eds).
Handbook of Landscape Archaeology. pp. 300 – 306. Left Coast Press, Walnut
Creek, CA.

Tindale, N. 1974 Aboriginal Tribes of Australia. ANU Press, Canberra.

Wandsnider, L and E. Camilli 1992 The Character of Surface Archaeological Deposits

and Its Influence on Survey Accuracy. Journal of Field Archaeology. Vol. 19
pp 169 - 188.

Wasson, R., R. Mazari, B Starr and G. Clifton 1998 The recent history of erosion and
sedimentation on the Southern Tablelands of southeastern Australia:
sediment flux dominated by channel incision. Geomorphology. Vol: 24; pp 291
– 308.

White, I. 1986 Dimensions of Wiradjuri An Ethnohistoric Study. B. Litt thesis, The

Australian National University, Canberra.

White, I. and S. Cane 1986 An Investigation of Aboriginal Settlements and Burial Patterns
in the Vicinity of Yass. Report to the NSW NPWS, Queanbeyan.

Williams, D. 1992 An Archaeological Investigation of the Proposed Route of the Fibre

Optic Cable between Goulburn and Campbelltown, NSW. Report to
Landscan Pty Ltd.

Willis, J no date Telling it as it Was. Personal Histories of the First Pioneers to the
Crookwell District and the Surrounding Southern Tablelands , New South Wales.
House of Jax Publishers.

Wright, R. 1983 Stone implements. In G. Connah (ed.), Australian field archaeology: a

guide to techniques. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, pp.
110-25.

Young, M. (ed.), 2000 The Aboriginal People of the Monaro, NSW NPWS.
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 83
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GLOSSARY

Aboriginal object - A statutory term, meaning: ‘… any deposit, object or material

evidence (not being a handicraft made for sale) relating to the Aboriginal habitation of
the area that comprises NSW, being habitation before or concurrent with (or both) the
occupation of that area by persons of non-Aboriginal extraction, and includes Aboriginal
remains’ (s.5 NPW Act).

Declared Aboriginal place - A statutory term, meaning any place declared to be an

Aboriginal place (under s.84 of the NPW Act) by the Minister administering the NPW
Act, by order published in the NSW Government Gazette, because the Minister is of the
opinion that the place is or was of special significance with respect to Aboriginal culture.
It may or may not contain Aboriginal objects.

Development area - Area proposed to be impacted as part of a specified activity or

development proposal.

Harm - A statutory term meaning ‘… any act or omission that destroys, defaces,
damages an object or place or, in relation to an object – moves the object from the land
on which it had been situated’ (s.5 NPW Act).

Place - An area of cultural value to Aboriginal people in the area (whether or not it is an
Aboriginal place declared under s.84 of the Act).

Proponent - A person proposing an activity that may harm Aboriginal objects or declared
Aboriginal places and who may apply for an AHIP under the NPW Act.

Proposed activity - The activity or works being proposed.

Subject area - The area that is the subject of archaeological investigation. Ordinarily this
would include the area that is being considered for development approval, inclusive of
the proposed development footprint and all associated land parcels. To avoid doubt, the
subject area should be determined and presented on a project-by-project basis. In this
instance the subject area is the development footprint.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 84

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

APPENDIX 1 ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS

Example of letter sent to agencies:

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Li mited ABN 53106044366
PO Box 2135
Central Tilba NSW 2546
Ph 02 44737947
www.nswarchaeology.com.au
20 January 2015

Aboriginal Heritage
Regional Operations Group
Landscape and Heritage Protection Section
Office of Environment and Heritage
PO Box 733
Queanbeyan NSW 2620

Dear Madam

Re: Gullen Solar Farm - Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment

A solar photovoltaic power plant of approximately 10-12MW capacity is proposed for

construction within the Gullen Range Wind Farm located 17 kms south of Crookwell.
The project is known as the Gullen Solar Farm. An Aboriginal Heritage Assessment is
being prepared. NSW Archaeology Pty Ltd is undertaking consultation with Aboriginal
people on behalf of the proponent according to the requirements stipulated in the former
NSW DECCW Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation requirements for proponents, 2010.
The purpose of Aboriginal community consultation is to assist the proponent in
understanding Aboriginal peoples views and concerns about the project, and to
understand cultural values present in the area, and to assist the NSW Office of
Environment and Heritage (OEH) in a determination of an AHIP application or
development determination, if and as required.

We are seeking to identify Aboriginal persons who hold cultural knowledge relevant to
this project area and who may wish to register an interest in the process of community
consultation. Those who choose to register will have the opportunity to provide
culturally appropriate information and to comment on the cultural heritage significance
of Aboriginal objects and the area. If you are aware of Aboriginal people or groups who
you believe may wish to register an interest in the process of Aboriginal consultation
please provide contact details to NSW Archaeology Pty Ltd on behalf of the proponent
before the 3 February 2015.

Yours faithfully

Dr Julie Dibden
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Limited

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 85

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Example of letters sent to potential Aboriginal RAPs:

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Limited ABN 53106044366

PO Box 2135
Central Tilba NSW 2546
Ph 02 44737947
www.nswarchaeology.com.au
27 January 2015

The Chairperson
Cowra Local Aboriginal Land Council
PO Box 769
Cowra NSW 2704

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Gullen Solar Farm - Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment

A solar photovoltaic power plant of approximately 10-12MW capacity, known as the

Gullen Solar Farm, is proposed for construction within the existing Gullen Range Wind
Farm, located 17 kms south of Crookwell. The proposed development is situated entirely
within the Onerwal Local Aboriginal Land Council area. NSW Archaeology Pty Ltd is
undertaking consultation with Aboriginal people on behalf of the proponent according to
the requirements stipulated in the former NSW DECCW Aboriginal cultural heritage
consultation requirements for proponents, 2010. The purpose of Aboriginal community
consultation is to assist the proponent in understanding Aboriginal peoples views and
concerns about the project, and to understand cultural values present in the area, and to
assist the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) in a determination of an
AHIP application.

Aboriginal people with cultural knowledge relevant to determining the significance of

Aboriginal objects and/or places in the area are invited to register an interest in the
process of community consultation. OEH provided your details to us and indicated that
you may have an interest in the area. Please register in writing to: Julie Dibden, NSW
Archaeology PL, PO Box 2135 Central Tilba NSW 2546: ph 0427074901, before 10
February 2014. Please note that if you do register an interest your details will be
forwarded to the OEH and the Onerwal Local Aboriginal Land Council unless you
specify that you do not want your details released.

Yours faithfully

Dr Julie Dibden
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Limited

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 86

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Advertisement:

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 87

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Proposed project information, consultation process and project

methods documents:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED CULTURAL HERITAGE

ASSESSMENT AND CONSULTATION PROCESS
THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY

NSW Archaeology Pty Ltd has been commissioned by nghenvironmental to

conduct a formal process of Aboriginal Consultation in relation to the proposed
Gullen Range Solar Plant (the proposed activity– see map and plate below). An
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment is being prepared for the proposed
works.

Goldwind Australia proposes to construct a solar photovoltaic (PV) plant of up to

11 megawatt (MW) capacity within the Gullen Range Wind Farm project
boundaries. The development of the proposed additional renewable energy
infrastructure would add value to the site, by making use of existing electricity
generation and transmission infrastructure.

The wind farm is located south of Crookwell and west of Goulburn, in south
eastern New South Wales. A site that could accommodate the solar farm has been
identified, within the Pomeroy ‘precinct’ of the wind farm (the subject site).
The proposed 11 megawatt solar plant is anticipated to occupy approximately 30
hectares of a 100 hectare ‘study area’.
The key infrastructure components of the proposal include:
 Solar panel (photovoltaic) modules
 Panel support frames, supported by posts either driven or concreted
into the ground
 1000-1500 Volt junction boxes
 Inverters and step up transformers, to convert direct current (DC)
electricity produced by the solar panel modules into alternating current
(AC) capable of being connected to the existing electrical substation
 33 kilovolt underground reticulation (cabling to the existing
substation)
 33 kilovolt switchgear (to allow connection to the existing
substation)
 Minor earthworks and access roads
 A central control and monitoring system
The proposal to construct and operate the solar farm would likely be assessed
under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A
Act), as it is expected to have a capital cost of less than $30 million. Being private
infrastructure with a capital cost of over $5 million, it would be deemed regional
development under the provisions of Part 4 clause 20 of the State Environmental
Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011. Given these provisions, a
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 88
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

development application would be required to be submitted to the Upper Lachlan

Shire Council and the final determination of the application would be made by
the Southern Region Joint Planning Panel.

The study area falls into the Crookwell sub-region of the South Eastern
Highlands Bioregion. The characteristic landforms of the region are steep
dissected and rugged ranges comprised of predominantly Palaeozoic rocks and
Mesozoic rocks. Vegetation is predominantly wet and dry sclerophyll forests,
woodland, minor cool temperate rainforest and minor grassland and herbaceous
communities (EA 2000). In terms of natural features, the study area occurs
mainly on relatively infertile Ordovician meta-siltstone derived soils, with
localised occurrences of basalt generally in higher areas. Landforms are flat to
undulating with a mean elevation of approximately 880m ASL. The majority of
the study area has been cleared with small isolated forest remnants.

PROPOSED CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

This document is being provided to Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAPs) for the
purposes of providing information about the project and agreeing on outcomes
relating to the assessment process.
The cultural heritage assessment process for this project would be conducted in
accordance with the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for
Proponents 2010 (NSW DECCW). The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage - OEH
(formally DECCW) manages Aboriginal cultural heritage in NSW in accordance with the
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Part 6 of the Act provides specific protection for
Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places by administering offences for harming them
without authorisation. When an activity is likely to impact Aboriginal objects or
declared Aboriginal Places, approval of the OEH is required, issued in the form of an
Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP).

NSW OEH requires effective consultation with Aboriginal people because it recognises
that:

 Aboriginal people should have the right to maintain culture, language,

knowledge and identity;

 Aboriginal people should have the right to directly participate in matters that
may affect their heritage; and

 Aboriginal people are the primary determinants of the cultural significance of

their heritage.

The purpose of the NSW OEH Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements
for Proponents document (NSW DECCW 2010) is to facilitate positive Aboriginal
cultural heritage outcomes by:

 affording an opportunity for Aboriginal people who hold cultural knowledge

relevant to determining the significance of Aboriginal object(s) and/or place(s) in
the area of the proposed project to be involved in consultation so that

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 89

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

information about cultural significance can be provided to NSW OEH to inform

decisions regarding applications for an AHIP; and

 providing Aboriginal people who hold cultural knowledge relevant to determining

the significance of Aboriginal object(s) and/or place(s) in the area of the proposed
project with the opportunity to participate in decision-making regarding the
management of their cultural heritage by providing proponents with information
regarding cultural significance and inputting into management options (NSW
DECCW 2010).

The ACHCRP requirements outline four main consultation stages to be implemented in

the course of consultation undertaken with Aboriginal people (these are outlined below).
In summary, the consultation process involves getting the views of, and information
from, Aboriginal people and reporting these.

In order to fulfil the consultation requirements, NSW Archaeology Pty Ltd, on behalf of
the proponent, proposes to implement the following procedure:
Stage 1 Notification of project proposal and registration of interest.
This stage is already underway, and the aim is to identify, notify and register
Aboriginal people who hold cultural knowledge relevant to determining the
cultural significance of Aboriginal objects and/or places in the proposal area.
 NSW Archaeology, on behalf of the proponent, has sought to identify the
names of Aboriginal people who may hold cultural knowledge relevant to
determining the significance of Aboriginal objects and/or places. An
advertisement has been placed in the local paper and letters have been
written to various agencies.

 As we receive registrations of interest, NSW Archaeology is making a

record of the names of each Aboriginal person or group who has registered
an interest. Unless it is specified by a registered Aboriginal party that they
do not want their names released, the list of names will be provided to
OEH and the Local Aboriginal Land Council.

 Where an Aboriginal organization representing Aboriginal people who

hold cultural knowledge has registered an interest, a contact person for
that organization must be nominated. We rely on that organization to
make these arrangements. Where Aboriginal cultural knowledge holders
have appointed a representative to act on their behalf, this information
must be provided in writing to NSW Archaeology.

Stage 2 Presentation of information about the proposed project

The aim of this stage is to provide registered Aboriginal parties with information
about the scope of the proposed project and the proposed cultural heritage
assessment process. This will entail:

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 90

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

 The proponent has engaged NSW Archaeology to conduct the consultation

process. It is therefore the role of Julie Dibden, NSW Archaeology, to co-
ordinate the assessment process. Aboriginal parties are invited to define
their role, function and responsibility in this process.
 All registered Aboriginal parties are invited to identify, raise and discuss
any cultural concerns, perspectives and assessment requirements (if any).
In this regard registered Aboriginal parties should contact Julie Dibden,
and this may be done in writing or by telephone.
 Provision of project information and the proposed cultural heritage
process is provided to registered Aboriginal parties as per this document
and the accompanying Methodology document.
 If further information is required in regard to the proposal this will be
provided to Aboriginal parties upon request. If necessary, additional
information about the project will be provided; this may entail a project
site visit.
 A record will be made that the proposed project information has been
submitted. A record of any agreed outcomes and any contentious issues
that may require further discussion to establish mutual resolution (if
applicable) will be kept and a record will be provided to registered
Aboriginal parties.
 All comments and feedback in regard to the Consultation Process and
Project Methodology should be provided to NSW Archaeology within 28
days.

Stage 3 Gathering information about cultural significance

The aim of stage 3 is to facilitate a process whereby Aboriginal parties can
contribute to culturally appropriate information gathering and the project
methodology, provide information that will enable the cultural significance of
Aboriginal objects and/or place in the proposal area to be determined, and to have
input into the development of cultural heritage management options.
 A proposed methodology for the cultural heritage assessment will be
provided to registered Aboriginal parties for review. Any comments in
regard to the methodology should be provided to Julie Dibden, NSW
Archaeology, within 28 days. Any protocols that registered Aboriginal
parties wish to be adopted into the information gathering process and
assessment methodology, and any other matters should be provided in
writing or may be sought by the consultant.
 As a part of consultation, NSW Archaeology, on behalf of the proponent,
seeks cultural information from registered Aboriginal parties to identify
whether there are any Aboriginal objects or places of cultural value to
Aboriginal people in the proposal area and if so, to uncover knowledge
about their context in order to reveal their meaning and significance.
Registered Aboriginal parties who wish to contribute to this process
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 91
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

should make contact with Julie Dibden (within 28 days) so that

appropriate arrangements regarding collecting cultural knowledge can be
made.
 If any information obtained is sensitive, appropriate protocols will be
developed and implemented for sourcing and holding sensitive
information.
 Registered Aboriginal parties are invited to identify, raise and discuss any
cultural concerns, perspectives and assessment requirements by telephone
or in writing to Julie Dibden, NSW Archaeology, within 28 days.
 All feedback received from registered Aboriginal parties will be
documented in the Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment report as
appropriate.

Stage 4 Review of Draft Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

The aim of this stage is to prepare and finalise an Aboriginal cultural heritage
assessment report with input from registered Aboriginal parties.
 A draft report will be compiled.
 The draft report will be provided to registered Aboriginal parties for
review and comment.
 Any comments in regard to the report should be provided to Julie Dibden,
NSW, within 28 days.
 After considering comments the report will be finalised and copies will be
provided to registered Aboriginal parties. The final report will include
copies of any submissions made and the proponents response to any
submissions.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 92

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR THE INDIGENOUS HERITAGE (CULTURAL AND

ARCHAEOLOGICAL) ASSESSMENT

NSW Archaeology Pty Ltd has been commissioned to conduct a formal process of
Aboriginal Consultation in relation to the proposed Gullen Range Solar Plant. An
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment is being prepared.

Goldwind Australia proposes to construct a solar photovoltaic (PV) plant of up to 11

megawatt (MW) capacity within the Gullen Range Wind Farm project boundaries. The
wind farm is located south of Crookwell and west of Goulburn, in south eastern New
South Wales. A site that could accommodate the solar farm has been identified, within
the Pomeroy ‘precinct’ of the wind farm (the subject site). The proposed 11 megawatt
solar plant is anticipated to occupy approximately 30 hectares of a 100 hectare ‘study
area’.

NSW Archaeology Pty Ltd is undertaking consultation with Aboriginal people on behalf
of the proponent according to the requirements stipulated in the former NSW DECCW
Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation requirements for proponents, 2010 .

NSW Archaeology Pty Ltd is a consultancy specialising in Indigenous cultural heritage

management, and aims to prepare assessments of a high standard to satisfy all
stakeholders including the local Aboriginal community and the NSW Office of
Environment and Heritage – OEH.

The project will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the OEH Guide to
investigating, assessing and reporting on Aboriginal cultural heritage in NSW and the
DECCW 2010 Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in
New South Wales. In addition the study is being undertaken following the requirements
for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents 2010
(ACHCRP) (NSW DECCW 2010).

In accordance with the process as outlined in Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation

Requirements for Proponents 2010 (ACHCRP) (NSW DECCW 2010), this methodology is
being provided to all Aboriginal groups/individuals who have registered an interest in
this process of consultation. The purpose of providing registered stakeholders with this
methodology is for stakeholders to review and provide feedback to the consultant,
including identification of issues/areas of cultural significance that might affect the
methodology. Stakeholders are invited to make a written response to this proposed
methodology within 28 days.

The methodology which is proposed to be implemented during this project is set out
below.

It is proposed that the assessment of cultural heritage values of the project area will
entail the following aspects as defined in the OEH Guide to investigating, assessing and
reporting on Aboriginal cultural heritage in NSW:
New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 93
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Review of background information: Definition and mapping of the physical landscape;

reviewing historic values via recourse to written and oral histories and existing heritage
data bases; and define the material evidence of Aboriginal land use via review of previous
research, development of predictive model and a field inspection and survey (the latter to
be documented in a survey report). Any information received from registered Aboriginal
parties will be used in this process. Registered Aboriginal parties are invited to inform
Julie Dibden in regard to areas, objects and places of cultural value in the proposed
activity area.

Initiate ongoing consultation in accordance with the OEH’s Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
Consultation Requirements for Proponents 2010. Information is sought from registered
Aboriginal parties on whether there are any Aboriginal areas, objects or places of cultural
value to Aboriginal people in the proposed activity area.

Identify and assess the cultural heritage values: Upon receipt of information that would
enable the cultural significance of Aboriginal areas, objects and/or places in the proposed
activity area to be determined, the range of social, historical, scientific and aesthetic
values present across the study area would be identified, mapped, and assessed as to why
they are important. A field assessment would occur.

Assess harm of the proposed activity: Identification of the nature of the proposed
activity and any potential harm to Aboriginal areas, objects and/or places. This would
take into consideration the principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD).

Develop harm avoidance and/or minimisation strategies: Registered stakeholders would

be invited to have input into the development of cultural heritage management options.
The development of avoidance and/or minimisation strategies would commence in the
field, and be developed further within an Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment report.

Documentation of Findings: An Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment report would be

prepared. The report would be prepared in accordance with the report outline as set out
in OEH’s Guide to investigating, assessing and reporting on Aboriginal cultural heritage in
NSW.

A draft copy of the report will be provided to all Aboriginal groups or individuals who
register an interest in this project for review and comment.

Upon review of this proposed methodology, registered stakeholders are invited to make
submissions relating to the information gathering and assessment methodology, and any
matters such as issues/areas of cultural significance that might affect, inform or refine the
assessment methodology, to Julie Dibden within 28 days. All feedback received will be
documented in the cultural heritage assessment report, which will include copies of
submissions received and the proponents response to issues raised.

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 94

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

APPENDIX 2 ABORIGINAL SITE MAPS

GSF 1

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 95

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GSF 2

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 96

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GSF 3

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 97

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GSF 4

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 98

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GSF 5

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page 99

Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GSF 6

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page

100
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GSF 7

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page

101
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GSF 8

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page

102
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GSF 9

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page

103
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GSF 10

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page

104
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GSF 11

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page

105
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GSF12

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page

106
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GSF 13

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page

107
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GSF 14

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page

108
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GSF 15

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page

109
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GSF 16

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page

110
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GSF 17

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page

111
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GSF 18

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page

112
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GSF 19

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page

113
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GSF 20

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page

114
Gullen Solar Project
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

GSF 21

New South Wales Archaeology Pty Ltd November 2015 page

115
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

APPENDIX D NEUTRAL OR BENEFICIAL EFFECT ON 
WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT 
The following template is used to establish whether the Project will have a neutral or beneficial effect on 
water quality for activities within the Sydney drinking water catchment. 

Factor  Impact 
1. Are  there  any  1. Soil  disturbance  including  trenching  through  the 
identifiable  potential  Ryans Creek to establish cabling has the potential to 
impacts  on  water  impact  water  quality.  There  is  also  the  potential  for 
quality?  chemical/fuel spills to impact water quality. 
2. What  pollutants  are  2. Sediment, fuel and chemicals. 
likely?  3. Potential  water  quality  impacts  would  occur  during 
3. During  construction  and  immediately  following  construction,  until 
and/or  post  surfaces are stabilised. 
construction? 

4. For  each  pollutant,  list  4. For works in Ryans Creek: 

the  safeguards  needed  a. Sediment  in  waterways  ‐  Erosion  and 
to  prevent  or  mitigate  sediment  controls  would  be  put  in  place  to 
potential  impacts  on  prevent  sediment  entering  waterways,  in 
water quality. accordance  with  Landcom  (2004)  and  the 
Guidelines  for  Controlled  Activities  on 
Waterfront  Land  and  Water  NSW  Current 
Recommended Practices.  
b. Sediment under panels ‐ During operation, a 
monitoring  program  would  be  developed  to 
manage  stable  ground  cover  beneath  the 
panels.  
c. Chemical/fuel ‐ No release of concrete wash 
on site. All concrete wash would be collected 
and  either  reused  in  concreting  or  removed 
from site. All fuels and chemicals onsite would 
be  managed  in  accordance  with  a  Spill 
Management Plan. 
5. Will  the  safeguards  be  5. The safeguards are expected to adequate to prevent 
adequate  for  the  time  water  quality  impacts  during  construction  and 
required? How will they  operation.  They  will  be  implemented  under  the 
need to be maintained?  framework  of  a  Project  Environmental  Management 
Plan  which  would  require  regular  auditing  and 
reporting. A  mitigation  measure  specifically  requires 
that  controls  remain  in  place  until  landforms  are 
deemed  stable.  Clear  performance  objectives  have 
been set. 
6. Will  all  impacts  on  6. The safeguards are expected to effectively contain on 
water  quality  be  site all impacts on water quality.  
effectively  contained   
on  the  site  by  the 
identified  safeguards 
(above)  and  not  reach 
any  watercourse, 
waterbody  or  drainage 

6385 Final v2  D‐1   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Factor  Impact 
depression?  Or  will 
impacts  on  water 
quality  be  transferred 
outside  the  site  for 
treatment? How? Why? 
7. Is it likely that a neutral  7. Active erosion is occurring in Ryans Creek. It is likely 
or  beneficial  effect  on  that a beneficial effect on water quality would occur 
water  quality  will  with the implementation of riparian restoration in this 
occur? Why?  area. The management measures and framework will 
ensure  that  key  risks  are  mitigated.  This  includes 
rehabilitation of riparian areas in accordance with the 
Guidelines  for  Controlled  Activities  on  Waterfront 
Land,  Water  NSW  Current  Recommended  Practices, 
and  development  of  soil  and  erosion  measures  in 
accordance with Landcom (2004). The works are also 
subject  to  a  Controlled  Activity  Approval  under  the 
Water Management Act 2000, ensuring agency input 
into  the  controls  implemented  onsite,  should 
trenching of Ryans Creek be undertaken. Short term 
risks  can  be  managed  and  long  term  neutral  or 
beneficial  impact  would  be  achieved  by  dedicated 
riparian restoration in the impact area. 
 

 
 

6385 Final v2  D‐2   
 Statement of Environmental Effects 
Gullen Solar Farm 

APPENDIX E COMMUNITY CONSULTATION PLAN  
 

6385 Final v2  E‐1   
 
 
 

Community Consultation Plan 
GULLEN SOLAR FARM 
 

 
 
 

DECEMBER 2015 
 

suite 1, 216 carp st  (po box 470)  bega  nsw  2550  australia  t (02) 6492 8333 
www.nghenvironmental.com.au   e ngh@nghenvironmental.com.au 
unit 18, level 3, 21 mary st suite 1, 39 fitzmaurice st  (po box 5464)
surry hills  nsw  2010  australia  wagga wagga  nsw  2650  australia 
t (02) 8202 8333  t (02) 6971 9696 

unit 17, 27 yallourn st  (po box 62) room 15, 341 havannah st (po box 434)
fyshwick  act  2609  australia  bathurst  nsw  2795  australia 
t (02) 6280 5053  0488 820 748 
 
  
 
 

Document Verification
Project Title: CCP ‐ Gullen Solar Farm

 
Project Number:  6385 
Project File Name:  CCP V3.docx 
Revision  Date  Prepared by (name)  Reviewed by (name)  Approved by (name) 
V1  3/11/15  Jane Blomfield  Brooke Marshall  Brooke Marshall 
V2  7/12/15  Brooke  Marshall  minor    Brooke Marshall 
changes 
V3  17/12/15  Brooke  Marshall  minor    Brooke Marshall 
changes 
         

nghenvironmental prints all documents on environmentally sustainable paper including paper made from bagasse (a by‐
product of sugar production) or recycled paper. 

 
nghenvironmental is a registered trading name of NGH Environmental Pty Ltd; ACN: 124 444 622. 
ABN: 31 124 444 622 
 
 

suite 1, 216 carp st  (po box 470)  bega  nsw  2550  australia  t (02) 6492 8333 
www.nghenvironmental.com.au   e ngh@nghenvironmental.com.au 
unit 18, level 3, 21 mary st suite 1, 39 fitzmaurice st  (po box 5464)
surry hills  nsw  2010  australia  wagga wagga  nsw  2650  australia 
t (02) 8202 8333  t (02) 6971 9696 

unit 17, 27 yallourn st  (po box 62) room 15, 341 havannah st (po box 434)
fyshwick  act  2609  australia  bathurst  nsw  2795  australia 
t (02) 6280 5053  0488 820 748 
 
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

CONTENTS 
1  INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 
1.1  COMMUNITY CONSULTATION PRINCIPLES ..........................................................................................1  
1.2  AIM OF THIS PLAN ................................................................................................................................1 
1.3  STRUCTURE ..........................................................................................................................................2 
1.4  RELEVANT GUIDELINES ........................................................................................................................2  
2  PROPOSAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................ 3 
2.1  BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................3 
2.2  JUSTIFICATION......................................................................................................................................5 
2.3  PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................................5  
2.3.1  Construction ........................................................................................................................................ 10 

2.3.2  Operation ............................................................................................................................................. 10 

2.3.3  Decommissioning ................................................................................................................................. 10 
2.3.4  Indicative timeline ............................................................................................................................... 11 

3  COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS FOR THE GULLEN SOLAR FARM ................................................... 12 
3.1  COMMUNITY PROFILE ........................................................................................................................12  
3.1.1  Local economy ..................................................................................................................................... 12 
3.1.2  Community profile ............................................................................................................................... 12 

4  COMMUNITY CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN ............................................................................ 14 
4.1.1  Neighbours to the site ......................................................................................................................... 14 
4.1.2  Upper Lachlan Shire Council ................................................................................................................ 14 

4.1.3  Broader community ............................................................................................................................. 14 

5  STAKEHOLDER GROUPS AND CONSULTATION STRATEGIES ........................................................ 16 
6  ISSUE MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................ 18 
7  PROJECT BASED ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................... 20 
8  MONITORING AND EVALUATION .............................................................................................. 25 
9  REFERENCES AND RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 26 
APPENDIX A  STAKEHOLDER CONTACTS ..........................................................................................A‐I 
APPENDIX B  COMMUNITY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE (CCC)....................................................... B‐I 

 
 

6385 V3  i   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION PRINCIPLES 
Best practice community consultation involves the community in all decision making stages of a project. 
There  is  a  role  for  the  community  from  project  conception,  through  the  assessment  process  and  on  to 
project development. Effective community consultation has three important functions: 
1. It facilitates deeper understanding of issues and decisions required for the project; 
2. It improves the quality of decisions made for the project; 
3. It allows people to be involved in decisions that affect their lives. 
Important community engagement principles for a project include: 

 Openness – combats assumptions and misinformation. 
 Inclusiveness ‐ consultation should be diverse and representative, not responding only to 
the most vocal stakeholders. 
 Effective  communication  –  requiring  trust  between  parties  and  tools  appropriate  to  the 
task. 
 A communication strategy – clarity about what is being undertaken: 
o Inform ‐ one way communication to deliver information about the project. 
o Consult ‐ two‐way communication to seek input into the project. 
o Collaborate and involve – seek participation in elements of the project design and 
implementation. 
 Early rather than late – to maximise engagement opportunities. 
 Accountability – the process should be monitored and evaluated to ensure its aims are being 
achieved. 

1.2 AIM OF THIS PLAN 
This Community Consultation Plan (CCP) has been developed for the Gullen Solar Farm. 
The aim of the plan is to: 
Identify methods to inform the community about the Gullen Solar Farm  
and facilitate communication with the community. 
The plan aims to identify: 

 Community stakeholders for the project; 
 Issues / risks related to the engagement of each stakeholder group; 
 A consultation strategy for each stakeholder group; 
 A set of activities against the project development time line to facilitate consultation.  
Effective  engagement  will  require  an  understanding  of  community  stakeholders  and  prioritisation  of 
potential impacts. It also relies on the community understanding the project and specific issues of interest 
to  them,  in  order  to  contribute  effectively.  The  focus  of  the  consultation  plan  will  be  on  providing  this 
understanding and engagement. 
The  plan  has  been  developed  for  the  early  planning  and  assessment  stages  of  the  project.  To  date, 
consultation for the proposed development has been undertaken with: 

6385 V3  1   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

 neighbours of the proposed solar site  
 the Upper Lachlan Shire Council (ULSC) 1 
 the broader community. 
This consultation is summarised in Section 4.  
If  the  project  is  approved,  consultation  will  also  be  required  to  continue  into  the  construction  and 
operational phases of the project. These phases will require a new or updated consultant plan, to reflect 
the changes to the consultation objectives, specific to these phases. 

1.3 STRUCTURE 
The structure of this plan is: 
1. Proposal overview 
2. Identification of community stakeholders for the project 
3. Issue management – what specific issues need consideration 
4. Project based activities – what vehicles will be utilised in the consultation process 

1.4 RELEVANT GUIDELINES 
This CCP has been prepared with reference to the following guidelines: 

 Establishing the social licence to operate large scale solar facilities in Australia: insights from 
social research for industry, 2015 
This guidelines is based on social research into the community’s perspective and views of large scale solar 
facilities within Australia.  
 Community Engagement Guidelines for the Australian Wind Industry, Clean Energy Council, 
2013 
While the project is not for a wind farm, these guidelines are considered relevant to the project because 
the site proposed for the project contains an operational wind farm nearby. Furthermore, they are relevant 
because there is some overlap in the perceived community impacts of solar projects and wind farms in 
rural locations and because the aims of consultation are the same; to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes 
and to increase clean energy development in Australia. 

 Draft NSW Planning Guidelines Wind Farms: a resource for the community, applicants and 
consent authorities, NSW Planning and Infrastructure, 2011 
While  more  relevant  to  large  scale  wind  farms,  these  guidelines  address  Community  Consultation 
Committees (CCCs), which may provide a useful consultation tool for the Gullen Solar Farm. 

 Beyond  Public  Meetings:  Connecting  community  engagement  with  decision  making, 

Twyford Consulting 2007 
This is a practical guide to planning community engagement.  

                                                              
1  The  ULSC  is  relevant  to  the  community  consultation  process  in  this  instance  in  that  they  represent  the 

community. 

6385 V3  2   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

2 PROPOSAL OVERVIEW 

2.1 BACKGROUND 
Gullen Solar Pty Ltd (ACN: 600 639 450) is the Proponent of a proposed  solar photovoltaic (PV) farm of up 
to  11 megawatt  (MW)  capacity  located  in  the  Southern  Tablelands of  New  South  wales,  approximately 
12kms south of Crookwell and 28km northwest of Goulburn (refer to Figure 1‐1) (‘the Project’).  
The  Project  is  adjacent  to  the  165.5  MW  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm,  which  became  fully  operational  in 
December 2014. The development of additional renewable energy infrastructure at this location would 
make use of existing electricity generation and transmission infrastructure used for the Gullen Range Wind 
Farm.  
   

6385 V3  3   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

CROOKWELL
GRABBEN
GULLEN CROOKW ELL
GOULBURN

R
!
!
R

R
!
R!
! R !
R
! !
R R
!
R
R
!
GRA BBEN GULLEN
! !
R R !
R!
! RR
R !
!
R
R
!
R!
! R
!
R
R
!
R
!
R!
!R
R
!
R !
!
R!
! R!RR
R
!

Leahy Lane Walkom

s
Lane
Lane

rs
an e

rrie
Sto
Prices L

!
R
R !
!
R!
! RR
R
!
R
!
R !
! R
!
R
Lane

R R
! R !
! R
!!R
R
!
R
!
Bannister

R
! R
!
R
!
R
!
!
R
R
!
Po
!
R m er o
R
!
R!
! R y Ro
R !
! R
R
!
R
!
ad
R
!
R !
! R!
R
R !
! R
R
!
R
!
R
!
R
!

Notes:
- Aerial imagery coutesy of Goldwind
- Layout layers provided by Goldwind
- Transport layers and topo sourced from ESRI

R
! Gullen Range Wind Farm turbines 0 1 2 4 Kilometr es

Existing Gullen Range Wind Farm Substation

°
Ref:6385 1-1 v2
Gullen Range Wind Farm boundary Author: JB
Gullen Solar Farm site

www.nghenvironm ental. com .au  

Figure 2‐1 Regional location of the activity 

6385 V3  4   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

2.2 JUSTIFICATION 
The central objective of the Project is to generate renewable electricity using solar PV technology. It would 
form  part  of  a  hybrid  wind/solar  facility  and  export  electricity  generated  to  the  grid  through  existing 
infrastructure associated with the Gullen Range Wind Farm. The Gullen Solar Farm would complement the 
Gullen Range Wind Farm, together operating as a wind‐solar hybrid facility. The solar infrastructure would 
be located adjacent to the Gullen Range Wind Farm site boundary. 
Wind  and  solar  energy  generation  profiles  are  seen  as  compatible,  given  that  some  wind  farms  may 
generate a greater percentage of energy at night and wind farm substations often have an amount of spare 
capacity. Solar generation is also a better match to daytime electricity demand, especially in summer when 
electricity usage peaks due to air‐conditioning demand. The hybrid system provides a more continuous 
level of generation than would occur for either wind or solar alone. 
The hybrid wind/solar facility is seen as an important demonstration Project. It would be at the fore‐front 
of renewable energy integration technology. It would demonstrate the advantages of co‐locating energy 
infrastructure,  to  minimise  costs  and  environmental  impacts.  The  solar  farm  would  make  use  of  other 
infrastructure  already  in  place  and  maintained  for  the  adjacent  wind  farm,  including  electrical 
infrastructure  (substation),  access  roads,  buildings  and  transport  routes.  The  Gullen  Solar  Farm  has  a 
Knowledge Sharing Plan aimed at providing publicly available information to allow others to capitalise on 
key lessons learned from the Project. This will include reports, industry events and a website showing live 
performance data, providing valuable knowledge for the wider renewable energy industry.   
During  its  operational  life,  the  Gullen  Solar  Farm  would  provide  additional  work  onsite  for  wind  farm 
operational maintenance staff. The maintenance staff will acquire new transferrable skills and experience, 
and there is some potential for further employment for local skilled workers. 

2.3 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION 
The proposed 11 megawatt (AC) solar farm is anticipated to occupy approximately 25‐30 hectares of the 
113 hectare Gullen Solar Farm site boundary (‘site’). This area of land has already been acquired by Gullen 
Solar Farm Pty. Ltd for the construction and operation of the solar farm. 
The Gullen Solar Farm would produce approximately 22 gigawatt hours (AC) or 22,000 megawatt hours per 
annum; enough to supply approximately 31602 homes. The capital cost of construction is yet to be fully 
determined but is estimated to be around $25‐30 million.  
The key infrastructure components of the Project are shown in the table below.  

                                                              
2 Based on Australia’s average annual electricity consumption per household in 2014, 6,964kWh/hh (Enerdata, 

2015). 

6385 V3  5   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Table 2‐1 Key infrastructure components (including items to be installed at the existing Gullen Range Wind Farm 
Substation) 

Component  Details  Construction activities 

Solar panels  Equivalent of 40,000 solar PV panels sized at  Excavate  and  form  footings 
approximately  1m  x  2m,  standing  3m  to  4m  (concrete)  or  install  posts  (pile 
high. Solar array locations shown in indicative  driven). 
layout, Figure 2.3.  Attach  support  structures  to 
Panels tilted at 25‐35 degrees.  footings or posts. 
Support structures for mounting solar panels.  Mount  panels  on  support 
Concrete  footings  or  driven  posts  as  structure. 
foundations.  
Electrical  Wiring between panels and inverter systems.  Install/connect electrical wiring 
connections/inverters  5 ‐ 10 inverter stations (each 6m long) each of  Footings  installed  for  inverters 
1 ‐ 2MW capacity and step up transformers to  and  transformers,  mount 
convert  direct  current  (DC)  to  alternating  inverters  and  transformers  on 
current (AC).  footings. 
1000‐1500  Volt  DC  junction  boxes  (combiner  Connect inverters. 
boxes). 
Collection circuits  33kV  underground  cables  for  connection  to  Trenching,  cable  laying  and 
the  existing  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm  backfill.  Pole  erection  and  line 
Substation (approximately 3km) and an option  stringing  for  optional  overhead 
for a short section (240m) of 33 kV overhead  section. 
reticulation  to  span  a  steep  slope  and  creek 
crossing. 
Access works  Access tracks (up to 8m wide) to and from site,  Earthworks. 
to  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm  Substation  and  Rehabilitation. 
around  arrays.  Dependent  on  access  route 
option  chosen,  works  may  include  a  creek 
crossing.  
Indicative layout shown in Figure 2.3. 
Drainage works, approximately 240m. 
Central  control  and  Control  cabling  between  Gullen  Range  Wind  Install fibre optic cable with 33kV 
monitoring system  Farm  Substation  and  panels  and  monitoring  collection  circuit  and  within 
system at Gullen Range Wind Farm Substation.  existing  control  room  at  Gullen 
Range Wind Farm. 
Maintenance  An  approximate  12m  x  12m  x  3.6m  high  Footings, install shed. 
colorbond  rural  shed  for  storage  of  spare 
parts.  This  may  be  connected  to  a  small 
rainwater tank. 
Safety  Fencing  of  the  entire  facility  with  2m  ‐2.4m  Excavate  and  form  footings 
high chain mesh fence.  (concrete). 
Install posts and attach mesh. 
Gullen  Range  Wind  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm  Substation  and  Existing – no change. 
Farm items  33/330kV transformers. 
Switchgear modular units (33kV).  Configure  existing  units  inside 
33kV switchroom at Gullen Range 
Wind Farm Substation. 

6385 V3  6   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

The Gullen Solar Farm would complement the Gullen Range Wind Farm, operating as a wind‐solar hybrid 
facility. The solar infrastructure would be located adjacent to the Gullen Range Wind Farm. The facilities 
that the solar farm and the wind farm would share include: 

 Control room and staff facilities; 

 330/33kV Gullen Range Wind Farm Substation; 

 330kV grid connection infrastructure; 

 Telecommunications infrastructure; 

 Operation and maintenance facility; 

 Access tracks; 

 Vehicles and equipment; and 

 Transport routes on public roads. 
In addition, it is anticipated that some personnel, including operation and maintenance technicians, may 
carry out maintenance for both the wind and solar farm. 
While the final infrastructure layout and components have yet to be determined, two indicative layouts 
were considered. Together, these provide the largest possible development envelope, which is the area 
within  which  infrastructure  would  be  located.  The  development  envelope  is  the  total  assessment  area, 
within which infrastructure would be located. It includes two access options, two cabling options to the 
Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm  Substation  and  areas  required  for  stock  piling  and  materials  laydown  during 
construction, to ensure all areas that may be required by the project are assessed (Figure 2‐2). 
It  should  be  noted  that  the  final  infrastructure  layout  of  the  constructed  project  would  have  a  smaller 
footprint  than  the  development  envelope.  The  development  envelope  shown  is  64  ha.  The  final 
construction footprint is expected to be approximately 25‐30 ha. An indicative layout under consideration 
is provided in Figure 2‐3.   

6385 V3  7   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Existing 330kV transmission line

L an e
Crown Road access to solar farm

Sto rr iers
R Gullen Range Wind Farm turbines
!
Existing 330kV
transmission line Existing Gullen Range Wind Farm
Pine trees to Substation
be removed Gullen Range Wind Farm boundary
(Pomeroy precinct)
Gullen Solar Farm site boundary
Development Envelope (including
access tracks and cabling to Storriers
Lane and south to substation) of
approx. 64H a

Proposed road upgrades

POM_01
R
!

POM_02 Indicative layout and subject to change

R
! POM_05
R
!
0 100 200 400 Metres
POM_04
R
!

°
POM_03 Ref: 6385 2-3 v3
R
!
Author: JB
Notes:
- Aerial imagery copyright Google Earth 2015
- Layout layers provided by Goldwind
- Transport layers sourced from ESRI www.nghenvironm en tal.com .au
 
Figure 2‐2 Development envelope (assessed area within which infrastructure would be located).

6385 V3  8   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Lan e
Gullen Solar Farm site boundary
Existing 330kV transmission line

Sto rr iers
(
! Residences
)
" Transformer/invertor

Pine trees to Access road

be removed OH transmission line to substation
PW5 Pine trees to UG cabling
be removed
Footprint of solar array
(
! (Approx 19.4ha)

Storage shed and parking

)"
" ) Temporary construction facilities
Perimeter fence

)
" )
" )
"
(
!
Indicative layout and subject to change

PW34 Optional cable and road routes to windfarm

substation not shown

0 100 200 400 Metres

Notes:
Ref: 6385 2-4 v1
Author: JB °
- Aerial imagery copyright Google Earth 2015
- Layout layers provided by Goldwind
- Transport layers sourced from ESRI www .nghenvironm en tal.com .au
 
Figure 2‐3 Indicative layout  
The  final  layout  will  be  determined  through  a  competitive  tendering  process.  The  final  layout  will  be  presented  in  construction  management  plans  provided  prior  to 
construction. This indicative layout is under consideration. 

6385 V3  9   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

2.3.1 Construction 
The sequence of the construction program would likely be as follows: 

 Pre‐construction site investigations, such as geotechnical assessment3 to inform how the 
panels are mounted and secured. 
 Detailed design and procurement of materials. 
 Site establishment and preparation for construction, including fencing, earthworks, set out 
and  construction  of  access  roads  and  sediment  and  erosion  controls.  While  extensive 
earthworks are not proposed, some land forming (including localised cut and fill areas) may 
be undertaken to achieve more consistent gradients beneath the array. 
 Delivery of materials and equipment. 
 Installation of the foundations (excavation and concrete footings) or driven piles. 
 Installation of underground cabling (with an option for a short section of overhead cabling; 
240m). 
 Assembly of the panel frames and mounts. 
 Installation of the PV panels. 
 Installation  of  the  converter  /  transformer  units,  including  pouring  of  concrete  pads  for 
converter / transformer units. 
 Installation of low voltage cabling and combiner boxes. 
 Construction of a spare parts storage shed.  
 Substation  works  to  connect  the  solar  farm  to  the  existing  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm 
Substation (these occur within the switch room of the existing substation with no additional 
visible external substation infrastructure required). 
 Testing and commissioning of the solar farm. 
 Removal of temporary construction facilities and completion of restoration works. 
 
During construction, it is expected an average of 30 workers will be required onsite with a construction 
peak of approximately  75  workers.  Including  offsite  requirements,  50  jobs  with  a construction  peak of 
approximately 100 jobs are anticipated. Peak construction periods would have the greatest potential to 
employ local contractors and labourers. 

2.3.2 Operation 
The  Project’s  operational  life  is  anticipated  to  be  25  years.  After  this  time,  components  may  be  either 
decommissioned and removed from the site or upgraded for continued operation. 
Operational  activities  would  include  monitoring  and  facility  maintenance,  such  as  panel  cleaning  and 
landscaping works, and the management of breakdowns and repairs. These requirements are likely to be 
largely met by existing operational staff at the wind farm. 

2.3.3 Decommissioning 
All  aboveground  infrastructure  would  be  removed  from  the  site  at  the  decommissioning  phase. 
Infrastructure and materials removed from the site would be recycled or otherwise disposed of at approved 
                                                              
3 A preliminary geotechnical investigation was undertaken at the site during the week of November 16, 2015. 

6385 V3  10   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

facilities.  All  areas  of  soil  disturbed  during  decommissioning  would  be  rehabilitated,  appropriate  to  the 
existing species composition.  
The  development  is  highly  reversible.  After  operation,  the  land  could  be  returned  to  agriculture  or  an 
alternative land use with negligible impact on production capacity. Formalised access and internal tracks, 
if elected to be retained, may benefit future development options. 

2.3.4 Indicative timeline 
The indicative timing for the Gullen Solar Farm is outlined below.  
Table 2‐2 Indicative timing for the Gullen Solar Farm. 
Phase  Approximate commencement   Duration 
Environmental investigations   Third‐and fourth quarters 2015  2‐3 months 
Development Application submission  December 2015   
Public exhibition  December 2015 to January 2016  At least 1 month (more time 
may  be  required  over  the 
holiday period) 
Consent Authority/JRP Review  January – February 2016   
Development Consent  March 2016   
AHIP issued  March  2016   
Preconstruction  documentation  and  Second quarter 2016  3 months 
design 
Construction  Third‐fourth quarters 2016  6 months 
Commissioning  Fourth quarter 2016 to first quarter  2‐3 months 
2017 
Operation    25 years 
Decommissioning    6 months 

 
 

 
   

6385 V3  11   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

3 COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS FOR THE GULLEN 
SOLAR FARM 

3.1 COMMUNITY PROFILE 

3.1.1 Local economy 
The local communities of Grabben Gullen, Pomeroy, Bannister and Gurrundah surround the Gullen Solar 
Farm site. They are small localities with few services. Grabben Gullen is the nearest village, approximately 
10km  north‐west  of  the  site.  Crookwell,  Gunning  and  Goulburn  are  the  nearest  major  service  centres, 
located approximately 12, 25 and 28km to the north, south‐west and south‐east of the site, respectively. 
Over 75% of the regional population is located in Goulburn. The relevant shire is the Upper Lachlan Shire 
Local Government Area.  
The shire is largely agricultural. Extensive grazing of sheep and cattle are the predominant land uses. Local 
enterprises include wool, seed potato production, olive production, alpaca and horse enterprises. Tourism 
is the third largest industry behind agriculture and retail. The area offers visitors an historic rural experience 
and provides employment in agriculture, several service sectors but few manufacturing opportunities by 
comparison. 

3.1.2 Community profile 
The community profile can be seen as being comprised of families that have been in the area for several 
generations and newer residents attracted by work opportunities or by the rural lifestyle. While the ‘tree 
change’  phenomenon  can  bring  skills  and  diversity  to  a  community,  as  a  source  of  change  it  can  bring 
anxieties, affecting established structures or attitudes in a community. Additionally, the establishment of 
the  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm  marked  a  change  to  the  local  land  use  drivers  (agricultural  and  rural 
residential, moving to larger enterprise of electricity generation).  
Issues identified during the Gullen Range Wind Farm assessment (nghenvironmental 2008) of relevance to 
this proposal include: 

 Strong networks exist around community activities such as sport, pubs and clubs, service 
clubs, the Country Women’s Association, Landcare and others. 
 People  who  have  long  associations  with  the  area  can  strengthen  the  fabric  of  the  local 
community.  These  features  are  present  in  the  local  community.  The  issue  of  secrecy  in 
development planning stages can be a generator of angst. Typically in these communities 
there is not a strong culture of secrecy. 
 The community is generally open to ‘outsiders’ but community members are sensitive to 
being told what to do or think. A good relationship will take time to build. 
 The  community  has  on  average  lower  levels  of  education  and  professional  employment 
when compared to other areas in NSW. This includes Aboriginal people and youth groupings 
particularly. 
It is recommended that, to address the potential for the proposal to be divisive and generate stress within 
the community, that the Social and Community Plan for Upper Lachlan Shire Council (2013 – 2018) priority 

6385 V3  12   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

actions be used as a guide when considering mitigation measures for the project. Key areas identified in 
the plan with potential links to the project include: 

 Aboriginal  and  Torres  Strait  Islander  people  –  the  assessment  process  will  include 
consultation with representatives of the Aboriginal community. It may provide a role for 
Aboriginal representatives in mitigation activities such as artefact salvage. 
 Mental  health  and  wellbeing  –  the  Social  and  Community  Plan  provides  strategies  to 
address stress within a community. 
 Rural  and  farming  community  –  the  project  provides  opportunities  to  increase  the 
production  value  of  the  site,  allowing  concurrent  energy  generation  and  agricultural 
production. The demonstration project may be of interest to others in the local community, 
as  an  opportunity  to  offset  poor  seasons.  The  lessons  learned  can  be  maximised  by 
providing information about the project to the local community. 
 
 
   

6385 V3  13   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

4 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN  
Consultation  has  already  been  undertaken  with  the  neighbours  to  the  solar  farm  site  and  the  broader 
community. This consultation is summarised below. 

4.1.1 Neighbours to the site 
Consultation has commenced with neighbours to the site, regarding the Project and has comprised: 

 In person meetings with each of nine neighbours groups (each representing a residence), 
regarding the proposed Project (February and March 2015); 
 Additional  landowners  (14)  were  consulted  as  a  group  and  later  directly,  during  the 
investigation of the preferred site location.  
 A Public Information Day on held on the 19th February 2015 which introduced the Project 
to the local community (albeit, for an alternative site that was being considered 3km south 
of the currently proposed site). It also involved: 
o a letter drop to all residents within 5km to advertise the event; and. 
o advertisement placed in two local papers.  
 Media releases in local newspaper, interview with local journalist in February 2015 leading 
to local coverage of the proposed Project. 
 Approximately  21  September  2015,  a  letter  to  25  nearby  neighbours  of  the  Project, 
providing an update on site selection and proposed survey works for feasibility assessments. 
 Direct telephone communication with neighbours unable to meet face to face. 
 A  second  Public  Information  Day  held  on  Wednesday  25th  November  2015  to  display 
updates to the proposed Project and the results of environmental studies conducted to date 
It also involved: 
o Advertisement placed in local paper 
o Individual phone calls and emails to local landowners to inform them of the event.  

4.1.2 Upper Lachlan Shire Council 
The proponent met with representatives from Upper Lachlan Shire Council (ULSC) in September 2014. At 
this time, an alternative solar farm site was being investigated within the wind farm site Project boundaries, 
3km south of the current site. The proponent provided ULSC with a scoping document and outlined the 
infrastructure components and proposed timing for the Project.  
Council  did  not  provide  any  formal  direction  regarding  the  format  or  content  of  the  environmental 
assessment. In this circumstance, Section 79C of the EP&A Act is a principal reference for Development 
Applications under Part 4 of the Act. 
On 19th November 2015, the proponent presented the preferred solar farm Project to Upper Lachlan Shire 
Council,  updating  them  regarding  the  progress  of  the  assessment.  A  draft  of  the  SEE  was  provided  to 
Council on 4th December, prior to formal submission. 

4.1.3 Broader community 
A number of activities have been aimed at providing information to the broader community, as well as near 
neighbours. These include: 

6385 V3  14   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

 First Public Information Day on 19th February 2015  
 Updates to local media outlets which covers the settlements of Crookwell and Goulburn.   
 A toll‐free phone number, email and postal address have been established specifically for 
the solar farm to allow the wider community to make enquiries and complaints about the 
Project.  
 Project specific website providing details of the Project and a factsheet. 

 Briefings of the Project with Upper Lachlan Shire Council, resulting in a local media article. 

 Second Public Information Day on 25th November 2015. 
 

6385 V3  15   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

5 STAKEHOLDER GROUPS AND CONSULTATION 
STRATEGIES 
It is important to identify all key stakeholder groups and relevant characteristics and tailor engagement 
strategies to suit each group. Different levels of engagement suit varying degrees of potential impacts in 
the community. Where impacts are less significant, for example, the International Association for Public 
Participation  (IAP2)  consultation  spectrum  suggests  approaches  such  as  ‘Inform’  and  ‘Consult’.  Greater 
impacts on communities require approaches such as ‘Involve’, ‘Collaborate’ and ‘Empower’. Appropriate 
strategies are set out below for each stakeholder group.  

Stakeholder group  Defining characteristics  Consultation strategies  

1.  Near Neighbours  Neighbours to the project and those who  Inform and Consult  

may  be  directly  affected,  for  example: 
Understanding  the  values  and 
view of infrastructure, noise or vibration 
potential impacts to this group 
from  haulage  route  or  construction 
is of utmost importance. 
activities. 
Mitigation  strategies  may 
Nineteen properties have been identified 
require  changes  to  the  project 
which  are  neighbours  that  may 
or  the development  of  specific 
experience direct impacts (within 2km of 
plans  of  management  i.e. 
impacts). 
screening visual impact. 

2. Local community  Residents and businesses within 5km of  Inform and Consult  

the project site. Seventy properties have 
Understanding  the  values  of 
been identified in this group from aerial 
this  group  will  assist  the 
imagery. 
assessment  process  and 
While  direct  impacts  may  be  very  few,  development  of  appropriate 
the  project  would  be  a  large  new  mitigation strategies. 
development for the locality.  

3. Special  interest  Single  interest  groups,  for  example,  Inform  

groups  revegetation  groups,  recreational 
Specific  information  or 
groups,  agricultural  groups,  sporting 
assessment may be required for 
groups,  educational  facilities,  aviation 
this group. 
clubs.  

4. Agencies  or  Specific interest in the project, i.e.:  Inform 

representative 
Upper Lachlan Shire Council (ULSC)  Specific  information  or 
bodies 
assessment may be required for 
Chamber of Commerce 
this group. 
Rural Fire Service 

5. Media  Outlets  to  ensure  a  clear  message  is  Inform 

delivered: 
Local radio, television, newspapers. 

6. Broader  Residents and businesses within 10km of  Inform  

community  the project site. It is estimated over one 
Newsletters,  advertisements, 
hundred and thirty properties are within 
website  information  used  to 
10km.  No  retail  outlets  occur  within 

6385 V3  16   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Stakeholder group  Defining characteristics  Consultation strategies  

10km,  however  many  operational  relay  information  about  the 
agricultural enterprises occur.    project. 
While  direct  impacts  are  unlikely,  the  Contacts made available in case 
project  would  be  a  large  new  further information is required. 
development  for  the  broader 
community. 

6385 V3  17   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

6 ISSUE MANAGEMENT  
A set of project‐specific issues and risks to maximising community engagement in the project have been 
identified below. These issues pose potential risks to the effective identification and mitigation of impacts 
important to the community. Mitigation strategies have been developed below, specific to the identified 
issues. These have been incorporated into the Project‐based Activities, in Section 7. 

Issue   Risks   Mitigation strategies  

Mistrust  or  lack  of  support  for  Opponents  of  the  wind  farm  may  Dissemination  of  early 
project   become opponents of this project. information about the project, its 
relationship to the wind farm and 
The  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm  Persons  who  are  ‘fatigued’  from 
its justification. 
project  created  controversy  in  the  process  may  not  want  to 
the community.   contribute.  Clear  communication  of  the 
benefits  of  community 
 
participation  and  how  to 
participate.  
Make participation easy.  

Distrust in approvals process  Perception that the process is too  Clearly  illustrate  approvals 

difficult to become involved in.  process. 
The  approvals  process  can  be 
complex.  Suspicion  that  input  will  not  be  Clearly  define  opportunities  for 
valued.  community input including what is 
Previous  efforts  by  individuals 
required and when it is required. 
trying  to  have  input  may  have 
gone unrewarded.  Communicate  back,  identifying 
where input has been used. 

Distrust  in  environmental  Distrust  of  impact  identification  Clearly  illustrate  approvals 
assessment  process  and  and mitigation strategies.  process. 
assessors  
Establish credentials. 
Consultants  not  seen  as 
 
independent and credible. 

Fear of unknown   Exaggerated fears.  Layman explanations of issues. 

Large  volume  of  technical    Dissemination  of  issue‐specific 
material to digest.  information. 
Complex  issues  difficult  to  Provision  of  case  study 
explain to people when they are  information. 
distressed. 

Potential for input  Apathetic or against proposal due  Acknowledge the scope for input – 

to lack of involvement.  don’t  raise  expectations 
By  the  time  the  site  and 
unrealistically.  
infrastructure  layout  is 
determined, there is little role for  Clearly  outline  areas  for 
the community in the project.  community involvement. 
Actively  invite  input  within  this 
scope. 

Representative  Risk of biased consultation, serving  Ensure community is engaged in a 

only the ‘squeaky wheel’.  forum that minimises risk of vocal 

6385 V3  18   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Issue   Risks   Mitigation strategies  

The most vocal or dominant may  Sections of the community may be  opponents  dominating  the 
be over represented.  “overpowered”  and  may  be  process.  
marginalised. 
  Use established social (and media) 
channels  in  dissemination  of 
materials, i.e. sport clubs. 

Unified message  Differing  messages  may  create  Limit points of contact. 

confusion and mistrust. 
Complex  projects  with  many  Have  message  clearly  set  out  for 
points  of  contact  may  lead  to  use, rather than reinventing it for 
conflicting information.  each consultation activity. 

Unequal distribution of benefits  These  individuals  will  be  more  Identification  of  stakeholder 

concerned  and  require  more  groups  should  reflect  differences 
Residents  close  to  the 
contact with the company.  in impacts.  
development  are  likely  to  feel 
more  strongly.  These  people 
should  have  a  greater  say  in  the 
development. 

First impressions  Once an individual has formed an  Consult early. 

opinion, it may be difficult to relay 
Important  for  determining  Provide  project  information  early 
opposing information.  
attitude  to  the  project  in  the  on  including  a  clear  justification 
longer term.  and  list  of  benefits  (provided  in 
Section 2.2 of this document).  

6385 V3  19   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

7 PROJECT BASED ACTIVITIES  
The following table outlines the different project stages and associated community consultation objectives 
and activities. It includes actions required by Gullen Solar Pty Ltd to ensure implementation of activities is 
appropriate, for example, preparation of materials. 
 
 
 

 
 

6385 V3  20   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Table 7‐1 Project based activities for the Gullen Solar Farm. 

Project stages  Issue and  Stakeholder group   Community engagement activities 

consultation 
objective 
Environmental investigations (indicative timing ‐ third‐fourth quarters 2015) 
Identify site  Set up framework /  Undertaken internally  Appoint consultation coordinator. 
boundaries,  tools to assist  by the proponent 
project details.  consultation 
Obtain  ALL  Finalise  Community  Consultation  Plan  with  input  from  ULSC,  including  key  contacts  for  all 
landowner  stakeholders identified (refer Appendix A). 
agreements 
  Finalise  communication  protocols  and  tools  –  branding,  internal  FAQs,  internal  key  messages, 
contact  log  for  stakeholders,  contacts  for  the  proponent,  website,  project  scoping  document, 
tools to make participation easy (i.e. online feedback form, mail out feedback forms). 

Commence  Commencement of  Near neighbours,  Notify of proposal outline and upcoming opportunities to engage in the project. Near neighbours 

environmental  proposal  Agencies or  are likely to be the most affected and the key messages should reach them first. They will have 
assessments /  Inform  representative bodies  more opportunity to engage in the project. Key issues to communicate include: 
proposal 
planning and   Proposal outline 
development   Justification and benefits of the project 
   Assessment and approval process 
 Likely impacts and mitigation strategies 
 Opportunities for input / level of input that is possible 
Communication method – direct; phone call, face to face meeting, 

Local community   First public announcement ‐ notify of proposal outline and upcoming opportunities to learn more 
Broader community  about the project. Key issues to communicate include: 
 Proposal outline 
 Justification and benefits of the project 
 Assessment and approval process 

6385 V3  21   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Project stages  Issue and  Stakeholder group   Community engagement activities 

consultation 
objective 
Potential  communication  methods – newsletter,  advertisement,  media  release,  set  up 
information line, fact sheets, public information day. 

Seek input to identify  Near neighbours,   Discuss scoping document and identify opportunities for input. 

values and potential  Agencies or 
impacts and  representative bodies  Potential communication methods – direct; phone call, face to face meeting. Direct feedback into 
mitigation strategies  the  environmental  assessment  should  result,  so  community  identified  values  and  impacts  are 
Consult and involve  included. 

Local community   Make  scoping  document  publically  available  and  request  input  regarding  impact  identification 
Broader community  and mitigation. 
Potential  communication  methods  –  newsletter,  advertisement,  media  release,  website, 
information  line,  fact  sheets,  public  information  day.  The  Community  Forum  or  Committee,  if 
established (see below) will also serve to communicate to local and broader community. Materials 
made available at Local Council offices, Library, website. Direct feedback into the environmental 
assessment should result, so community identified values and impacts are included. This may be 
by website form or hardcopy forms left in local locations.  

Establish a  All  Near neighbours and ULSC will be consulted to determine the appropriate forum for community 

community  consultation  for  the  development  (e.g.  neighbourhood  meetings  or  Community  Consultation 
consultation forum  Committee  or  alternatives)  (refer  CCC  guidance  material  Appendix  B).  A  CCC  is  not  currently 
(committee)  operating  for  Gullen  Range  Wind  Farm  and  is  normally  only  required  for  State  Significant 
Consult and involve  Developments for which GSF does not qualify. 

Preliminary  Provide update   Near neighbours   Key results made available to those likely to be most affected first. This will be tailored to the 

results of  Inform and consult  stakeholder. For instance, key issues may include the haulage route, extent of the infrastructure 
environmental    layout, timing of construction, specific environmental impacts such as noise or visual impact. 
assessments /  
refinements to  Communication method – direct; phone call, face to face meeting. 
proposal 
Agencies or  Key  results  may  require  guidance  from  assessment  personnel  or  have  implications  for  further 
description 
representative bodies  assessment. For example, heritage impact permit required. More detailed assessment of some 
environmental parameter, management plan or agency consultation triggered. 

6385 V3  22   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Project stages  Issue and  Stakeholder group   Community engagement activities 

consultation 
objective 
Communication method – direct; phone call, face to face meeting.

Local community   Key results distributed more broadly to update the community. An update on broad key findings 
Broader community  would  be  distributed  for  general  information.  This  may  include  the  stage  of  the  assessment 
process, key findings, and key changes to the project description. 
Potential  communication  methods  –  newsletter,  advertisement,  media  release,  website, 
information  line,  fact  sheets,  public  information  day,  CCC  (if  established).  Materials  made 
available at Local Council offices, Library, website. 

Special interest  Hold presentations for special interest groups – these may focus on single issues, as relevant to 
groups   the group. 

All  Open  Day  to  present  the  assessment  results  prior  to  finalising  the  assessment.  This  may  be 
attended by assessment staff to discuss any key results from the assessment and the proponent 
to provide the most current and detailed project description.  
This  stage  provides  a  last  opportunity  to  include  community  input  into  the  assessment  and 
proposal description. Feedback tools should be made available, such as hardcopy forms or details 
of website forms.  

Development Application and submission (indicative timing ‐ third‐fourth quarters 2015) 
Project details  Provide update   All  Advise of: 
and assessment  Inform   Stage of the assessment process 
finalised    Communication method – newsletter, advertisement, radio, media release, website, CCC (if 
established). Materials made available at Local Council offices, Library, website. 
Maximise local  Agencies or  Local Business Participation Program advertised on website and through local press. 
economic benefits  representative bodies 
Public exhibition (indicative timing ‐ first quarter 2016) 
Public and  Provide update   All  Advise of: 
community and  Inform   Stage of the assessment process 

6385 V3  23   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Project stages  Issue and  Stakeholder group   Community engagement activities 

consultation 
objective 
agencies invited     Opportunities to view the material  
to comment   Opportunities for further input into the project 
Communication method – newsletter, advertisement, radio, media release, website, 
information line, fact sheets, CCC (if established). Materials made available at Local Council 
offices, Library, website. 
Submissions or  Provide update   Special interest  Hold presentations for special interest groups – these may focus on single issues, as relevant to 
further  Inform  groups  the group. If specific issues have been raised during the assessment, this provides an 
information    opportunity to fully discuss the issue and prevent misconceptions / misinformation colouring 
requested from  future discussions/submissions. 
consent authority 
Post‐approval (indicative timing – second quarter 2015 – fourth quarter 2016) 
Preconstruction       Continuation of community complaints and enquires phone line, email and postal 
documentation  address (advertised during the period of construction and at the entrance to the 
and design  All  Near neighbours 
site).  
Construction  Local community    Maintenance of a community complaints register, to document prompt response 
  Broader community  to complaints. Regular updates provided to community on construction progress. 
 Communication with near neighbours on traffic movements, as required by the 
Traffic Management Plan. 
 

Operation  All  Near neighbours   Community complaints and enquiries and phone line, emails and postal address 

(advertised at commencement of operation and at the entrance to the site).  
Local community  
 Maintenance of a community complaints register, to document prompt response 
Broader community  to complaints. 

6385 V3  24   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

8 MONITORING AND EVALUATION 
To  ensure  this  plan  is  effective  during  the  implementation  of  activities,  and  adapts  as  required  to  new 
information, the following review actions will be undertaken alongside implementation activities: 

 Appoint and maintain a Consultation Manager for the project. 
 Keep  an  accurate  record  of  all  feedback  from  consultation  activities  and  all 
correspondence with the community. 
 Monitor regularly and respond promptly to email and phone queries.  
 Ensure  stakeholder  group  definition  is  appropriate;  do  new  groups  need  to  be 
recognised / can certain groups be ‘lumped’? 
 Are the activities reaching a diverse and representative section of the community; do 
new activities need to be implemented? 
 How  high  is  participation  for  groups;  is  further  follow  up  required  to  prompt  more 
input?  
 Based on the identification of impacts, do new issues need to be raised with specific 
groups, input sought? 
 Has relevant information been passed back to: 
 Proposal design / development staff. 
 Assessment staff. 
Additionally:  

 The plan would be made publically available on the project website. 
 The plan would be reviewed and updated monthly. 
 The  plan  will  be  revised  post  project  approval,  to  manage  consultation  into  the 
preconstruction, construction and commissioning phases. 
 
 
   

6385 V3  25   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

9 REFERENCES AND RESOURCES 
Ipsos (2015). Establishing the Social Licence to Operate Large Scale Solar Facilities in Australia: insights 
from social research for industry, Australian Renewable Energy Agency. 
Clean Energy Council (n.d.), Community Engagement Guidelines for the Australian Wind Industry 
Twyford Consulting (2007) Beyond Public Meetings: Connecting community engagement with decision 
making 
nghenvironmental Pty Ltd (2008) Proposed development the Gullen Range Wind Farm, southern 
tablelands of New South Wales, Environmental Assessment, prepared for Epuron Pty Ltd 
NSW Planning and Infrastructure (2011), Draft NSW Planning Guidelines Wind Farms: a resource for the 
community, applicants and consent authorities. State of New South Wales through the Department of 
Planning and Infrastructure.  
Upper Lachlan Shire Council (2013), Social and Community Plan for Upper Lachlan Shire Council (2013 – 
2018), web access: 
http://upperlachlan.nsw.gov.au/images/documents/upperlachlan/Planning/Strategies/Social_and_Com
munity_Plan_2013_‐_Council_adopted_version_20_June_2013.pdf 
 
 
 

6385 V3  26   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

APPENDIX A STAKEHOLDER CONTACTS 
 

Stakeholder group  Key contact name  Phone  Email  Address  Last contacted 

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

6385 V3  A‐I   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

APPENDIX B COMMUNITY CONSULTATION 
COMMITTEE (CCC) 
 
Although a CCC has not been established for the Gullen Range Wind Farm, it may be determined through 
consultation with local stakeholders that a small committee be established in relation to the solar farm 
project. The following material is provided as a guide to ensure the committee functions as intended if 
established. The material is sourced from the NSW Planning and Infrastructure (2011), Draft NSW Planning 
Guidelines Wind Farms: a resource for the community, applicants and consent authorities, but is considered 
relevant to the Gullen Solar Farm in a scaled down version, given the relationship between this project and 
the existing wind farm. 
 
Purposes of the committee  
The purpose of a community consultative committee is to provide a forum for open discussion between 
representatives  of  the  proponent,  the  community,  the  council  and  other  stakeholders  on  issues  directly 
relating to the assessment of the project and if approved, its environmental performance and community 
relations, and to keep the community informed on these matters.  
The  committee  provides  a  forum  to  establish  good  working  relationships  between  the  proponent,  the 
community and other stakeholders in relation to the wind farm provide for the ongoing communication of 
information on the assessment, operation and environmental performance of the wind farm, including: on 
project  assessment  including  scoping  of  issues  for  assessment  and  comment  on  the  implementation  of 
conditions of approval, the management plan and any other management plans (including rehabilitation 
and  wind  farm  decommissioning  plans)  the  results  of  environmental  monitoring  annual  environmental 
management  reports  outcomes  of  audit  reports  (including  audits  required  as  a  condition  of  approval) 
discuss community concerns and review the resolution of community complaints advise on the allocation of 
community enhancement funds in the community discuss how best to communicate relevant information 
on  the  wind  farm  and  its  environmental  performance  to  the  broader  community,  and  work  together 
towards outcomes of benefit to the project, immediate neighbours and the local and regional community.  
The  committee  should  provide  feedback  to  the  proponent  and/or  relevant  State  agencies  regarding 
environmental management and community relations outcomes relating to the wind farm undertake visits 
of the wind farm’s operations, as necessary review the wind farm’s complaints‐handling procedures and 
the  handling  of  concerns  from  the  community  regarding  the  wind  farm  environmental  management  or 
community relations provide advice to the proponent on how to address community relationships, including 
on:  how  the  proponent  can  provide  information  to  the  community,  community  initiatives  to  which  the 
proponent could contribute liaise with community consultative committees of other wind farms where there 
are  common  issues  or  where  there  is  the  potential  for  cumulative  impacts,  with  a  view  to  information 
sharing and joint meetings on matters of common interest Responsibility for oversight of the wind farm’s 
compliance  with  the  project  approval  and  all  other  government  approvals  remains  with  the  relevant 
consent authority.  
Membership of the committee 
The  membership  of  the  committee  should  comprise  an  independent  chairperson  five  to  seven 
representatives of the local community and other stakeholders, including at least two representatives of 
any landowners that own houses within 2 km of the proposed solar farm one representative of the local 

6385 V3  B‐I   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

council two or three representatives of the proponent, including the person with direct responsibility for 
environmental  management  at  the  wind  farm.  The  representatives  of  the  proponent  are  part  of  the 
committee. State government agencies will not be represented on the membership of the committee. State 
government agencies will, however, attend committee meetings at the request of the committee and at the 
discretion of the agency.  
Committee meetings  
The committee should determine the frequency of its meetings. It is suggested that the committee meet at 
least every two or three months during the assessment period. If the project is refused, the committee will 
be abandoned. If the project is approved, then it is suggested that the committee meet every 3 or 4 months 
during  the  period  of  wind  farm  construction  and  during  the  first  2  years  following  commencement  of 
operations. 
Any  member  may  request  that  the  chairperson  convene  an  extraordinary  meeting  of  the  committee  to 
discuss  any  matter  warranting  urgent  consideration.  The  chairperson  shall  determine  whether  an 
extraordinary meeting is warranted. At least 2 weeks’ notice must be given to all members of any meeting 
of the committee. Meetings should be held at a time and place generally convenient to the committee. The 
proponent  should  provide  facilities  for  committee  meetings,  if  required  to  do  so  by  the  committee.  If 
regional  committees  have  already  been  established,  clustering  of  meetings  or  committees  may  be 
considered on a case‐by‐case basis. Depending on the situation, this could include a single committee with 
permanent standing members and other members that rotate and attend for part of a meeting relevant to 
a particular project. In this way, a single committee could accommodate multiple projects.  
Meeting proceedings  
The chairperson should convene and chair meetings of the committee. Meetings of the committee should 
follow good meeting practice. The committee may agree to adopt any particular set of standard meeting 
practices  if  it  wishes  to  do  so.  The  chairperson  should  determine  the  agenda  items.  Any  member  may 
propose a matter for inclusion on the agenda, either before or during a meeting, providing the matter is 
within  the  purpose  of  the  committee.  The  chairperson  should  ensure  that  issues  of  concern  raised  by 
community representatives on behalf of the community are properly considered.  
The meeting agenda items would normally include: Apologies Declaration of pecuniary or other interests 
Confirmation of the previous meeting minutes Business arising from previous minutes – response to issues 
raised or provision of additional information requested Correspondence Proponent reports and overview of 
activities: progress at the wind farm – assessment or operational issues, issues arising from site inspections 
monitoring and performance community complaints and response information provided to the community 
and any feedback.  
Responsibilities of the proponent  
During the assessment process, the proponent must provide the committee with updates on the assessment 
studies being prepared and the issues being investigated, and design and layout options being considered. 
Once the project is approved, the proponent should regularly provide the committee with timely, accurate 
and  comprehensive  reports  on  the  wind  farm’s  operations  and  performance  on  its  environmental 
management and community relations.  
The proponent should respond in a timely fashion to any questions or advice the committee may give it 
concerning the wind farm’s environmental performance or community relations.  
Communication with the broader community  

6385 V3  B‐II   
 CCP 
Gullen Solar Farm 

Committee members are encouraged to discuss issues and disseminate information about the wind farm 
with  the  wider  community,  including  special  interest  groups.  If  appropriate,  the  chairperson  of  the 
committee may also give briefings to community organisations such as the Chamber of Commerce, Parents 
and Citizens Committees and environmental and heritage organisations.  
The  committee  may  agree  to  release  statements  or  other  information  to  the  media  or  to  adopt  other 
approaches to public dissemination of information. However, only the chairperson may speak publicly on 
behalf of the committee. Individual committee members may make comments to the media or in public 
forums on behalf of themselves or the stakeholders that they represent, but not on behalf of the committee.  
There is a presumption that all documents and other information considered by the committee should be 
generally available to the community. However, any member may request that particular information (e.g. 
a declaration of a personal interest, or information which the proponent considers to be commercial‐in‐
confidence) be kept confidential to the committee.  

6385 V3  B‐III