Scott River · Warren–Blackwood · Western Australia
Scott River Wind Farm. Approved. Not yet proven.
On 27 February 2026, the federal government approved the Scott River wind farm — subject to binding conditions. The question now is not whether it can proceed. It is whether the conditions protecting this landscape will be enforced, monitored, and publicly verifiable before construction begins.
Australia needs wind energy. This project may be part of that. Approval with conditions is not the end of accountability — it is the beginning of it.
EPBC matter 2025/10370Decision: 27 February 2026Not a controlled action if taken in the manner set out in Annexure AWarren–Blackwood, WA
SCROLL
POSITION
Wind energy is part of the answer to climate change. Western Australia needs it. None of that is in dispute here.
WA needs an estimated 50 GW of new renewable capacity over 20 years. Wind farms are essential to that. Australia committed to net zero by 2050 and a 43% emissions reduction by 2030. Renewable energy is not the problem. It is part of the solution.
What this page examines is whether this specific project, at this specific site, is being held to the standard its approval requires — and whether the public can verify that before the first foundation is poured.
Getting this right is itself a pro-renewables argument. Projects that undermine trust in environmental process make every wind farm that follows harder to build. Social licence is not a cost of the transition. It is a precondition for it.
WHAT CHANGEDThe approval
Approved with conditions · EPBC 2025/10370 · 27 Feb 2026
On 27 February 2026, Kylie Calhoun — Branch Head, Environment Assessments West at DCCEEW — issued the federal referral decision for EPBC matter 2025/10370.
The finding: the action is not a controlled action, provided it is taken in the manner set out in Annexure A. This is the federal government's way of saying: this project is approved — but only if it follows every condition in a specific set of legally binding requirements.
That changes everything about what needs to happen next. The question is no longer whether this can be approved. It is whether the conditions will be enforced. Breaching any Annexure A condition makes the action a controlled action — requiring full federal assessment and Ministerial approval before proceeding.
Timeline — from community concept to accountability test
Pre-2024
Community wind concept — then Synergy acquisition
+ UNFOLD
The project originated as a community wind farm concept under the Augusta–Margaret River Clean Community Energy (AMRCCE) initiative. State-owned utility Synergy later acquired the project, expanding the proposal from 3 turbines to up to 20 turbines with a capacity of up to 100 MW. A development envelope was established across the Scott River Plain, approximately 15 kilometres north-east of Augusta.
Source: EPA referral records · EPBC 2025/10370 referral documents WA EPA
Early 2024
WA EPA referral — assessment begins under Planning Bulletin vacuum
+ UNFOLD
The project was referred to the WA EPA for environmental impact assessment. Planning Bulletin No. 67 — WA's primary wind farm planning framework — had been rescinded in March 2020. No replacement had been issued, leaving a regulatory vacuum that persisted through the assessment. The state EPA assessment is still in progress.
WA EPA formally tells the federal government national standards are insufficient
+ UNFOLD
While simultaneously assessing Scott River, the WA EPA submitted a formal response to the federal draft Onshore Wind Farm Guidance. Signed by Deputy Chair Lee McIntosh, the submission identified six specific deficiencies in the national standards — including inadequate avoidance language, absent buffer zones, and bird and bat plans being required post-approval rather than pre-assessment.
Source: WA EPA submission to DCCEEW, 12 June 2024 EPA Submissions
October 2024
50+ residents attend Augusta community forum
+ UNFOLD
More than 50 residents attended a community forum in Augusta. Attendees described feeling that the project's location, scale and design were effectively settled before they entered the room. Some landowners had been approached with confidentiality agreements before the project was publicly discussed. A 623-signature petition was later filed, referencing specific EPBC Act provisions.
Source: AMR Times reporting · Senate debates, Feb 2026 AMR Times
19 February 2026
Scott River raised in WA Legislative Assembly
+ UNFOLD
Member for Warren–Blackwood Bevan Eatts MLA raised the Scott River wind farm in his response to the Premier's Statement: "Many in the community feel that the engagement occurred after key decisions were already well advanced, rather than at the formative stage, when concerns could genuinely shape outcomes."
Source: WA Legislative Assembly · Hansard, 19 February 2026 WA Hansard
27 February 2026
Federal approval issued — not a controlled action if taken in a particular manner
+ UNFOLD
DCCEEW Branch Head Kylie Calhoun issued the referral decision under sections 75 and 77A of the EPBC Act: the action is not a controlled action provided it is taken in the manner set out in Annexure A. Annexure A contains 16 legally binding conditions covering clearing limits, turbine siting, Black Cockatoo protections, dewatering triggers, and acid sulphate soil management. Breaching any condition makes the action a controlled action requiring full Ministerial approval.
Source: DCCEEW referral decision, EPBC 2025/10370, 27 February 2026 · Decision-maker: Kylie Calhoun, Branch Head, Environment Assessments West EPBC Portal
04 — DECISION MAPWho decided what
Multiple regulators have roles. The federal approval does not substitute for the state EPA assessment — both must be satisfied. Understanding who is responsible for what is the foundation of public accountability.
Regulatory swim lanes — decisions made and decisions pending
DCCEEW Federal
Referral received
→
Annexure A issued ✓ 27 Feb 2026
→
Condition monitoring ongoing
WA EPA
Assessment in progress
→
Report to WA Minister
→
State conditions set
RDAP
DA lodged Sep 2025
→
Planning determination
DWER
DWER guidelines published ✓
→
Acid sulphate compliance oversight
Synergy
Preliminary ASSDS & Dewatering Plan required pre-construction
→
Pre-clearing surveys
→
Construction
Community
Forum Oct 2024 50+ residents
→
623-sig petition filed
→
Accountability watching
05 — THE GROUND HAS A MEMORYAcid sulphate soils
Annexure A §§4–5 · legally binding
The Scott River Plain has acid sulphate soils at shallow depth. The federal approval knows this — Annexure A contains two full sections of conditions specifically to manage the risk. The question is whether those conditions will be enforced in real time.
Acid sulphate soils contain iron sulphides that are stable when waterlogged and undisturbed. When excavated or drained — as turbine foundation works, access roads, and cable trench installation require — they oxidise and produce sulphuric acid. That acid kills aquatic life, releases heavy metals, and can sterilise waterways for years. The Scott River, the Blackwood River, and the Flinders Bay estuary are downstream.
The geology here has a documented history. This landscape has seen what happens when acid-generating soils are disturbed at scale. The federal conditions exist because the risk is real — not hypothetical.
Dewatering trigger ladder — Annexure A §4, in plain English
BASE
Pre-construction baseline — Synergy must record natural groundwater seasonal variation before any works begin
All triggers are measured against this baseline. The "latest version of the preliminary Acid Sulphate Soils & Dewatering Management Plan" defines how the baseline is recorded. This document must exist before construction starts.
BASELINE
T1
Drawdown exceeds natural seasonal variation by more than 0.1 metres — beyond 100 metres from any dewatering location
§4(a): If groundwater drops more than 0.1m outside natural seasonal range at a point 100m+ from the dewatering area, the first trigger is breached.
TRIGGER 1
T2
If T1 is exceeded AND within 50 metres of wetland habitat → surface water monitoring must commence
§4(b): Field analysis of pH, salinity, standing water level, titratable total acidity, total alkalinity, turbidity, metals, sulphate, nutrients. Frequency determined by the Acid Sulphate Soils & Dewatering Management Plan.
TRIGGER 2 — MONITOR
T3
Surface water monitoring shows decline in water levels OR water quality at a wetland habitat → all dewatering within 200 metres must cease
§4(c): Not slow down — cease. Dewatering operations within 200m of the impacted wetland habitat must stop until the issue is resolved.
STOP WORK
The Acid Sulphate Soil Treatment Condition — Annexure A §5
Any dewatering effluent with a pH below 6, total titratable acidity above 40 mg/L, or alkalinity below 30 mg/L must be treated to DWER standard before disposal. Dewater cannot enter any wetland habitat, drainage line, the Scott River, the Blackwood River, or any Scott River Ironstone TEC — directly or indirectly.
What the public needs to see: the preliminary Acid Sulphate Soils & Dewatering Management Plan. Annexure A requires it to exist before construction begins. It defines the baseline against which every dewatering trigger is measured. It is not yet publicly available.
Mandatory pre-construction document — should be public before works begin
06 — WHAT THE EPA ACTUALLY SAIDWA EPA submission, June 2024
In June 2024, while simultaneously assessing Scott River, the WA EPA formally told the federal government that the national standards for wind farm assessment are not adequate. Signed by Deputy Chair Lee McIntosh.
This is not an allegation by opponents. It is a signed regulatory submission on the public record. The EPA found six specific deficiencies in the standards being applied to the project it was itself assessing. That context does not invalidate the approval — but it sets the standard for what "doing it properly" looks like.
WA EPA Submission — 6 findings · tap to step through
07 — ANNEXURE AFederal conditions, plain English
Legally binding · EPBC 2025/10370 · 27 Feb 2026
Annexure A contains all the conditions under which this project is approved. These are not aspirations. Breaching any one of them makes the project a controlled action — requiring full federal Ministerial approval before proceeding.
All Annexure A conditions — issued by DCCEEW, 27 February 2026 · plain English
CLEARING LIMITS — Annexure A §1
C1No clearing outside the development envelope. The red-line boundary on Attachment A is absolute.CLEARING
C2Maximum 1.0 hectare of native vegetation may be cleared within the development envelope.CLEARING
C3No clearing of potential Black Cockatoo nesting trees — trees 300–500mm diameter at breast height capable of developing hollows.BLACK COCKATOOS
C4No clearing of contiguous native vegetation within 10 metres of any potential nesting tree.BUFFER
C5Maximum 0.50 ha of Moderate-to-Low quality Western Ringtail Possum habitat, including a maximum of 0.03 ha of Moderate quality habitat.POSSUM
C6No clearing of threatened flora individuals — Grevillea brachystylis subsp. australis, Lambertia orbifolia subsp. vespera, Conospermum quadripetalum, or Darwinia ferricola.FLORA
C7No clearing of Scott River Ironstone TEC. Zero tolerance. The Critically Endangered Ecological Community may not be touched.SRIA TEC
C8Maximum 0.01 ha of contiguous native vegetation may be cleared within 50 metres of any Scott River Ironstone TEC.BUFFER
C9No clearing within 50 metres of threatened flora individuals.BUFFER
TURBINE CONSTRUCTION — Annexure A §2
C10No turbine construction outside the development envelope.TURBINES
BIRD SAFETY — Annexure A §3
C11No part of any operating turbine blade less than 59 metres above ground level. Measured from natural ground level at each turbine location prior to construction. Applies to all operating turbines. Protects Black Cockatoos (Carnaby's, Baudin's, Forest Red-tailed) and migratory species.BIRD SAFETY
DEWATERING TRIGGERS — Annexure A §4
C12Drawdown must not exceed natural seasonal variation by more than 0.1 metres beyond 100 metres from any dewatering location.WATER TRIGGER
C13If C12 is exceeded within 50m of wetland habitat → surface water monitoring must commence immediately. Field analysis of pH, salinity, water level, acidity, alkalinity, turbidity, metals, nutrients.MONITORING
C14If monitoring shows any decline in water levels or quality at a wetland habitat → all dewatering within 200 metres must cease.STOP WORK
ACID SULPHATE SOIL MANAGEMENT — Annexure A §5
C15Dewatering effluent with pH < 6, TTA > 40 mg/L, or alkalinity < 30 mg/L must be treated to DWER standard before any disposal.ACID TREATMENT
C16Dewater used for irrigation, infiltration or dust suppression must: be treated first; stay within the action area; be disposed on construction footprint or agricultural land; maintain 50m setback from Scott River Ironstone TEC and threatened flora; not pond or cause overland flow; not enter any wetland, drainage line, Scott River, Blackwood River, or any Scott River Ironstone TEC — directly or indirectly.DISPOSAL
Source: EPBC 2025/10370, Annexure A — DCCEEW, 27 February 2026. Decision-maker: Kylie Calhoun, Branch Head, Environment Assessments West.
EPBC Portal
08 — BIRDS, BATS AND BLACK COCKATOOSEPBC-listed species on site
Annexure A §§1, 3 · blade height 59m minimum
Three species of Black Cockatoo are present at Scott River. All three are listed under the EPBC Act. The federal approval sets specific conditions for each — including a minimum blade height of 59 metres above ground level when turbines are operating.
EPBC-listed species at Scott River — conditions that apply to each
🦜
Carnaby's Black Cockatoo (Zanda latirostris)
Endangered — EPBC
Critical foraging wetlands and nesting hollows at site. No potential nesting trees to be cleared. 10m buffer around nesting trees. Blade height condition (59m minimum operating height) applies.
🦜
Baudin's Black Cockatoo (Zanda baudinii)
Endangered — EPBC
Defined as "Black Cockatoos" in Annexure A. 59-metre minimum blade height condition applies. Nesting tree protections apply.
🦜
Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus banksii naso)
Vulnerable — EPBC
Foraging habitat and species records mapped in Attachment C. 59-metre minimum blade height condition applies.
🐾
Western Ringtail Possum (Pseudocheirus occidentalis)
Critically Endangered — EPBC
Moderate and High quality habitat mapped across the site in Attachment B. Maximum 0.50ha Moderate-to-Low clearing; maximum 0.03ha Moderate quality clearing.
🌿
Scott River Ironstone Association
Critically Endangered TEC — EPBC
Exists nowhere else on Earth. Zero clearing permitted. Maximum 0.01ha of contiguous native vegetation within a 50-metre buffer. Dewatering effluent must not enter the TEC directly or indirectly.
THE 59-METRE BLADE HEIGHT CONDITION — ANNEXURE A §3
No part of any wind turbine blade attached to an operating wind turbine may be less than 59 metres above ground level. Ground level means the natural ground level at the proposed turbine location prior to construction. This condition was designed to reduce collision risk for Black Cockatoos and migratory species during operation. It relies on shutdown protocols during high-risk periods — which in turn requires monitoring and operational compliance by Synergy.
09 — PROTECTED MATTERSWhat is on the ground
The federal approval contains six sets of maps showing what lies within and adjacent to the development envelope. These maps define the legal obligations — they are referenced throughout Annexure A.
Federal approval attachments — the ecological reality on the ground
Attachment A
Development Envelope
The red-line boundary. All Annexure A clearing limits, turbine positions, and buffer zones are defined relative to this envelope. The indicative disturbance footprint (yellow) will conform to pre-clearing surveys and detailed design.
Attachment B
Western Ringtail Possum Habitat
Two maps showing Low, Moderate, and High quality possum habitat across the envelope. Clearing limits apply to Moderate and Low. The conditions reference this map directly for habitat quality thresholds.
Attachment C
Potential Black Cockatoo Nesting Trees
Suitable breeding trees and potential breeding trees mapped across the site. No potential nesting tree may be cleared. No clearing within 10m. Species records (Calyptomynchus/Zanda sp., Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoo) plotted.
Attachment D
Scott River Ironstone TEC Extent
Two maps showing the extent of the Critically Endangered Ecological Community within the action area. Zero clearing. Maximum 0.01ha of contiguous native vegetation within 50m. Dewatering must not affect this community.
Attachment E
Threatened Flora
Records of four EPBC-listed species: Grevillea brachystylis subsp. australis (VU/EN), Lambertia orbifolia subsp. vespera (EN), Conospermum quadripetalum (CR), Darwinia ferricola (EN). No individual to be cleared. 50m buffer.
Attachment F
Wetland Habitats
Seasonally inundated paperbark woodland, sedgeland, and shrubland habitats. Dewatering triggers (C12–C14) apply when drawdown reaches within 50m. Any decline in water levels or quality triggers a stop-work order for dewatering within 200m.
10 — COMMUNITY TRUSTWhat residents said
More than 50 residents attended a community forum in Augusta in October 2024. What they described was not opposition to wind energy — it was a failure of process that the WA EPA's own submission says should never happen.
"Many in the community feel that the engagement occurred after key decisions were already well advanced, rather than at the formative stage, when concerns could genuinely shape outcomes."
Bevan Eatts MLA (Warren–Blackwood) · WA Legislative Assembly · Premier's Statement response · 19 February 2026 WA Hansard
Community response — documented evidence
Online petition signatures
0
Signatures referencing specific EPBC Act provisions
Not a general objection to wind energy. A documented legal argument about whether proper process was being followed.
Community forum — October 2024
0+
Augusta residents who attended
Residents described feeling the project's location, scale and design were settled before they entered the room. AMR Times
The WA EPA's June 2024 submission called for regional wind farm approaches to include "social surroundings impacts and community aspirations for their regions" — describing this as essential for "efficient and effective environmental pathways for decarbonisation projects like windfarms." Consultation after key decisions are locked in is notification, not consultation. When communities feel overridden rather than heard, every future renewable project pays the cost.
11 — RDAPPlanning determination pending
DA lodged Sep 2025 · determination pending
The Development Application was lodged with the Regional Development Assessment Panel in September 2025. The RDAP determination is a separate process from both the federal EPBC approval and the WA EPA assessment — and it will set its own conditions.
RDAP conditions are now part of the accountability story. When the determination is issued, the conditions it sets — on construction hours, access roads, noise, landscape, and community engagement — will become the next set of enforceable obligations the public should be able to track.
The community at Scott River raised specific concerns about process in October 2024. The RDAP determination is an opportunity for those concerns to be addressed — not managed.
12 — ACCOUNTABILITY CHAINWho is responsible for what
The approval creates a chain of accountability. Each actor has specific obligations. Understanding the chain is the first step toward enforcing it.
Accountability chain — actors, obligations, and current status
SYNERGY — DEVELOPER
S1Produce preliminary Acid Sulphate Soils & Dewatering Management Plan before construction — defines baseline for all Annexure A dewatering triggersREQUIRED — NOT YET PUBLIC
S2Conduct pre-clearing surveys across the full development envelope — final disturbance footprint must conform to survey resultsREQUIRED — NOT YET PUBLIC
S3Comply with all 16 Annexure A conditions during construction and operation — any breach makes the project a controlled actionONGOING
DCCEEW — FEDERAL
F1Published referral decision and Annexure A conditions — publicly availablePUBLISHED
F2Monitor compliance with Annexure A — breach triggers conversion to controlled action and federal enforcementONGOING
WA EPA — STATE
W1Complete independent EPA assessment under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) — still in progress, separate from federal approvalIN PROGRESS
W2Report to WA Environment Minister with recommendations — will set state-level conditions independently of Annexure APENDING
DWER — COMPLIANCE
D1DWER guidelines (Treatment and Management of Soil and Water in Acid Sulfate Soil Landscapes, 2015) — referenced in Annexure A §5(a) as the treatment standardPUBLISHED
D2Oversight of acid sulphate soil compliance during construction dewatering operationsPENDING
FIVE THINGSBefore construction begins
This is not a list of reasons to stop the project. It is a list of things that should be publicly available before construction begins — because the approval framework requires them and public accountability demands them.
Five things the public should be able to see before construction begins — with current status
01
The preliminary Acid Sulphate Soils & Dewatering Management Plan
Annexure A §4 requires all dewatering triggers to be measured against a pre-construction baseline recorded in "the latest version of the preliminary Acid Sulphate Soils & Dewatering Management Plan." This plan must exist before construction begins. Every dewatering trigger in conditions C12–C14 is meaningless without it. It should be public.
NOT YET PUBLIC
02
Pre-clearing survey results across the full development envelope
Annexure A states the final disturbance footprint will conform to pre-clearing surveys and detailed design. Those surveys determine exactly which clearing limits apply in practice — and where every threatened flora individual, nesting tree, and TEC boundary sits relative to the works. The public should be able to verify these results before any clearing commences.
NOT YET PUBLIC
03
Bird and bat management plans — confirmed as pre-construction, not post-approval conditions
WA EPA Deputy Chair Lee McIntosh stated in writing: "Much of the information currently required is essential information that should be provided as part of the assessment documentation… and not provided post approval." The public should be able to confirm whether bird and bat management plans were submitted before the approval was issued, or whether they are being deferred as conditions.
NOT YET PUBLIC
04
The WA EPA assessment report and WA Minister's decision
The federal approval does not substitute for the WA EPA assessment, which is still in progress under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA). The state process will set its own binding conditions independently of Annexure A. That determination — and the conditions it sets — should be public before construction begins.
IN PROGRESS
05
A public compliance and monitoring framework
Annexure A conditions are enforceable — but only if monitored. Who checks the dewatering trigger readings? Who verifies the 59-metre blade height condition during operations? Who publishes the results? The community at Scott River deserves a defined, public channel to track compliance in real time — not hear about breaches after damage has occurred.
NOT YET DEFINED
THE FULL PICTUREObligations vs current status
What is in place, what is in progress, and what remains to be seen
01Paris Agreement — net zero by 2050, 43% reduction by 2030 DCCEEWSigned
02Kunming–Montreal — biodiversity fully integrated in energy decisions (Target 14) CBD.intSigned
03EPBC Act — federal assessment and referral decision issued EPBC PortalDecided 27 Feb 2026
05DWER acid sulphate soils treatment guidelines — referenced in Annexure A §5 as the mandatory treatment standardPublished
06WA EPA assessment — Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) · independent of federal approval · WA EPAIn progress
07RDAP planning determination — Development Application lodged September 2025Pending
08Preliminary Acid Sulphate Soils & Dewatering Management Plan — required by Annexure A before constructionNot yet public
09Pre-clearing surveys across the full development envelope — required by Annexure A before clearing beginsNot yet public
10Bird and bat management plans — confirmed as pre-approval rather than post-approval conditionsNot yet confirmed
11WA wind farm planning guidelines — Planning Bulletin No. 67 rescinded March 2020 · no replacement issuedVacuum continues
12Public compliance monitoring framework — who checks the triggers, who publishes the resultsNot yet defined
13Formative-stage community consultation — WA EPA submission says essential for effective environmental pathwaysNot delivered
THE POSITION
The approval is real. The conditions are real. The obligation to enforce them is real.
The Scott River wind farm has been approved with specific, binding conditions designed to protect this landscape — the Scott River Ironstone Association, the Black Cockatoos, the wetlands, the rivers downstream. Every one of those protections depends on monitoring, compliance, and public accountability.
The community at Scott River — landholders who have farmed this country for generations, residents who packed a forum in Augusta to be heard — deserves to see that accountability in action before construction begins. Not after the first foundation is poured. Not after the first acid drainage event. Before.
If the conditions are being met: show the work. Publish the Acid Sulphate Soils Management Plan. Confirm the bird and bat plans exist. Define the monitoring framework. Make it public.
Approval is not proof of safety. Proof is what comes next. And proof requires transparency.
CLOSING STATEMENT
The people of Scott River asked for a proper process. The law gave them conditions. What happens between now and the first turbine foundation is the test of whether those conditions mean anything at all.
Approval is not proof. The public should be able to verify the difference.
EPBC 2025/10370 · Decision: 27 February 2026 · Not a controlled action if taken in the manner set out in Annexure A
Decision-maker: Kylie Calhoun, Branch Head, Environment Assessments West, DCCEEW
WA EPA proposal: Wind Farm Scott River · WA Legislative Assembly Hansard, 19 February 2026
WA EPA submission to DCCEEW, 12 June 2024 — Deputy Chair Lee McIntosh