Stratford Pumped Hydro and Solar

Numerous disingenuous, destructive energy proposals like this silly idea appear more focused on enriching untrustworthy companies than on providing consumers with reliable power.
This opportunistic approach exploits our collective need for energy, and we refuse to be victims of predatory practices that prioritize profit over the well-being of Australian households.

The unpredictability of experimental ‘renewable’ energy sources leads to inefficiencies and lost productivity across every sector.
Businesses rely on a consistent power supply to operate effectively; any disruption can have cascading effects on economic output, employee reliability, and customer satisfaction.

I object to this useless plan as efficient, affordable Australian Power that works on demand must be Australia’s priority NOT reliance on China for energy depriving plans such as this.

I have conditions with regard to approval of the project as explained in the attachment
Concerns
1. The conditions of consent should include a heritage recognition of Craven Village and a conservation management plan of the Craven Village and the Glen-Craven Logging Railway.

2. The conditions of consent should provide for a current assessment of the cost of using batteries rather than hydro. This dam sited in bushland will disturb the habitat of 20 threatened species. Three of these are rated ‘Seriously and Irreversibly Impacted', i.e. the scrub turpentine tree, the Sooty Owl and the Stuttering Frog. The use of batteries would avoid this. The dam also will also hold chemically polluted water and although safeguards have been included, any risk to the environment should the water spill could be avoided by the use of batteries instead of hydro.

3. In all the relevant maps provided, as far as I can tell, one private property has been constantly omitted. This is located on the south side of The Glen Road in an elevated position next to The Glen Nature Reserve, overlooking the impact footprint. This seems an elementary error which should be corrected and evaluated.

The relentless focus on costly, experimental energy solutions ultimately stifles economic growth and innovation.
What Australia needs is a stable and affordable energy source - Australian Coal & Nuclear Power - that supports local industries and job creation, not one like this that drains our financial resources, smashes our economic potential, is extremely destructive & contaminating.
I object to all RUINABLES!

I Object because the repurposing of agricultural land for questionable energy projects poses a significant threat to our nation’s food security.
As arable land is sacrificed for unreliable energy generation, we jeopardize our ability to produce food, undermining both local farmers and the wider community's access to healthy nutrition.
Australian Coal & a Nuclear Power Plant is essential instead for the Hunter as they have Minimal Environmental Impact unlike this disaster!

I object to this useless, destructive & Ag depriving plan that only benefits China.
We fear the long-term health impacts of relying on unstable energy sources.
Any shift in energy policy must prioritize the health and safety of our communities, not profit margins.

I object to this foolish plan as the current push for unreliable renewable sources jeopardizes our national energy security, leaving us vulnerable to outages and shortages—an unacceptable risk for everyday consumers.

Many families are already struggling to keep the lights on.
The push for costly experimental energy solutions will plunge even more Australians into energy poverty, limiting their ability to meet basic needs.
I object to this China benefiting plan as we need far superior, affordable, secure Australian Power.

I object as I am outraged by the continual rise in electricity prices driven by speculative investments in unproven technologies such Industrialised Solar & PHES that leave us financially drained.

Please note I am a permanent resident of Gloucester.

My OBJECTION to the Project is for the following reasons –

1. Destruction of native vegetation and impact on threatened species.
Yancoal has chosen a pumped hydro system rather than using batteries which means that they will have to build a new dam. Overall, the Project proposes clearing of 145 hectares of native bushland. If batteries were used to save the electricity, then most of this clearing would be unnecessary.
The environmental destruction from needing to flood an undisturbed valley to build the upper dam is significant. 20 Threatened species and 2 threatened ecological communities will be impacted.
3 species affected by the bushland clearing are rated ‘Seriously and Irreversibly Impacted'. Scrub turpentine tree, the Sooty Owl and the Stuttering Frog.
The critically endangered scrub turpentine, of which there are 217 stems, would need removing in the upper reservoir area. Yancoal is proposing to donate $250,000 to a species recovery program to remove these critically endangered trees. This proposal is not feasible and will almost certainly not be successful.
The suggestion that they can relocate the tree hollow used by the pair of Sooty Owls also has a low chance of success.
The Stuttering Frog which is assumed to be present, as well as the other frog species will not be able to survive the land clearing.
The koala, an iconic endangered species whose habitat was greatly reduced in the 2019 drought and bushfires in the Mid North Coast, is present in this area. It reproduces very slowly and so under the best of conditions it will be slow to recover. It seems inconceivable to put further stress on these animals which will inevitably reduce their numbers.

2. The Proponent has failed to adequately address the traffic generating potential of the Project and the Project’s potential impact on the Bucketts Way, including its intersection with the Pacific Motorway.

The Bucketts Way is a lifeline for Gloucester which is yet to be completed to a standard that is adequate for existing traffic, let alone increases that can be attributed to the Project.

It should be well known to the Department, from multiple DAs for hard rock quarries in the Port Stephens and Dungog LGAs (either approved, being assessed or in preparation) that the Bucketts Way and Pacific Highway intersection is a dangerous intersection in need of full grade separation.

The Traffic Impact Assessment trivialises the potential impact of use of OSOM vehicles, relying an anecdotal rather objective analysis.

The TIA relies on a conceptual design of the Project. There is a large “unknown” regarding the potential use of on-site material to build the upper dam, enlarge the lower dam and manage voids associated with SMC and its rehabilitation.

Potentially, the construction could involve a large quantity of imported material if the on-site material is not adequate for the building of the Project (particularly the upper dam).

Prior to a recommendation or decision on the Project, the Department should engage an expert to give it impartial advice on potential scenarios involving greater levels of traffic generation than suggested in the EIS. This assessment should also look more closely at the cumulative impact of the Project and all the hard rock quarry Projects affecting the Bucketts Way / Pacific Highway intersection. It should also address the public roadworks on all local roads that need to be undertaken over the life of the Project at the Proponent’s cost. The consultant should identify traffic generation “thresholds” related to public roadworks required under the alternative scenarios.

If the Department recommends approval of the Project, there should be a Condition that states that the importation of raw fill from outside the Project area is prohibited.

Alternatively, a Condition should be included that requires the Proponent to report on any deviations to assumptions to the Project’s traffic generation model through the detailed investigation and design process. This Condition will provide that additional roadworks will be required to be funded by the Proponent based on thresholds established by the Department’s independent consultant (above).

The Department should also devise an effective public road maintenance consent Condition to be applied to any approval.

submission of objection attached.

Application Number
SSI-73368213
Assessment Type
State Significant Infrastructure

Submission on behalf of Gloucester District Historical Society (GDHS)

The GDHS is concerned about the future of the Craven Village, specifically: the Union Church, Craven Schoolmasters residence and The Glen – Craven Logging Railway.

Craven Village
The Historic Heritage Assessment (HHA) for this Environmental Impact Statement does not consider the historical significance of the village of Craven and its surrounds. Although these were clearly noted as of local heritage significance in the Assessment made for the Stratford Extension Project Non-Aboriginal Heritage Assessment in March 2012.

The value of Craven village as an historical entity is also made clear in the study Craven a History prepared by Dr Gerald McCalden, which provides a detailed history.
It is available at the link below.
https://www.gloucestermuseum.com.au/uploads/1/2/6/1/126115770/craven_a_history_april20_1.pdf
The village is only expected to be retained as a buffer zone throughout the life of the SREH. It is likely that the buildings will deteriorate further as they are not properly maintained.

The Glen – Craven Logging Railway
This entity has local heritage significance and is listed in the Gloucester LEP and draft Mid-Coast LEP on lots 284, 311 to 314 (DP979573) adjoining The Glen Road.
The REH application pays no attention to conservation of the Glen-Craven railway alignment, except to say site would be avoided. A formal site analysis and recognition could be considered.

We would suggest that, although Craven Village is outside the area of disturbance for of the Stratford REH, approval the conditions of consent should include a heritage recognition and a conservation management plan of the Craven Village and the Glen – Craven Logging Railway.

I object to the building of a reservoir above the present mine site to allow for the Pumped Hydro proposal in this project for several reasons.

1. The clearing and drowning of 145 hectares of valuable wildlife habitat, which records show will impact a total of 28 threatened species (2 flora and 26 fauna), will cause further irreversible damage and change the environment, permanently destroying and breaking east-west wildlife corridors which have already been compromised by human development over the years. The proposal for Pumped Hydro involves removing many hollow-bearing trees which are used by endangered Sooty Owls as well as compromising critically-endangered Stuttering Frog habitat and many other diverse species, such as koalas and quolls. This destruction would be a very poor outcome for biodiversity in the Gloucester district.

2. I am also concerned by the social impacts caused by traffic on Bucketts Way, particularly during construction of the project. Bucketts Way is a narrow, often rough, tourist drive which will be made even more dangerous by extra heavy traffic and workers vehicles rushing to and from their homes. It is a designated detour route for Pacific Highway and many caravans and other visitors use it regularly. Of course, it is also used by Gloucester district residents to access Newcastle and Sydney. I use it regularly to attend doctors' appointments and find the lack of overtaking places, roughness of surface and narrowness of the road quite frustrating and even intimidating at times and the thought of such inevitable increase in trucks and cars is disturbing, as are the inevitable hold ups and dangers which occur at the intersection with the Pacific Highway. I think public safety will be compromised by the construction traffic and the cumulative effects of other industrial development along this road. It does not appear that the consultants have fully investigated or assessed the dangers that will be caused on this narrow country road.

3. I believe Yancoal is legally obliged to examine alternatives to their proposed pumped hydro project but there is no evidence that Yancoal has fully explored the cheaper, less environmentally destructive option of using batteries to store power generated. I do not object to the use of the already damaged mine-site footprint as a solar farm, but I do not think permanently ruining even more valuable bushland and using and spreading the polluted mine void water is necessary when the storage capabilities of batteries are improving all the time. Is there a comparative cost benefit analysis showing pumped hydro is the best long-term solution? What is the motivation for proposing pumped hydro in this situation? Could it be a way for Yancoal to avoid the extra cost of dealing with their polluted waste water? Is there a report on the quality of the mine void water? This water will undoubtedly affect the pipes and pumps over time, affecting their longevity and possibly leaking polluted water into waterways.

In conclusion, I consider that this project should be rejected in its current form as the pumped hydro proposal will cause irreversible damage to the biodiversity of Gloucester's environment; Yancoal should examine another method of storing the energy produced by a solar farm and the social impacts caused by increased traffic are unacceptable.

Terry Hardwick

Please see attached submission

I believe that the Yancoal's Stratford renewable hub is a cracker of a project. It would really 'put Gloucester on the map' and will benefit all of us in many ways into the future.
It counters global climate change and could provide a model for similar projects at mine and coal fired power station sites. The benefit for Gloucester will be enormous both for existing and new businesses. Whilst the benefit during construction may only be short term, it should spawn other lasting commercial enterprise in the area.
It will be capable of 300MW for 12 hours using pumped hydro, backed by 330MW of solar generation and a hydraulic elevation of 320m. Whilst operating only during peak demand periods this is the same capacity (300MW) as a Small Nuclear Reactor (SMR) and far less contentious.
Yancoal identifies that "The project could create up to 350 full-time jobs over the four-year construction period. During normal operations, it could employ approximately 10 full-time workers, which could increase to around 30 workers during periodic maintenance activities."
As long as environmental objectives are met and maintained this project has my full support.

I want more renewable energy to come on line but this is not the way to do it.
This project will cause irreversible environmental damage in a number of ways.
1/ Yancoal intends to destroy a large area of native bushland. Bushland that contains quite a few threatened species, including koalas. They need to do this because they have chosen pumped hydro instead of using batteries. The EIS does not properly explain why pumped hydro is preferable to batteries.
2/ There are concernes about the use of polluted mine water which might well adveresly affect plants, animals and humans.
3/ Gloucester has a shortage of accommodation, particularly for the less adavantaged and an influx of hundreds of workers during construction wil make this worse.Yancoal have not properly explained where the workers will be accommodated.
4/ Bucketts Way presently carries too much traffic for the condition of the road. Getting from Bucketts Way onto the Pacific Highway is often a nightmare and the traffic generated by this project's construction will make things much worse.

The project will make an important contribution to renewable energy in NSW.
While the surface water analysis is substantial and uses appropriate methodology it is lacking in two aspects;
- the rainfall calculations have not been tested against the 30 years of data that Stratford Coal would have for the site,
- the peak runoff calculations do not appear to include the fact that the PV panels will reduce infiltration in the area below then and increase rainfall impact (velocity and volume) on the land surface downhill on the panels. Using a surface roughness factor of 0.7 is probably inappropriate.
Adjusting the analysis to include these aspects could increase the erosion and flooding impacts; especially in periods of extreme summer storms and when the river systems are already in flood.

I object to this project in its present form.
The project involves the destruction of a significant amout of native bushland which contains several threatened plant and animal species. The EIS makes this clear. This is only necessary because Yancoal have chosen to use pumped hydro instead of batteries. If batteries were used to store the electricity this destruction would be unnecessary.
Three species affected by the bushland clearing are rated ‘Seriously and Irreversibly Impacted'. Scrub turpentine tree, the Sooty Owl and the Stuttering Frog. The critically endangered scrub turpentine, of which there are 217 stems, would need removing in the upper reservoir area. Yancoal is proposing to donate $250,000 to a species recovery program to remove these critically endangered trees. This proposal is not feasible and will almost certainly not be successful. The suggestion that they can relocate the tree hollow used by the pair of Sooty Owls also has a low chance of success according to bird experts. The Stuttering Frog which is assumed to be present, as well as the other frog species will not be able to survive the polluted mine water.
The koala, an iconic endangered species whose habitat was greatly reduced in the 2019 drought and bushfires in the Mid North Coast, is present in this area. Our group spend many hours planting trees to make wildlife corridors and increase the habitat of this species. It reproduces very slowly and so under the best of conditions it will be slow to recover. It seems inconceivable to put further stress on these animals which will inevitably reduce their numbers.

The water to be used in the project is certainly poluted and there is inadequate information to be satisfied that it will not be a risk to plants and animals.

There is a known site of potential Aboriginal cultural significance that is located almost in the proposed wall of the lower dam. It hasn't yet been investigated. Its location would seem to mean damage would be inevitable. This is an important issue and has not been adequately addressed by Yancoal.
The traffic impacts, particularly during the construction phase has not been adequately addressed by the EIS.

The project will be good for the community for work and opportunities for people in the community and also the use for the rehabilitation land of the mine and the water that is on site already.
The utilisation of the water resources is a great idea and to create power generation to supply the grid with more power and the move from power stations we need project like this to generate power to put back into the grid to supply electricity to the growing population.
The project utilisation of the water and major power line that runs past the location is a very unique opportunity as the site having a natural void to build a dam and so close to water and power grid source is not very common so the disturbance is at a minimum when you look at all that is makes a great project site .

Think it would be good for community and jobs in the area