wind farm forum 2015: ecological risk mitigation for the australian wind industry - lessons learnt...

www.ehpartners.com.au 26 March 2015

Wind Industry Forum 2015Aaron Organ and Clio Gates Foale

Ecology and Heritage Partners

Ecological Risk Mitigation for the AustralianWind Industry - Lessons learnt over the past10 years

www.ehpartners.com.au 2

Presentation Outline

• Legislation and policy

• Case studies (issue and solutions)

– 1) Brolga breeding surveys

– 2) Ecological assessment – getting it right the first time

– 3) Approval conditions

• Take home messages


Legislation and Policy

• Environment Protection and BiodiversityConservation Act 1999

• Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

• Planning and Environment Act 1987(Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines)

• EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.3: Windfarm industry

• Interim Guidelines for the Assessment,Avoidance, Mitigation and Offsetting ofPotential Windfarm Impacts on theVictorian Brolga Population, 2011


Case Study 1: Brolga Breeding Surveys

Issue• Brolga is a State significant species (~600 birds) and occupies

habitat across a large geographical area

• Brolga habitat use changes temporally and spatially across thelandscape

• Wind farms (SW Vic) proposed in known areas of brolgabreeding and flocking habitat

• State Government (DSE) require an assessment of thesuitability and significant of habitat for Brolgas

• Need to assess the likely and potential impacts to Brolga andassociated habitats

• Identify mitigation measures

6

Wetland Distribution across Victoria

SW Vic Brolga breeding area

9

Brolga Nest

10

Brolga Nests


Case Study 1: Brolga Breeding Surveys

Key outcomes for the client and industry

• Two competing wind farm companies working collaboratively(common requirement)

• Successfully acted as a mediator

• Shared costs for the surveys

• Consistent data collection which was endorsed by regulators

• Provided robust empirical data on the breeding habitat whichcan now assist the industry

• Further refinement of Brolga guidelines


Case Study 2: Ecological Assessment

Issue• Adequately defining the development

footprint (turbines and infrastructure)

• Impact area includes:– Turbines, roads, sub-stations, compounds

and facilities– Transmission lines, underground cables– Access roads for construction vehicles– Road widening for site access– Turning bays– Set-down and stockpile areas

• If you are driving on it, digging it up orstoring stuff on it you are impacting it!

~10 passes

~50 passes

www.ehpartners.com.au

TurbineAccess road

Study area

Turbine footprint:approx. 20m

Study area at turbinelocations: approx.100m diameter

Access road width:approx. 10 - 20m

Study area alongaccess roads: approx.40m wide

Study area buffer allows micrositingof infrastructure within buffer area:

the larger the buffer, the greaterthe flexibility

Case Study 2: Ecological Assessment, footprint plus buffer

13


Scenario 1: Assessment identifiessignificant flora and fauna values.


14


Values are avoided throughinfrastructure micro-siting withinthe assessed area


15

Scenario 1: Assessment identifiessignificant flora and fauna values.


Scenario 2: Assessment identifies significant floraand fauna values, but values cannot be avoidedthrough infrastructure micro-siting

• Biodiversity offsets under State policy

• Referral under federal EPBC Act

• Offsets for EPBC Act matters

• Time and money

• Avoidance is best – assess surrounding areas


16


TurbineAccess road

Study area

Can significant flora and fauna beavoided with an alternative layout? Additional assessment

Landowner is being difficult,shifting infrastructure toneighbouring property. Additional assessment

Adding a turbine. Additional assessment


17

Compounded costs:• Travel time and mileage• Efficiency• Amendments to reports and mapping


TurbineAccess road

Study area

An assessment of the entire property givesthe complete picture, allowing full projectflexibility so that you can confidently makenecessary changes as the project evolvesover time.

Case Study 2: Ecological Assessment, entire property

18


TurbineAccess road

Study area

An assessment of the entire property givesthe complete picture, allowing full projectflexibility so that you can confidently makenecessary changes as the project evolvesover time.

Realign infrastructure

Move infrastructure

Add infrastructure

Case Study 2: Ecological Assessment, entire property

19

“But the project is cost sensitive.We don’t want to completeunnecessary assessments.”


Case Study 2: Ecological Assessment, cost comparison

20

Footprint plus buffer

• Costs:

• Initial assessment: $30,000

• Additional assessments: $7,000 + $6,500 + $5,500

• Total cost: $49,000.00

• Infrastructure location limited to assessed areas

• Uncertainty regarding legislative requirements – the fullpicture will not be known until all assessments are complete

• Uncertainty regarding infrastructure changes outside buffer

Entire property

• Total cost: $45,000.00

• Cost savings in travel time, mileage, assessment efficiency,amendments to reports and mapping

• Flexibility to modify infrastructure as required

• Reduced risk and increased certainty

• Gives confidence to Responsible Authority that impactavoidance and minimisation has been demonstrated

• Ecological impacts are commonly the subject of objections(VCAT, Planning Panels). The more rigorous your upfrontassessments, the better your response evidence will be

Assessment 1$30,000

Assessment 2$7,000

Assessment 3$6,500

Assessment 4$5,500


Case Study 2: Ecological Assessment, importance of time

21

• Time to completion

• Footprint plus additional assessments:10 - 15 weeks

• Entire property: 4 - 6 weeks

• Targeted surveys are generally arequirement for EPBC Act listed species.

• Specific timing for targeted surveys canvary between species.

• If you miss the survey season you can:

• Wait until the next season.

• Assume presence to allow the EPBC Actreferral to progress. May end up withstringent permit requirements.

Assessment 14-6 weeks





Case Study 2: Ecological Assessment

Benefits for the client

• Assessing a broader area ultimately will:• Allow flexibility

• Save time

• Save money

• Identify all areas of impact upfront• Don’t forget local road widening and construction access!

• Allow plenty of time (up to 2 years) for:• Preliminary ecological assessment

• Targeted flora and fauna surveys

• Commonwealth and State approvals


Case Study 3: Approval Conditions

Issue

• Situations where project impacts are understated oroverstated

• Resulting in uninformed or unrealistic approval conditions(precautionary principle applied by the regulators)– Management plans (CEMP, CMP)

– Pre clearance surveys

– Bird and bat monitoring

– Significant species management

– Biodiversity offsets

– Reporting and compliance

24

Striped Legless Lizard – Delma impar

Growling Grass Frog: October to March

Golden Sun Moth: October to early January

Striped Legless Lizard: lay tiles June,check tiles September to December

25

Spiny Rice-flower: April to August

Matted Flax-lily: October to December



1. Prior to any works commencing, surveys for Natural Temperate Grassland of the VictorianVolcanic Plain (NTGVVP) and surveys for Spiny Rice-flower, Striped Legless Lizard and GoldenSun Moth and their habitat must be undertaken in areas that will be disturbed by thedevelopment of the wind farm and associated infrastructure

2. Prior to any works commencing, the person undertaking the action must submit to thedepartment for approval a plan identifying the siting and extent of NTGVVP to be impacted.The approved plan must be implemented.

3. Prior to any works commencing, the person undertaking the action must submit to theDepartment for approval a salvage and translocation plan for relocating Striped LeglessLizard individuals disturbed during construction. The approved plan must be implemented.

4. If Spiny Rice-flower or Golden Sun Moth are identified in surveys undertaken in accordancewith Condition 1, the Department must be informed and the wind farm infrastructurelayout must be micro-sited to avoid these species and their habitat.

5. Micro-siting of infrastructure must be conducted on the advice of a qualified botanist andzoologist and must be informed by the results of the pre-construction surveys required byCondition 1. Prior to any works commencing, areas to be protected must be demarcated onthe ground using protective fencing to prevent access of construction machinery andpersonnel and the deposition of any materials or waste.



Solution

• Collect sufficient ecological data and not assume presence ofthreatened species– Ensure vegetation surveys are undertaken comprehensively

– Appropriate targeted threatened species (season and duration)

• Liaise with the regulators (document discussions)– Negotiate conditions with Department of the Environment and DELWP

– Negotiate offset options (Commonwealth and State)

• Community and stakeholder communication


Lessons Learnt

Certainty

Time Cost

Project risks identified up-front

Adequate project planning

Robust technical assessments

Innovation

Communication

Collaboration

Accuracy

29Photo courtesy of Luke Edwards, Canidae Pty Ltd. The dog’s name is ‘Rubble’


Any questions?

Ecology and Heritage PartnersNatural and Cultural Heritage Consultants

Melbourne Geelong Brisbane Adelaide Canberra

Phone (03) 9377 0100

Visit our website for further information www.ehpartners.com.au

wind farm forum 2015: ecological risk mitigation for the australian wind industry - lessons learnt...

Environment

brolga nest10brolga

refinement of brolga

assessment of thesuitability

victoriasw vic brolga

buffer area

brolga andassociated

thevictorian brolga

areacase study