Central-West Orana REZ Transmission

Save Our Surroundings objects to this proposed project as it poses so many risks to the local human and animal populations. Risks still include grass/bush fires, noise, soil and water contamination, very high disposal costs, unclear responsibility for end-of-life cleanup, lack of economically viable recycling of such huge volumes of toxic components, and the risk of obsolesce as much better technologies, such as small nuclear reactors become available over the next few years. Australia's oldest wind electricity plant recently reached its end-of-life and rather than undertake the decommissioning, etc. that it promised, the owner just declared it a museum. How many more wind and solar projects will not meet their EIS commitments, as is happening in other countries? No upfront bond means no skin in the game.
There are numerous more reasons why this transmission lines proposal, which will just facilitate more and more polluting, dangerous and costly wind, solar, BESS and related projects. Our attached paper, "Wind and Solar Electricity Generating Works Are the Answer. Seriously? November 2022" outlines many of the incorrect claims made for such projects.

These projects have no concern for the people who have to live out in the area
Many people have big concerns about the consultation process, inadequate consultation on the project
the impact of construction, including disturbance of private land, disruption of social services,
impacts to agricultural activities during construction and operation including any restrictions on
activities as a result of the easement
The destruction of the environment including vegetation clearing, threat to wildlife, endangered species (threatened Squirrel Glider) threatened woodland birds and threatened bat species habitat, no amount of money can make then live , erosion and waste generation, once these are built, the land will not be able to go back to providing for farmers and feeding the nation. how many properties will be lost
Why do we have to have visual impacts from this. Are we going to destroy all areas with man made structures
bushfire risks associated with the transmission line as a source of ignition, the extreme wild winds, how are you going to fight these fires with a volunteer fire service. Its impossible, Look at all the fires that have wiped out whole communitites
What about the people who have to live with this, mental health is never taken into consideration, fear is something that cannot be covered
Why are the areas of Aboriginal cultural heritage value within the vicinity of the project,
including along the banks of Laheys Creek, the interface between Barneys Reef and the
surrounding lowlands near Tallawang, a suite of grinding grooves on discrete sandstone dominated
hills in the northwest of Merotherie Energy Hub, and an abundance of diverse sites along
Wilpinjong Creek. Stop destroying heritage, they cannot be reclaimed once they are destroyed

why do we have to loose these heritage sites as well - The project is located in a landscape that retains evidence of the Australian colonial period to the
present day. Based on a review of historical aerial mapping, previous heritage studies and field
surveys, 24 unlisted heritage items and two locally listed heritage items were identified within and
in close proximity to the project. The locally listed heritage items include the Wandoona Homestead
and the Goulburn River National Park. The unlisted heritage items consist mainly of potential
archaeological sites and homesteads of local heritage significance. Non-intrusive subsurface
investigations using Ground Penetrating Radar have been undertaken to locate two potential
cemetery areas on the corner of Tucklan and Spir Road in Tallawang.

why do they feel that the Potential hazards and risks associated with project, it ok, no it is not
• bushfire
• mine subsidence
• aviation safety
• the on-site storage, use and transport of dangerous goods and hazardous materials
• impacts to utilities
• electric and magnetic fields from transmission infrastructure
• the on-site storage, use and transport of dangerous goods and hazardous materials
• telecommunications inference.
I totally oppose this development, why do we need to destroy our country.

It is obvious that the Central West Orana Regional Energy Zone is not a practical replacement for coal burning power stations.
To quote figures from Eraring Power Station 2352 turbines are required to replace Eraring. On average each turbine requires about 250ha so total land area occupied by turbines would require nearly 600,000ha of land to replace Eraring.
Each 4000 tonne concrete anchor releases 784 tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere.
The only practical alternative is modular nuclear which could be inserted into the power stations being closed down.
This Energy Zone will destroy primary production of beef sheep meat wool and grain across a major significant area of NSW and destroy the close knit rural communities dependent on it.
if modular nuclear is unacceptable as an alternative then the wind towers and solar instillations can be established on the coastal strip close to the population centers where the energy is required.
Strips of beach along our coast not frequented for swimming and fishing and numerous areas within our huge national park estate could be utilised.
Government consultation with communities initially targeted has been nothing short of disgraceful. It has been only last week that Energy Co stated more hand will be resumed in the future as more electricity is required.
The whole process is a blatant attack on conservative hard working communities by a green socialist Government hell bent on destroying the heart and sole of rural NSW.
There will be a major backlash and militant action by our rural communities as a result of the ridiculous so called regional energy project and the insulting consultation process.

I object to what is happening in the Central- West Orana area , with the erection of wind farms. With a family association of over 150 years in the area and the ruination of prime farmland by putting wind farms in an area that is not a high wind place shows that people making these decisions are only trying to meet commitments to provide alternative power .
Not only wind farms but also solar farms with erection of the poles and wires and associated infrastructure within the area.

Energy Co EIS CWO REZ Transmission Project - SSI-48323210
I have concerns about the non-Aboriginal heritage reports in the Energy Co EIS.

Of particular note:

• 6+ items of 26 were not surveyed due to access denied or access restriction from the weather, and the entire construction was not surveyed for similar reasons (item 6.2.3). One would think the fact that some sites were inaccessible through the three sets of dates over several months due to weather is an indication of how difficult it will be to even get equipment into such areas for construction. It is also an indication of landholders unwillingness to host or be impacted by such large structures. All identified items need to be properly surveyed before the project can be fully assessed.

• On multiple occasions, assessment of archaeological or historical heritage sites included claims of already cleared lines or current transmission lines, therefore the impact would be negligible. However, the current cleared areas and transmission lines refer, in most cases to smaller transmission lines and power poles, not the larger transmission infrastructure which are required by this project. As such, every stated justification that uses them as an example should be struck out due to its inherent inaccuracy.

• The same goes for other claims throughout Technical Paper 6 that indicate the current vegetation and trees will shield any current visual impact. The new structures planned by EnergyCo will be clearly visible beyond such screening. Additionally, vegetation/trees are not permanent, their density can change and in the case of a die-off could disappear completely. This is an inconsistent and inaccurate way to judge the mitigation of visual impact and should be excluded.

• The 2018 Warrumbungle Shire Community Study was not used in their desktop assessment or field surveys, therefore ignoring many unlisted items which have potential to be impacted. This document, and any other historical community studies by the other Shire Councils impacted, need to be included and fully assessed.

• There is an unwillingness to construct anywhere else, despite the location of a number of historical sites near to the construction zone, with inadequate mitigation such as shielding suggested to keep the sites safe. Many of the older sites are more delicate and any large movements of earth in nearby areas, including vibrations, could have the potential to destabilize and deteriorate the ground around/under the historical items/houses. The transmission corridor needs to be moved to avoid ALL historical sites by a wide margin.

• CWO22HH18 has potential to collapse if any large movements of soil or additional stress is placed nearby. The transmission corridor should be moved to totally avoid this area.

• CWO22HH33 is estimated to be 2.3km from the transmission infrastructure. The size of the transmission towers will be clearly visible at this distance.

• Item 12.4 (pg390) states that there will be no impacts large enough to ruin or diminish the sites so that it is no longer recognizable, or that will damage its cultural significance. The sites should be constantly monitored for any impacts that do occur through the process and as such require more protection than mere shielding, and all locations should be surveyed during the construction, not only the ones rated as being directly impacted. This report does not recommend sufficient protection for historical sites. Despite the evaluation that nothing will be damaged enough to make the site unrecognizable, any large scale construction in the vicinity does have the potential to do great harm, especially in the cases of supposed ‘direct impact’ where there will be demolition or sustainable alteration of heritage structures. This point is somehow ignored a few paragraphs later for not being significant enough to diminish cultural significance or become unrecognizable.

• CWO22HH18 has the potential to be ruined entirely and collapse.



• Cemeteries, especially ones with marked gravestones (CWO22HH06) are already in a delicate state and as such, any large construction, even with the 100m boundary recommended, will do damage. Just because there have been photos taken of the locations/objects, one cannot assume or blithely state the impacts will be negligible. CWO22HH06 is also incorrectly identified as Lahey’s Creek Cemetery, when it is actually the Falconer Family Graveyard. Such a mistake is obvious evidence of lack of sufficient research into the local area and primarily desktop searches. It appears to be intentionally misleading with such an obvious misname tricking people into not knowing what graveyard it is or its significance. Such a large mistake suggests that there are many other mistakes throughout the documents.
• CWO22HH06 is still in currently in use contrary to the statements of significance in Technical paper 6 which indicates its last use in 1965 as its final one. The graveyard is listed in living peoples Wills as their wanted place of burial next to their ancestors. The direct family descendants were not consulted about any construction, disturbance or potential demolition of the site of their families burials.
• Additionally family relations of the Falconer’s have stated that there is many stories about unmarked graves outside the graveyard fence of Aboriginal workers and non-family members. There is no mention of this in the report and we would lose much history if these burials and bones were destroyed/disturbed. This could be a point of great research into Aboriginals in the area.


• There will be little in-depth historical or archaeological research undertaken on items deemed insignificant or deemed unimpacted/outside boundaries prior to construction unless something is found or is severely damaged. Much data will have already been lost by that point. This is particularly the case for locations with few survivable remains above ground. After the extensive construction works and machinery movements near the locations, items which may have been buried will have been greatly reduced already and any digs or field surveys will find little evidence after the fact of historical items.

Overall, I find the non-Aboriginal heritage assessment to be grossly inadequate. The area covered by the transmission corridor and ancillary structures includes multiple Local Government Areas and has a rich post-settlement history. I have only touched upon the items that I am aware of, but I am sure there are many more outside of my local area that I know little about. Further comprehensive research (not just a desktop study) and additional field surveys should have been done, prior to inclusion in this EIS for exhibition.

I request that DPE ask for more detailed information be undertaken before any approval process is considered.

The Golden Highway (between Merotherie Road & Spring Ridge Road,
THROUGH DUNEDOO) is estimated to have 100 extra vehicle movements (including heavy vehicles) per hour during peak construction! For the Transmission project alone; what about the cumulative impacts of all the other proposed wind & solar projects?!? Who bears the cost of repairing & maintaining the roads that Energy Co will use heavily, our council cant afford to repair our roads now!
• Construction of the project would require around 4000ha of, mostly, valuable agricultural land. Our properties will be devalued & compensation is not going to cover this loss of value.
• EnergyCo states they will need 700 megalitres of water per year during construction. That is equal to nearly 1.91 million litres per day. Will this water come from our towns water sources? What impact will that use have on our stock and domestic water supply?
• Transmission towers are between approx. 65-70m tall. In some areas there will be twin 500kV lines and a single 330kV line in the same easement (240m wide. An 80 x 80m area around the base of each tower is to be permanently cleared of vegetation. The proposed alignment cuts some properties in half, is 200m from farmhouses, will remove watering points and shade trees and restrict aerial firefighting and agricultural activities.
• There are two workers camps proposed. One on Neeley's Lane, Cassilis (600 workers) and the other on the site of the Merotherie Energy Hub near Birriwa (1200 workers). How will our already stretched emergency services cope with the population increase in the area? Medical services at Dunedoo are limited now & won’t cope with the increase from importedworkers.
• Local roads (eg. Barney's Reef Road, Tucklan Road) are rated at being capable of handling 1000 vehicles per lane per hour (33 vehicles every minute!). The Golden Highway & Castlereagh Highways are rated at 1800 vehicles per lane per hour and the Vinegaroy Road at 1400!
• The only provisions for firefighting at the EnergyCo workers camps near Merotherie and Cassilis are a tank with a stor fitting. Will our districts resources (Fire & Rescue/RFS) be used to protect the EnergyCo camps from fire? Who will pay for the extrafire services needed ?
• 1.7km of Merotherie Road is a flood plain (it was inaccessible during the time of the traffic survey due to a major flooding event!!!). EnergyCo proposes upgrading Merotherie Road (installing culverts etc) and constructing a new bridge over the Talbragar River to handle construction traffic. How will these engineering solutions effect the whole Talbragar River System, upstream and downstream of the proposed works?

I wish to object to the Central West Orana REZ transmission project for the following reasons.
We own and live on a property adjoining the Central West Orana REZ transmission line.
Our house and property is within the allowable distance from high voltage power lines.
This project will significantly reduce the value of our land.
There will be increased danger from fire, either from lightning strike, line fault or human error during construction or maintenance.
There will be negative impacts on personal health due to living in close proximity to high voltage overhead power lines.
There will be disruptions to telecommunications, phone service, radio, internet and television reception will all be destroyed or disrupted due to the close proximity to the high voltage lines.
Towers built on prime agricultural land resulting in loss of production and loss of income.
Mental stress from dealing with impacts on way of life and financial loss.
Stress on local roads, council is struggling with upkeep as it is, without adding the huge volume of traffic that will come with construction of the lines.
The towers and lines will be visually ugly and unsightly from our house and across the whole landscape.
I object to the construction of the Central West Orana REZ transmission project.

I wish to object to the Central West Orana REZ transmission Project.
As landholders and residents who own and live on property neighboring the transmission line and associated easements we strongly object to the building of these massive towers.
Our house will be within the closest allowable distance that the towers and lines are permitted.
It will cause significant devaluation of our property as well as create a visually obtrusive and disturbing view from our house.
We have major concerns regarding : Our health due to the proximity of high voltage lines to our residence.
Fire hazards that the lines represent.
The negative impacts this project has on prime agricultural land
The total destruction of the visual beauty of the landscape in the area.
The strain on water resources required during construction
Negative impacts on biodiversity.
Mental health concerns from the stress of the whole situation involving Wind Turbines, High
voltage power lines, and solar farms all converging on our lives, properties, and ways of life,
and the feeling of helplessness that no one is listening to the people whose lives this is
disrupting .
Concerns regarding the amount of traffic that will be added to our community roads during
construction. This concern particularly about safety.
We also object to the disruptions to telecommunications, phone service, radio and television
reception from the proximity to the power lines to our house. None of this has been
discussed with us nor have we been given a possible solution to this problem.
We have been given no offer of solution, compensation, or consideration for any of the issues mentioned that will change our life and the character of where we live. We object.

I object to the REZ transmission proposal due to the following:
1. The mammoth scale of the development will result in both significant visual and environmental degradation on the landscape, along with generating amenity impacts on existing farming operations and small regional communities.
2. I do not support the proposed accommodation camp option which seem to be now proposed with every new renewable energy project put forward this year. EnergyCo should be make a strong effort to strategically coordinate the placement of a temporary camp in order to support the approved projects that cannot get accommodation for workers to-date. This afterthought in an area with low unemployment and very little rental vacancy means strategies / Plans of Management developed after an approval is issued is simply not good enough and means the social and economic impacts of these developments are not being properly considered during the assessment process.
3. The justification provided for the proposed development to proceed is not considerate of the total cumulative impacts the proposal will have on regional communities such as Gulgong and Mudgee that prosper on an established diverse economy e.g. agriculture, horticulture, tourism and mining.
4. The proposal and its justification does not consider mixed construction / delivery options of the lines, (being both underground/under bore and above ground options) to suit the subject sites the lines will impact. This should be reconsidered and assessed and not a blanket approach taken.
5. Traffic impacts have been grossly underestimated and should be reassessed to consider a 10% increase to project related traffic generated by the proposal.
6. The loss of flora and fauna as a direct result of the proposal is a significantly adverse impact to the overall ecologically diverse region.
7. The management of wastes generated by the proposal is very much underestimated and cannot be disposed of locally. How many additional truck movements will this create and the addition C02 generated as a result of this issue alone flys in the face of the national and state agendas of zero emissions.

There is a significantly long list of further issues that this proposal creates but unfortunately, like all residents who have to read through 8,000 pages of information that lacks the required detail to address community concerns, the entire concept proposed needs to be put back on the drawing board. There are significant gaps in the information presented and many small communities in the regional areas are facing constant bombardment of the SSD projects that are in the wrong location and poorly designed to reflect site conditions. The proposal should not proceed in its current form.

The energy expended in the creation of renewables is not recoupable in the life of the renewable project

The renewable “hypocrisy” industry currently supports human atrocities in China by the their use of slave labor or next to it and other human rights such as child labor abuses in other countries mining the rare earths required by the renewable industry. Yet we support this country!

In the event of local or international hostilities, the control systems are easily hacked and/or the installations are very vulnerable to attack and repair is not quick, We are a nation becoming ever more defenseless!

The pollutants created from mining, manufacturing, the life of the project and the final disposal are a far larger problem than nuclear waste. These wastes created by the renewable pollutants such as expired turbines and blades and heavy metals leaching into our food producing water and land invading our food chain.

In short, the renewable industry in its current form is a taxpayer funded worldwide rip off!
A classic of how caring people can be conned by a few! This shows so well the statement of “repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth” is a law of propaganda, often attributed to the Nazi, Joseph Goebbels
The convenient blind acceptance by the authorities of the presented EIS’s as a “perfect” document, not questioning the validity of the content.
Clean up at end of project life - No indication or concept of how this will take place or how it will be enforced – no bond or similar system created to protect the communities and tax payers from damage, or other unforeseen problems that these projects may cause including the end of life clean up that is used as a big “selling” point

The Dunedoo, and the surrounding areas, are highly productive in agricultural enterprises. These are mainly family run farms which have been providing food and wool for the nation for generations, some continuously since 1860. This proposal seems to be very deficient in any understanding, nor appreciation, of rural knowledge and where food comes from. It appears that decisions have been made, and to be implemented, from various Government Departments where money over rules common sense or there was a game of 'pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey'! There appears to be no consideration for the future of one of Australia's very productive food bowls. Carving it up with the high energy power lines which will reduce the productivity and output of the farms by having reduced useable acreage is a very poor management decision. Farmers are very resourceful and multi skilled. We provide Australians with food and now you want to sacrifice our livelihoods by providing power to the eastern seaboard dwellers too. When farmers move away because of these infrastructure developments a massive depleting of amassed rural skills and knowledge will be lost to our community and the nation. Our lovely rural communities will slowly die. There is plenty of space closer to the east coast of Australia where the power is required and or along existing powerlines or in disused coal mining areas for a lot of these developments. Our rural health is important too. The 'Great Dividing Range' sums up how people west of the mountains are often treated like second class citizens. I don't know how some of the planners can sleep at night with a clear conscious with their proposed transmission line projects destroying families, communities and the land that feeds the nation.

I am writing in objection to the construction of high-voltage transmission lines as part of this project. I have concerns regarding health related implications associated with living and working within high-voltage power lines as well as great concern in relation to property value declining.

The time allocated for the review of this EIS, which is for what is claimed to be a critical infrastructure project, of 28 days is completely inadequate. This important project will impact millions of NSW residents, businesses and farmers; the EIS is over 2000 pages and took over a year to prepare.
To make a meaningful submission reviewers need to be able to consider the information provided and that NOT provided and where feasible to gain professional support for submissions or portions of submissions that argue against the proposed project.
I contend that 120 days is the minimum reasonable review time and request and extension of the review time for a further 120 days from todays date noting that EnergyCo's first consultation session in Coolah 2843 occurred (and is still underway) today.

I am opposed to the building of this project, the high voltage transmission lines propose a health risk due to the negative effects of electromagnetic radiation, as well as potential fire dangers associated with high voltage transmission.

Wellington Valley Wiradjuri Aboriginal Corporation object to this project as a whole as there are considerable concerns around physical Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sites that will be impacted and the visual impacts this will have on the environment from some very significant Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sites. We also have serious concerns around the negative Cumulative Impacts on heritage where with all of the Renewable energy projects and this Powerline also impacting our cultural heritage where it will not exist for future generations only in a PDF document on a computer.

There is also concern around the environmental impacts it will have on the region as this project stretches over a considerable area.

We also have concerns around why this project is being rushed through the exhibition process with only 28 days to respond to such a large quantity of information which in most other cases we have encountered has a 90 day time period.

Our Traditional Owner membership have raised concerns around freehold land owners being forced to give up land for this project where they do not want it, property values dropping by 35% to 45% in only months due to this and the other renewable projects nearby. There has been considerable news coverage in the region on this issues.

Formal submissions or public feedback on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Central-West Orana REZ transmission project opened on Thursday 28 September 2023 and closes in 28 days on 26 October 2023. On behalf of our impacted MCA members, we write to ask for an extension of the EIS public exhibition. Our community needs at least double this time - 56 days.

One month to review a document with over 3000 plus pages and 18 technical papers is unacceptable and unachievable. A document of this size and gravity needs DUE consideration by our members, impacted landowners and other community groups. There are also considerable variations in the transmission routes between EnergyCo's interactive map of the REZ online to EnergyCo’s proposed transmission easements attached in correspondance to individual impacted landowners requesting cooperation or compulsory acquisition. This authoritarian approach by EnergyCo, with inconsistent information, is causing uncertainty and confusion and with the deadline for public feedback looming we have too little time to respond with conviction and authority.

To whom it may concern,

As a landholder in the Central West I feel the way I have found out about the Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone Transmission Project has been by chance and I believe that energy co has been disingenuous in their community consultation. I strongly oppose the CWO REZ and the Transmission Project proposed. My views are shared by my immediate and extended family, neighbours and other landholders.
Our stance is based on evidence from Cressy 6 tower failure and the 2009 bushfire royal commission findings. More than 200 fires are started every year from electrical infrastructure in Victoria alone. These monstrosities will completely ruin the landscape in the central west even more so than the solar and wind turbines already have and will. This project will have a severely negative impact on the surrounding environment and ecosystems.
I urge energy co to reconsider the damage they are causing to a beautiful and productive farming land in the central west Orana area. The default use of over head transmission lines is not a 21st century answer and powering on with wind and solar farms is mind boggling as the rest of the world have already made this mistake and learnt from it.

I reserve the right to complete further submissions.

From
Krystle Rheinberger

I object to this project as it is taking place on prime agricultural land. The EIS document is also so overwhelming to take in and read, and I feel it doesn't account for any empathy towards landholders whose livelihood and productivity is stood to be severely impacted and potentially taken away from them.

Money isn't everything to everyone and a man's home is his castle as they say.

Further in depth consideration should be taken before such a drastic decision can be made that is set to have such an overwhelming impact on a small community if all of the suggested renewable energy projects in the area are set to take place.

I object to the proposed project as it is ruining arable land, destroying both natural habitat and agricultural land for use in the future. I was never consulted about a REZ and do not believe the state has the right to place these monstrous structures over our land. If they insist in persisting with the REZs, the transmission should all be placed underground as they have the technology, and will not impact the land to the same extent.