Opposition to Proposed Transmission Line Route through Central and South State Forest Sections
I write to register my strong objection to the proposed transmission line route through State Forests in the Central and South sections of the Hunter Transmission Project.
The Biodiversity Assessment within the EIS makes clear that the project will cause severe, irreversible destruction and long-term impacts to biodiversity values. Most alarmingly:
• The proposed route will directly impact over 70 listed threatened flora and fauna species protected under state and federal legislation.
• It will require the clearing of 365 hectares of endangered and critically endangered ecological communities (EECs/CEECs).
• These ecological communities are already under extreme pressure from fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and land-use change. Further destruction of this scale amounts to an act of ecocide and goes against Australia's signing of international treaties to protect our biodiversity.
What this truly means for the Hunter's natural environment has not been clearly articulated to the community.
This level of habitat loss and fragmentation cannot be offset or mitigated. Once destroyed, these ecological communities and the species that depend upon them cannot be restored within any reasonable timeframe. The “avoid, minimise, offset” hierarchy of environmental management has clearly been disregarded in this proposal.
The loss of 365 hectares of CEECs should ring alarm bells for any government considering approval. Allowing such widespread destruction is entirely inconsistent with:
• The objectives of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW),
• The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999,and
• Australia’s international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
The Hunter region is a biodiversity hotspot and a refuge for many species already facing extinction pressures. Pushing ahead with this route will not only undermine national and state conservation targets but will set a dangerous precedent for future infrastructure projects in sensitive landscapes.
Alternative transmission line routes that avoid high-value biodiversity areas must be investigated and prioritised. The community expects energy transition projects to be designed responsibly, in a way that accelerates renewable energy while safeguarding our natural heritage—not destroying it.
For these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed transmission line route through the Central and South State Forests and urge the Department of Planning and Environment to reject this alignment. Alternatives must be sought.

Environmental Impact Statement and Circular Economy direction or lack thereof
Whilst this is a quick review of the 1000+ page document, my submission is around the lack of any supported direction in sustainability and circular economy to utilise this project as being a source of offtake and potential to stimulate the sector.
In over 1000 pages I could not find any mention that the principles and policies that already exist in in other government departments for reduction in landfill, diversion to circular economy or use of circular economy supply chain.
If this was truly an Environmental Impact Statement, then we seem to be missing a basic part of the EIS, in not identifying
1. How many items in the supply chain for the project could support circular economy products?
2. How many tonnes of resources (waste) will come from the construction?
3. In those amounts of resources, show individually the amount in tonnes of each product sector?
4. Where the EIS has identified where this individual amount of resources could be diverted to?
5. If Renewable Diesel/bio diesel would be used in the operations and construction to increase this sector amount, especially when we have our own biodiesel manufacture in the Hunter?
6. How many tonnes of resource reduction we can make by using circular economy products in the design and construction?

One simple example - many regional properties will have fence lines modified. If we were to use recycled plastic fence posts, in lieu of hardwood timber, not only do we use less of this resource (Hardwood), but we also increase the offtake use of fence posts. A property owner, who may have never seen this type of post, now looks on it favourably (no splinters) and sees how they can use in future, hence the project initiates increased offtake just by using a different product.
NSW Government has a mandated policy of landfill tonnage reduction. It is known that 40% of landfill currently comes from construction projects.
I see no area of this EIS that shows how this 40% will not only be measured during the project, but also how this NSW government project will lead the way and show how that 40% can and will be reduced. If we do not do it first, how can we expect contractors to do it themselves. We need to lead the way.
Our EIS 'template' seems to be missing sections across circular economy criteria, emission reductions, sustainable material selection and supply chain input into resource (waste) reduction.
All resources coming from a construction project is still an Enviromental Impact. Just because it is sent to a designated 'landfill' does not make it any better that dumping it on the side of a road or bushland.
The activities of many in the industry, like myself, across resource recovery, waste minimisation, redirection to circular economy appear to be wasted, when a project of this size, is not even making any concentrated effort to reuse resources (waste).
If it is not measured, it is not known.
An item where the word 'landfill' was used in the EIS, that makes a one-line entry, that 'waste to landfill will be minimised, is just tokenism at best, and totally ineffective if there is no way of measurement and accountability.
This goes further to the whole EIS system. As mentioned, it is the EIS template that is defective. Each and every EIS submission, in NSW at least, needs to have at the minimum, the mandated requirement that the resources coming from construction must be calculated as individual amounts and then identified pathways where these resources can be directed. But importantly it must be tracked and audited to make accountability just as import as the measurement.

Just to note - I do not use the word 'waste' when referring to something that we are going to make use of and not discard.
It is all a resources and should be viewed as such, something valuable not to be wasted in landfill!!
Thank you for accepting this submission.

Submission for the Hunter Transmission Project – SSI-70610456
Please accept this submission regarding the EIS for the Hunter Transmission Project from the Centre for Conservation Science at the University of Newcastle. We have serious concerns about the proposed creation of the transmission line and placement of the Olney State Forest Switching Station due to the significant impact they will have on the Watagans population of endangered Littlejohn’s tree frog. Although we support the transition to renewables, we request that an alternative location be used for the switching station, and that further consideration be given to underground construction options.
We raise two main issues in this submission: 1) Failure of the EIS to adequately assess impacts of the proposal on the endangered Littlejohn’s frog, and 2) The prioritisation to reduce visual impact over threatened species impacts.
These points are addressed in further detail in the attached document.

In the document, we request:
a. An alternative site is used for the proposed Olney State Forest Switching Station
b. There is complete avoidance of all known Littlejohn’s tree frog habitat with a 2km buffer zone (breeding and terrestrial - determined through existing records and further expert elicitation)
c. Any further media or public outreach be transparent about the biodiversity impacts and clearly state that 66 threatened species will be negatively impacted by the southern route, and that offsetting will cost over $400 million.
d. That further consideration be given to underground options, at least in part to circumvent locations where there is the greatest trade-off occurring between public and biodiversity impacts.
e. That further consideration be given to placing the southern extent of the corridor (whether above or below ground), along existing transmission lines.

We conclude by saying: Transitioning to renewables is a crucial action to benefit future generations. But we cannot pay for this transition by robbing future generations of intact, functioning ecosystems and biodiversity (Hayward et al., 2022). Most threatened species persist in their remaining small habitat patches because there is something unique about that patch that supports their survival. And whilst there are a suite of conservation actions that may help a species, almost nothing is as important as protecting that irreplaceable patch.
The green transition needs to be green for all – humans and biodiversity – no compromise. The climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis are not separate issues. We are Australia, one of the most economically and naturally rich nations on earth. We can and must do better than this current transmission line plan.

Please refer to the attachment.

i support the project this will support the hunter valley and the future jobs

I fly gliders from David Parker Airfield, Warkworth, and the proposed transmission line passes close to the end of the runway. This is a major hazard. Gliders have struck transmission lines in NSW before and death is a likely outcome from such an event.