Snowy 2.0 - Exploratory Works

Snowy Hydro 2.0 submission
My name is Regina Roach and I have worked at Yarrangobilly Caves for
the past 11 years as a full time employee. Talbingo is the closest
settlement to Yarrangobilly. I have been actively involved in many of
the social and community events during this time.
I have serious concerns about the proposed Snowy Hydro 2.0 project. I
believe the EIS has not adequately addressed the economic and social
effect on the businesses and people of Talbingo. The surveys which
gathered the information about Talbingo was seriously flawed hence
accurate data was not obtained about the proposed impacts on the local
businesses. Only one accommodation place was interviewed, and the
surveyors did not witness the change in demographics which occurs
during summer holidays and on the warm weather weekends.
Currently the businesses in this small town (population 102) rely
heavily on the summer tourist trade. There would be about 2,000 people
staying in Talbingo during the peak weeks of summer. The majority of
visitors come to enjoy water sports in particular boating, water
skiing and fishing. Most of the water skiing activity is centred on
the spillway on Talbingo Dam. This is the skiers' pick up and drop
point. It is the place where the families and friends congregate and
spend their day. The EIS suggest this area may NOT be available due to
predicted Snowy Hydro boat movement. The EIS suggests the skiers could
move to Blowering Dam. As all visitors and locals know Blowering Dam
is rarely available for water skiing as its water is released
downstream for summer irrigation. Its lack of depth and underwater
obstacles makes skiing here too hazardous in most summers. Hence this
is NOT a solution. Talbingo Dam's consistent water depth makes it a
reliable and safe location for water activities.
From the EIS
3.6.3 Impacts of Exploratory Works at Talbingo Reservoir
The northern end of the spillway where the barge ramp will be
constructed and operated will be closed to the public for the duration
of Exploratory Works. Public access will be provided and maintained to
the southern end of the spillway. ...The swimming enclosure located at
the northern end of the spillway will be relocated to the southern
end.

3.6.4 Access to Talbingo Reservoir Immediate Impacts
It is anticipated that the works at Talbingo Reservoir will only
result in minor restrictions or exclusions for recreational users of
Talbingo Reservoir. While public access to the northern end of the
spillway will be closed to the public, access will be provided and
maintained to the southern end. The swimming enclosure will be
relocated to the southern of the spillway.


It is understood and it is now recognised that Talbingo's only
swimming area, the northern end of the Spillway `beach' cannot simply
be moved to the southern end of the Spillway, as the range of
activities presently utilising the facility could not be accommodated.
Hence the EIS understates the actual impacts on the local economy.
With no suitable place to enjoy their water activities the visitors
will not come to Talbingo. The carry on effect is the accommodation
places, the caravan park, shops, service station and club will have
less trade and their business viability becomes questionable.

Talbingo businesses (the Club, Service Station, shop, caravan park,
accommodation houses) rely on the summer tourist trade to survive
economically. If people stop visiting Talbingo in summer because they
cannot water ski, boat or fish- activities conducted on Talbingo Dam -
because they cannot access the water, or the drop off points are
deemed too unsafe for their families then these businesses will fail.
This proposed alteration to the existing dam access is proposed to
continue for years. With consultation with the key stakeholders a
solution can be found so all parties can achieve their goals. - Snowy
2.0 can progress at the desired rate and local businesses can remain
viable.

During the recent Snowy 2.0 Feasibility Study workers did stay in
Talbingo. They did not stay in local accommodation, did not eat, drink
or socialise at the local club hence there was no benefit to the
Talbingo businesses from an economic viewpoint. The much touted
"benefit" to the local economy never occurred. This will probably be
repeated during construction as the workers will live at Lobs Hole
hence it is absolutely crucial that present businesses are not
negatively impacted by the proposed changes to the use of the
spillway.

Of concern to the locals will be the noise factor with the increase in
heavy truck movement along Miles Franklin Drive. Many people stay in
Talbingo because as it is a quiet place. What are the proposals to
mitigate the additional truck and helicopter noise?

The many additional heavy vehicles will cause a faster deterioration
of the bitumen road surface. Will this surface be replaced by Snowy
2.0 when the project is complete? It would be unfair to ask local
ratepayers to pay for re-pavement of the road.

Regina Roach
Postal Address
Half Way House
Numeralla
Via Cooma 2630

Hi. I would like to support the submission put forward by Mr Bruce Duff
of 2 Clair Ave Wagga Wagga as a fantastic idea to help with the
sustainability of Talbingo for many years to come.
Regards David Comerford

We are weekend residents who own 2 cottages in the village of Talbingo.
We are incredibly proud of how this village is maintained within this
incredible natural environment. Snowy Hydro is to be congratulated on
its contribution to the economy, the community and the ecology.
We are very excited to be part of the future of Snowy 2.0 and
congratulate the Commonwealth Government on this exciting endeavour
Our submission and aim is brief:
a. To maintain the serenity of the village (please watch The Castle)
b. To future proof the community and improve the existing services.
c. To ensure that sufficient funds are set aside for the ongoing and
future maintenance of all roads, bridges and access roads so that it
will never adversely affect the residents or visitors to the village.
d. To contribute to a future fund for the Talbingo Country Club which
is the hub of this village and essentially the equivalent of our Town
Hall. To this end it will require funds for improvements, maintenance,
expansion and fun. Our village will be impacted and to soften this
blow I would suggest that funding is a magnificent form of
compensation.
e. To come into the 21 Century we require superior telecommunication
and full satellite coverage to allow our businesses to progress into
the future.
f. As the icing on the cake might I be so bold as to recommend a
number of permanent moorings on Talbingo Dam. We are a modern tourist
destination that should look to future development and expansion. This
would be a sensational addition that a progressive government should
support.
g. We understand that a small barge will be used in the construction
process. Might we humbly request that this be gifted to the village at
the end of construction for the use of the community and maintain said
barge on our behalf.
h. To support us through this process and into the future we believe
that a permanent Dr/Nurse is required in the village.
I. A floating mooring and new swimming area must be recreated at the
existing boat ramp whilst work takes place over the coming years.
Perhaps consideration must be given to a covering of sand over the
existing blasted stone.
j. We support a renewed and improved walking track to the Jounama.
k. We support the reopening of Tumut 3 power station to tourists.
l. We believe that the Community does not fully understand the
enormity of this project and the true impact that we may experience.
Perhaps other events will unfold during this process that are
unforseen to all of us. As such I believe that flexibility,
compassion, logic and practicality must be practiced and room for
decisions to be made throughout the process should circumstances
change.
Many thanks
Deb Blackwell BA LLB
Prof.John Blackwell

I have been a regular visitor to the Kosciuszko National Park, including
the Ravine area, over many decades and for a wide range of activities.

I have attached a paper outlining my principal concerns.

see attached PDF

Hydroelectricity and the proposed extension to include pumped hydro are
important to Australia not just for the the sustainable energy they
represent, but as an opportunity to demonstrate that we can be self
sufficient without degrading the environments and communities in which
in which we live. I have lived my whole life in and around the Snowy
and am writing to ask that the proponents do not just minimse impact
but are proactive in building their social license, both locally and
nationally. A small amount of consultation and consideration can make
a massive difference to the viability and sustainability of small
communities that work every day to promote the Snowy Scheme as a
economic, enviromental and community asset. I support the proposed
exploratory works ahead of a potential expansion, but ask that the
propoent and our elected representatives work together with our
community to to find oportunities improve public access to, and
amentity of the Snowy Scheme. Between Snowy Hydro, government and
communities, we have an opportunity to create an exemplar of
sustainable environment, sustainable power and sustainable
communities.

Tourism is a visible public endorsement of KNP's natural values and
the amenity of the Snowy Scheme that is integrated into KNP. Thinking
globally, I am not able to name any other sources of power that have
potential to enhance the tourism or natural value of a desitnation.
Tourism is and should the be lifeblood of a unique world destination.
I'd like the proponent to work actively with local communities like
mine to maintain and enhance the tourism potential of the area.

In the first instance, this is about working with locals to minimise
or offset the impact of the prposed work on visitors. We bring a
steady stream of visitors to Talbingo and they are astounded that a
jewel like the spillway can exist and be so little known (let alone be
the product of a major engineering project). The view from the clear
waters of the spillway, under the alpine escarpment and stretching
away to the south is as singular as it is spectacular. Based on much
more congested waterways and landscapes such as Sydney Harbour I see
every opportunity to maintain a high degree of public access, for
example by scheduling more intrusive/exclusive ramp construction
activity during the winter months.

In the longer term, I'd like to see the proponent work our communities
and elected representatives to develop the tourism opportunities
latent in the Snowy Scheme. The proponents objectives as listed in the
social impact asessement includes identifictaion of opportunities,
positive collaboration, maximising economic beneits and building
relationships. A great outcome would be to increase, rather than
decrease access to the mountain lakes. For example by working with
government and communties to include measures in hydro infratsructure
projects to improve access and amentiy. While I could nominate some
specific ideas, I think that establishing an ongoing positive
collaborative relationship with regards to tourism sustainment and
development would benefit all stakeholders. I'd like to see that
ongoing relationship as an indicator of how well we are collaborating
to promote a sustainability relationship and collaboration that is
internationally noteworthy.

SNOWY 2 IS PROCEEDING WITHOUT APPROVAL

Malcolm Turnbull's `baby', Snowy 2.0, proceeds in earnest, yet by
Snowy Hydro's own admissions, the project is yet to gain approval.

You have to wonder if Malcolm Turnbull has even kept his party room
abreast of what is really going on in Kosciuszko National Park.

Lost in the smoke and mirrors of Malcolm Turnbull and his Snowy 2.0
plan are words such as feasibility and exploration, yet these words
mask what is really going on: Snowy 2.0 has commenced already.

Why are we focusing resources, money and expertise to override
protection of Kosciuszko National Park before investing in unbiased
alternative technology feasibilities to create future renewable energy
for Australia?

FEASIBILITY:
The public has been led to believe a feasibility study for Snowy 2.0
is being undertaken. However, no feasibility has been undertaken to
establish whether Snowy 2.0 is the best means to guarantee Australia's
future energy supply. Is that because Snowy Hydro (100% owned by the
Commonwealth) has not been given the task of developing any
alternative feasibility?

The only feasibility Snowy Hydro has produced is one demonstrating
that Snowy 2.0 can make money. Have no alternatives to Snowy 2.0 been
considered?

Yesterday, sections of the site for the proposed excavation tunnel
works were closed off. Preliminary works and damage to our national
park has already commenced for an unapproved Snowy 2.0 and
unauthorised `exploratory tunnel' (see images attached).


EXPLORATORY TUNNEL:
The term `exploratory tunnel; is deceiving at best, and an outright
lie at worst.

Snowy 2.0 is:
A tunnel from Tantangra Reservoir to Talbingo Reservoir
A cavern control room for turbines

How can `major works', (2 above), providing the establishment of a
major component of the Snowy 2 Project (the cavern For turbines,
control room and access tunnel to them), proceed without approval of
the Snowy 2 project? Maybe if you call it an `exploratory tunnel'. I
don't think that is honest.

This tunnel is eight metres wide by eight metres high: large enough to
fit two large trucks-and-trailer dogs side by side. It is 3.1
kilometres long, built large enough to enable the transfer passage of
huge turbines and other control room fit-out equipment.

The cavern is not an `exploratory tunnel' (see submission link
attached). After allowing for the tunnel rock, there is approximately
400, 000 cubic metres of unaccounted rock (from a total of 750,000
cubic metres). Even allowing for roadworks, this is most likely the
excavation of rock to make way for the control room cavern.

This `exploratory tunnel' will be located at the Ravine. The Ravine is
arguably Kosciuszko National Park's Shangri-La. A charming, beautiful,
small valley 2km long and 0.7km wide, it is surrounded by steep
mountains through which the picturesque Yarrangobilly River flows.

This beautiful, silent, majestic hideaway is home to at least eleven
threatened species of fauna. Around its escarpment is a unique
sedimentary outcrop containing seashell fossils: a reminder this area
was once under the sea.

The tunnel is required for the Snowy 2.0 project, but it cannot be
termed "exploratory". This is a permanent structure and an integral
part of Snowy 2.0. These works are not exploratory, though they have
been advertised in this way.

Snowy Hydro intends, under the guise of an `exploratory tunnel', to
undertake works that will destroy this pristine site. The work will
destroy the Ravine for all future generations, bulldozing hectares of
virgin bush which are home to native threatened and endangered fauna.
The works will cut a two-kilometre double-lane highway up this tiny
Ravine, alongside the Yarrangobilly River, to drill and blast a 3.1k
tunnel to a control room cavern whose size is unknown.

This is no `exploratory tunnel', but the tunnel for the access
turbines and control room fit-out. The project will create over
750,000 cubic metres of rock that has to be discarded. To give an idea
of that size, if we stacked this on a full-length football field, end
to end and side to side, vertically to the top, it would be 30 storeys
high. They plan to dump all this in The Ravine as well as the adjacent
Talbingo Reservoir.

This project will take 34 months, operating 24/7. Employing 130
full-time workers (plus contractors) working in shifts two weeks on,
then one week off.

The movement of the trucks-and-trailer dogs dumping 750,000 cubic
metres of rock will alone exceed 80,000 movements. The Ravine, on a
busy day, would currently only see twenty 4x4 recreational movements.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Of nineteen fauna species identified as possibly threatened by the
`exploratory tunnel' works, eleven threatened species (including the
Murray River crayfish) were identified during a limited time survey of
the area. Of these, the Smoky Mouse is listed as critically threatened
and the Booroolong frog, occurring along the extent of the
Yarrangobilly River, is considered endangered. Sixty years ago, as a
5-year-old boy living in the Snowy Scheme workers camp of Sue City, I
recall on my visits to the Ravine that you could hardly pick up a
river rock and not find a frog. Not any more, you are now very very
lucky to come across one at all.

If 80,000 truck-and-trailer dog movements don't drive every living
thing out of The Ravine then maybe the extensive roadworks, tunnel
drilling and blasting or the 130 workers living there will. It cannot
be accepted that threatened and endangered fauna are going to be
rehabilitated back into The Ravine after they've been driven out daily
for 34 months.

LOCAL JOBS:
There aren't any. Ninety per cent of staff will come from outside the
region, with all staff accommodated on-site. There is little benefit
or job generations from this project for the local region.

COSTS;
Excluding the Federal costs to purchase the NSW and Victorian state
interests in Snowy Hydro, the original cost projection for Snowy 2.0
was $2 billion, and is now standing at approximately $4.5 billion!!
What else could Australian's do with this money? Could a better
alternative outcome exist? Has anyone asked?

CONFLICT OF INTEREST?:
All the players are government bodies:
SNOWY HYDRO
NATIONAL PARKS AND WILD LIFE SERVICE
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
PRIME MINISTER

Do we need an umpire? A Royal Commission?

RUSH RUSH... FAST TRACK-FAST TRACK:
What's the rush? Why is all this money being allocated to something
that is yet to get approval? Why is work going on in earnest?

In 1964, nearing the end of the original Snowy Scheme, Australia
created Kosciuszko National Park and protected it with legislation,
recognising that the area should be protected for all time. It should
be expected we find threatened and endangered species in our national
parks, and governing legislation should protect their home for all
Australians.

If we are to accept that we need to trash our national park, there
needs to be demonstrated a good reason. We need a feasibility study to
confirm that the proposed Snowy 2.0 is part of the future of
Australia's energy mix, not simply one that says Malcolm Turnbull's
Snowy 2.0 can make money.

All work needs to immediately STOP until that study is delivered and
any more damage is done to Kosciuszko National Park: our national park



https://v2.communityanalytics.com.au/snowy/eis/ew

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=9208


My name is PETER ANDERSON
I am a sixty five year old retiree residing in Cooma NSW.

While I am a proponent of renewable energy it has become apparent
works described as "exploratory" are not, and the public is being
misled. Snowy 2 is very much committed to, and underway.

As a 3 year old child my father Ross Anderson (departed) worked on
Snowy 1 from 1956 to 1961 as the safety officer for
Kaiser-Perini-Morrison-Raymond, appointed by Sir William Hudson
himself.

Firstly we lived at the Eucumbene Dam site and then Sue City until it
closed in 1961 and we returned back to Newcastle.

From Sue City (a very short car ride away) we often frequented The
Ravine for picnics, camping and fishing. Attached is a photo of my mum
and myself taken around 1960 at the Ravine ruins of the old mud hotel
adjacent to the old bridge. I understand Cobb & Co Coaches changed
horses here. It's disappointing our National Parks and Wild Life
Service have allowed these ruins, a significant part of the Snowy's
history, to wash away. The walls, where they still exist at all, are
now only a few feet high.

As an adult I continued to make almost an annual pilgrimage to the
Ravine. It's one of the prettiest places in the Snowy Mountains, a
true Shangri La of our national Park. I have now retired to Cooma,
which provides more frequent opportunities to visit this unique
location.


We first contact Snowy Hydro at the beginning of 2018 when we
discovered a well cut foot tract running two kilometres up the
Yarrangabilly River from the top end of The Ravine. Commencing it some
two hundred meters into the thick bush hid this track. At the time we
were provided no honest detail as to the true intentions of Snowy 2.
Intentions that would have been known at the time by Snowy Hydro.


This secrecy, the fact that contractors working on Snowy 2 are
required to sign confidentiality agreements and the current damage to,
and closed off sections of The Ravine from prying eyes leads us to
feel most concerned and uncomfortable as to the impact of Snowy
Hydro's Snowy 2 is already having on the Ravine, its flora and fauna.


The use by Snowy Hydro of words like "feasibility" and "exploratory"
seem abused. We do not believe Snowy Hydro, nor our Prime Minister are
being as open and honest as they should. One can only speculate as to
their motives


Land, their flora and fauna and our National Park generally have no
way to speak for themselves. And, given the uniqueness of the Ravine
for all Australians, and my own long and valued association with The
Ravine I feel a responsibility to take up the chalice on their behalf


PETER
Peter Anderson
+61 412 696699

FoxHill
210 Old Dry Plains Rd,
Cooma NSW 2630

See attached uploads.

I am writing to Express my concern about the restrictions and closure of
the access the talbingo reservoir. I have moved here to run this
Talbingo Lodge with my family, and I'm concerned if the boat ramp is
closed that I will have to aswell.

The tourism that the dam brings in summer keeps the businesses in
Talbingo running. Without access to the boatramp I will lose more than
half of my patrons and most likely be forced to close and loose
everything. Fishing boating and waterskiing in talbingo will just stop
with what is being proposed.

I would like to suggest to not close the boatramp but to share it, and
keep it open to public in busy times. I would like to be told in
advance and publicly when it will be shut and between what times. An
alternate swimming area could be made for public use. I also propose
that the t3 power station be reopened for public viewing to bring more
tourism to the area.

I would like to work with the snowy and provide meals and
accommodation for the workers. I am looking forward to the project
happening and the influx of workers in the town. I am happy to help
wherever I can.

Yours thankfully,
Stacey Harris

I make the following basic submission points:

Snowy Hydro has been aware of the Ngarigo people for a long time, and
yet curiously refuses to directly negotiate their project plans with
the Ngarigo people.

The is an organisation called the Ngarigo Aboriginal Corporation,
based in Cooma, yet it has not been contacted and briefed on the
proposal by the project coordinators, particularly Archie Litchfield
and Dean Lynch (as public relations managers), notwithstanding that
one of the Elders of the Ngarigo people has personally attended
several of the community information evenings. Michelle (Ngarigo
elder) has also met with Charlie personally, offering her availability
as an elder to be involved in the project, yet she was not taken up on
her offer.
The project intends to burrow into the mountain, making its entry upon
a sacred land area at Lobbs Hole, and this is culturally
inappropriate.
The project proponents cannot claim ignorance of this aspect, as they
should have had mature discussions with the traditional owners and
sorted this information out long ago.

Lobbs hole is considered a special and sacred area to the Ngarigo, and
desecrating it with a mining camp and tunnelling works is not what a
modern respectful society does.

Further to this, the EIS process should have involved careful
discussions with the Ngarigo elders, and yet I have information that
the proponents have had private discussions with aboriginal land
councils that are not in, or part of, the Ngarigo tribal areas (Bega
Land Council and Tumut/Brungle Land Council). I could only suggest
this was done to deprive the traditional owners from being shown the
proposal, and to get a fake 'approval' from aboriginal people who are
not of the area. This is simple deceit.

It is also a long standing tradition of the local councils in the
area, where they use people of outlying tribes to give 'consent' to
developments upon Ngarigo tribal land. I'm sure payments are often
involved, as some of these out of town Aboriginal people (like Iris
White) drive very nice cars. Iris White claims to be Ngarigo, yet she
is an elder of the Yuin people from Bega/Eden. Unfortunately she is
acknowledged falsely by National Parks as a Ngarigo spokesperson,
despite her own words appearing in a National Geographic article
setting out she is a Yuin Elder.
You can't be an elder of two tribes at the same time, Aboriginal
culture doesn't work like that.

We have seen recently, and the Department of Planning would now well
know, that the proposed Granite Hills wind farm over in Nimmitabel has
used an aboriginal 'consultant' from the Wallaga Lake tribe, and this
consultant stated on record that the Windfarm proposed siting would
not involve impacting anything of aboriginal heritage or
significance.. and yet we see that just from preliminary
investigations that the project area of the wind farm is brimming with
special and sacred aboriginal artefacts, constructions, heritage and
burial areas. This shows to me and the wider community, that the use
of non-traditional owners and aboriginal people who are not direct
descendants of the areas tribe, leads project developers into a false
sense of security. It is foreshadowed that the Granite Hills wind farm
will not be able to be constructed due to the high level of aboriginal
development it would disturb and destroy across its project footprint.
Of the 33 proposed turbine sites, 27 of them would involve an
unmanageable and destructive impaction Aboriginal culture or
artefacts.

So too must we direct our suspicion to the proposal discussed here by
Snowy Hydro.
The EIS has not used the advice of, nor has it directly involved, the
traditional owners and elders. This therefore must be re-visited and
this work re-done to make doubly sure that there would not be any
unmanageable effects upon aboriginal cultural areas and history.
Lobbs Hole is well known to the Ngarigo people, and to the wider
tribes surrounding Ngarigo lands. It is a sacred place for them.
The traditional owners and elders must be fully briefed, and given a
personal tour of the proposed works, such that they can, with their
own eyes, see what impact there is proposed to their heritage and
culturally sacred land. No consent can be given by this planning
department, nor the wider community, until this critical step is
completed.
Snowy Hydro itself was constructed while Aboriginal people were still
classified as 'animals' or 'Fauna' and no attention was given to
observance or protection of sacred areas, no effort was made to ensure
that cultural heritage was respected, maintained, or avoided.

I urge the department to withhold approval of this project stage until
the issues of cultural heritage and impact are more maturely
addressed; and only when the department can be satisfied that the
Ngarigo people are supportive of the project could this stage be
allowed to proceed.

We don't treat our first people as animals anymore, we cherish them,
their knowledge, their customs, their culture. Large publicly owned
government corporations are doubly bound to act as the model citizen,
and to this end Snowy Hydro has disappointed me, and my community, in
its deceptive approach to this project.

I do not give my consent to the project proceeding on the grounds as
has been put forward by the proponent, and I demand, as a living flesh
and blood member of the Commonwealth of Australia, that Snowy Hydro
undertake their investigations in a more open, mature and respectful
manner.

I am more than happy to provide contact details of the Ngarigo Elders,
who I am proud to say are my friends, living in this region.
I am also honoured to be brought into their community and culture.
We have a duty to protect and preserve what remains, moreso after the
first stages of Snowy Hydro were constructed right on top of major
aboriginal areas of significance with scant regard to its cumulative
impact.

Snowy Hydro must make amends for this trespass. I suggest this project
is one way to address the wrongs of its past. Our past.

Here is a link to the Bega District News article about the Granite
Hills wind farm proposal:
https://www.begadistrictnews.com.au/story/5534094/threatened-fauna-aboriginal-artifacts-found-at-proposed-wind-farm-site-near-bega/

Finally I will also express my disgust in the way that Snowy Hydro
'carefully' promotes this project stage. They have a public website,
the link is here:https://v2.communityanalytics.com.au/snowy/eis

And yet nowhere on this webpage does it provide a clear link to this
public feedback period process, nor does it disclose that there is a
public feedback period and deadline. This is more deception, or
careful 'omission'.
While there is actually a link to this department feedback page that I
found, it is included at the bottom of the media release without clear
explanation. I only found it because I was specifically looking for
the EIS public comment page link. It should not be this difficult to
find.

I am concerned that the Snowy 2.0 scheme will impact negatively on the
residents of Talbingo if the works proposed prevent tourists from
using the area whilst work is being undertaken. Talbingo's livelihood
relies on seasonal visitors, of which access to Talbingo Dam, and the
use of the boat ramp etc is a main attraction.

It is important that 'business as usual' in a safe manor, can continue
whilst the Snowy 2.0 scheme is being undertaken.

Suggestions also, to make use of equipment which would otherwise not
be available on the Talbingo Dam are:

1) For the safety of pleasure craft in sudden bad weather, request the
creation of a few landing bays in suitable positions, along the
perimeter of Talbingo Dam.

This would allow vessels to shelter during adverse conditions &
provide a identifiable landmarks for vessels in distress to moor.

The establishment of these areas would have a dual purpose, as these
foreshores could be used as picnic areas for dam users.


2) Construction of a swimming area adjacent to the existing Talbingo
boat ramp to give recreational water users, soon to be displaced from
the spillway, a designated swimming area.

Regards
Ryan Dennis

I am concerned that the Snowy 2.0 scheme will impact negatively on the
residents of Talbingo if the works proposed prevent tourists from
using the area whilst work is being undertaken. Talbingo's livelihood
relies on seasonal visitors, of which access to Talbingo Dam, and the
use of the boat ramp etc is a main attraction.

It is important that 'business as usual' in a safe manor, can continue
whilst the Snowy 2.0 scheme is being undertaken.

Suggestions also, to make use of equipment which would otherwise not
be available on the Talbingo Dam are:

1) For the safety of pleasure craft in sudden bad weather, request the
creation of a few landing bays in suitable positions, along the
perimeter of Talbingo Dam.

This would allow vessels to shelter during adverse conditions &
provide a identifiable landmarks for vessels in distress to moor.

The establishment of these areas would have a dual purpose, as these
foreshores could be used as picnic areas for dam users.


2) Construction of a swimming area adjacent to the existing Talbingo
boat ramp to give recreational water users, soon to be displaced from
the spillway, a designated swimming area.

Regards
Reg Payne

I am concerned that the Snowy 2.0 scheme will impact negatively on the
residents of Talbingo if the works proposed prevent tourists from
using the area whilst work is being undertaken. Talbingo's livelihood
relies on seasonal visitors, of which access to Talbingo Dam, and the
use of the boat ramp etc is a main attraction.

It is important that 'business as usual' in a safe manor, can continue
whilst the Snowy 2.0 scheme is being undertaken.

Suggestions also, to make use of equipment which would otherwise not
be available on the Talbingo Dam are:

1) For the safety of pleasure craft in sudden bad weather, request the
creation of a few landing bays in suitable positions, along the
perimeter of Talbingo Dam.

This would allow vessels to shelter during adverse conditions &
provide a identifiable landmarks for vessels in distress to moor.

The establishment of these areas would have a dual purpose, as these
foreshores could be used as picnic areas for dam users.


2) Construction of a swimming area adjacent to the existing Talbingo
boat ramp to give recreational water users, soon to be displaced from
the spillway, a designated swimming area.

Regards
Jim Dennis
Talbingo Caravan Park Permanet Site Holder

Please find attached the National Parks Association of NSW's submission
in response to the Snowy Hydro 2.0 Environmental Impact Statement.

Please find attached Snowy Monaro Regional Council's submission in
relation to Snowy 2.0 Exploratory Works Application Number SSI 18_9208
attached.

Please see attached.

Snowy Hydro 2.0 Exploratory Works Environmental Impact Statement

I submit that the Snowy Hydro 2.0 Exploratory Works Environmental
Impact Statement is unacceptable because it fails to adequately
address the Snowy 2.0 project as a whole, focusing as it does on
exploratory works for a very major project that, should it proceed,
would have profound and irreversible impacts on Kosciuszko National
Park.

I am making this brief statement as an individual.
However through my involvement over many years on both planning and on
protected area issues I am reasonably well versed in the processes
that constitute best practice environmental impact assessment
procedures.
I am also reasonably well informed on the Kosciusko National Park and
its values, and have appreciated the information provided by Snowy
Hydro on their perspective.

I consider that the current EIS, while detailed in some of the
specific aspects, fails to provide assessors with a proper evaluation
of the environmental impact of the overarching scheme.
Snowy 2.0 has far reaching implications for Kosciuszko National Park
during both construction and in the long term from
-- the direct and indirect impacts of the works and their operations;
--the impacts of essential related works including power transmission
lines and upgrades; and
--the implications of imposing an infrastructure project of this
nature within our national park estate.

Furthermore there is insufficient attention given to the precautionary
principle and alternate or no go options.

In this day and age it is unacceptable, given the cost, environmental
and financial, to set in train approval for such a major
infrastructure project within the national park estate via an
Environment Impact Statement addressing just the preliminary
exploratory works rather than the scheme as a whole.

To Whom it may concern,
As a resident and business owner of Talbingo I have concerns
that the Snowy 2 Exploratory Works EIS has not properly addressed the
many concerns that the community of Talbingo
has in regards to the:-
* The reduction in access to Talbingo Dam
* Impact of increased traffic
* Closure of spillway for recreational use
* Loss of amenities
* No proper consultation with business
operators

Yours Sincerely
Ian & Maree Parsons
Talbingo Mountain Retreat

I have uploaded a submission from the Australasian Cave and Karst
Management Association Inc (ACKMA). The document name is 'ACKMA Snowy
2.0 submission final.pdf'.

The association has grave reservations about the whole proposal.

Andy Spate
ACKMA President

Please see attached.