Skip to main content

State Significant Infrastructure

Determination

Snowy 2.0 - Main Works

Snowy Monaro Regional, Snowy Valleys

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

Download the complete Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) below, or access a summary here.

The development of an underground pumped hydro power station and ancillary infrastructure.

Archive

Application (1)

Scoping Report

SEARs (2)

Cover Letter
Issued SEARs

EIS (64)

EIS Summary
EIS Main Report - Part 1
EIS Main Report - Part 2
Appendix A - SEARs compliance table
Appendix B - Detailed maps and plans
Appendix C - Project development - Options and Alternatives
Appendix D - Construction methods
Appendix E - Capital investment value report
Appendix F - Rehabilitation strategy
Appendix G - Mitigation measures table
Appendix H - Strategic context and need for Snowy 2.0
Appendix I - Stakeholder engagement report
Appendix J.1 - Water assessment report
Appendix J.2 - Water Assessment - Annexure A Water characterisation report - 1 of 10
Appendix J.3 - Water Assessment - Annexure A Water characterisation report - 2 of 10
Appendix J.3 - Water Assessment - Annexure A - Water characterisation report - 3 of 10
Appendix J.3 - Water Assessment - Annexure A - Water characterisation report - 4 of 10
Appendix J.3 - Water Assessment - Annexure A - Water characterisation report - 5 of 10
Appendix J.3 - Water Assessment - Annexure A - Water characterisation report - 6 of 10
Appendix J.3 - Water Assessment - Annexure A - Water characterisation report - 7 of 10
Appendix J.3 - Water Assessment - Annexure A - Water characterisation report - 8 of 10
Appendix J.3 - Water Assessment - Annexure A - Water characterisation report - 9 of 10
Appendix J.3 - Water Assessment - Annexure A - Water characterisation report - 10 of 10
Appendix J.4 - Water Assessment - Annexure B - Modelling Report
Appendix J.4 - Water Assessment - Annexure C - Flood risk assessment
Appendix J.4 - Water Assessment - Annexure D - Water management report
Appendix K - Talbingo and Tantangara reservoirs physical li
Appendix L - 01 Excavated rock placement and Annexes A-B
Appendix L - 02 Excavated rock placement and Annexes C-E
Appendix L - 03 Excavated rock placement and Annex F
Appendix L - 04 Excavated rock placement and Annexes G-H
Appendix M.1-01 Biodiversity Development Assessment Report - Part A1
Appendix M.1-01 Biodiversity Development Assessment Report - Part A2
Appendix M.1-01 Biodiversity Development Assessment Report - Part A3
Appendix M.1-01 Biodiversity Development Assessment Report - Part A4
Appendix M.1.01 Biodiversity Development Assessment Report - Part A5
Appendix M.1-01 Biodiversity Development Assessment Report - Part A6
Appendix M.1-01 Biodiversity Development Assessment Report - Part A7
Appendix M.1-01 Biodiversity Development Assessment Report - Part A8
Appendix M.1-01 Biodiversity Development Assessment Report - Part A9
Appendix M.1-02 Biodiversity Development Assessment Report - Part B
Appendix M.1-03 Biodiversity Development Assessment Report - Annexures
Appendix M.2 - Aquatic ecology assessment
Appendix M.2_Aquatic ecology assessment - studies
Appendix M.3 - Offset strategy
Appendix N.1-01 Contamination assessment
Appendix N.1-02 Contamination assessment - Annexures
Appendix N.2 - Soils and land assessment
Appendix O.1 - Palaeozoic geodiversity assessment
Appendix O.2 Cenozoic geodiversity assessment
Appendix P.1 - ACHAR
Appendix P.2 - 01 Historic Heritage
Appendix P.2-02 Historic heritage - Annexures 1-3
Appendix P.2-02 Historic heritage - Annexures 4-5
Appendix Q - Traffic and transport
Appendix R - Noise and vibration
Appendix S - Landscape and visual assessment
Appendix T - Bushfire risk assessment
Appendix U - Hazard and risk
Appendix V Air quality
Appendix W Navigation Impact Assessment
Appendix X.1 - Social impact assessment
Appendix X.2 Recreational User Impacts Assessment
Appendix Y - Economic Assessment

Response to Submissions (16)

Request RTS
Main Report
Appendix A - F
Appendix G - BDAR Part 1
Appendix G - BDAR Part 2
Appendix H - Response to DPI Fisheries
Appendix I - Water Modelling Part 1
Appendix I - Water Modelling Part 2
Appendix I - Water Modelling Part 3
Appendix J - Water Mgmt Part 1
Appendix J - Water Mgmt Part 2
Appendix L - Offset Strategy
Appendix N - Response to DPIE Biosecurity
Appendix M - Heritage Addendum
Appendix K - Traffic and Transport
Appendix O - Revised Project Description

Additional Information (2)

Response to RFI - 2 April 20
Response to RFI - 27 Feb 20

Determination (3)

Assessment Report
Notice of Decision
Infrastructure Approval

Approved Documents

Management Plans and Strategies (15)

Spoil Management Plan - Approval Letter
Spoil Management Plan
Transport Management Plan
Transport Management Plan Approval
Environmental Management Strategy
Environmental Management Strategy Approval
Spoil Management Plan
Spoil Management Plan Approval
Heritage Management Plan
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_20122020_034404
Biodiversity Management Plan
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_19102020_034442
Groundwater Management Plan
Surface Water Management Plan
Water Management Plan

Independent Reviews and Audits (4)

6 monthly IEA Report Snowy 2.0 July 2021
Audit reports_23082021_122736
Snowy 2.0 IEA
IEA Response Letter_170621

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.

Complaints

Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint

Enforcements

There are no enforcements for this project.

Inspections

18/6/2020

16/7/2020

8/10/2020

18/11/2020

19/11/2020

17/2/2021

17/2/2021

18/2/2021

21/4/2021

21/4/2021

22/4/2021

23/6/2021

23/6/2021

24/6/2021

15/02/2022

30/03/2022

21/04/2022

16/06/2022

Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.

Submissions

Filters
Showing 61 - 80 of 201 submissions
Barbara Bryan
Object
DUNDAS , New South Wales
Message
The EIS seriously understates the full environmental impact on the Park, which, when vegetation clearance, earthworks, dumping and damage to streams and water-dependant ecosystems are included will exceed 10,000 ha.
Even the EIS admits that the Main Works will ‘disturb’ 1,680 ha, clear 1,053 ha of native vegetation and destroy 992 ha of threatened species habitat.
14 million cubic metres of excavated spoil, some of which contains asbestos and/or is acidic, will be dumped in Kosciuszko National Park. Most of the spoil will go into Talbingo and Tantangara Reservoirs, decreasing their storage capacities, with the remainder to go into roads or to ‘landscape’ the park.
Major infrastructure, including the widening and construction of 100 km of roads and tracks are proposed throughout the project area. Some of which will destroy sensitive environmental and geological significant areas. Under normal circumstances these would not be allowed within a National Park, so why under Snowy 2.0?
Two side-by-side high voltage transmission lines for 10 km through the Park, with a 120m wide easement swathe.
Snowy 2.0 requires tunnelling through 27 kms of rock. This will depress the water table in some sections by more than 50 m and have an impact for up to 2 kms either side of the tunnel. This will lead to montane streams and water dependant alpine bogs drying up, further impacting upon vulnerable habitats and native species. It will also lead to a reduction of inflows to Snowy reservoirs and downstream rivers. These river systems are already under threat from feral animals and global heating. Any works that threaten water quality and quantity must be avoided.
Not only is Snowy 2.0 environmental vandalism, it isn’t economic. The original $2 billion cost estimate is now approaching $10 billion, including transmission.
Many other pumped storage opportunities have been identified in NSW with a combined capacity considerably greater than Snowy 2.0. Why were these alternatives, together with batteries and other forms of storage, not explored before proposing construction of such a huge project within a National Park?
Never before has a project of such immense size and environmental destruction been proposed within a National Park.
Attachments
Rebecca Kenny
Object
BRUCE , Australian Capital Territory
Message
The Snowy 2.0 project, as described in the Main Works EIS, does not meet the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development as mandated in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. In short, the staggering scale and severity of environmental impacts are by no means commensurate with the environmental, economic and community benefits of the project. I wish to indicate my strong opposition to the Snowy 2.0 project as described in the Main Works Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The scale and intensity of environmental impact described in the EIS is inappropriate in any sensitive sub alpine region, let alone Kosciuszko National Park (KNP), one of our nation’s most iconic, National Heritage Listed national parks.
Attachments
Emma Rooksby
Object
MOUNT PLEASANT , New South Wales
Message
Please see attached submission.
Attachments
Roy Deane
Object
MANLY , New South Wales
Message
My concern is with the efficiency of a system by which a significant proportion of energy is used to simply save energy for future use. In fact, I think that the electricity generated by releasing the saved water will actually be less than the energy needed to store the energy!
The justification,therefore, is simply that electricity is available cheaply when water is pumped into storage, and can be sold at a “profit” when it is later used to generate electricity.
From an overall view, the sense of doing this highly depends on the value of pumped water generated hydro power being significantly higher than other sources of electricity. This must take into account the need to recover the costs of Snowy 2.0, and the likelihood that alternative sources of power are coming down greatly in cost.
In short, times have moved on, and this project is a colossal bet that in many years time other renewable sources will not have become much more competitive. The conclusion seems to be obvious - this may have been a good idea in the past, but it is not now.
Helen Gibson
Object
LILYFIELD , New South Wales
Message
Snowy 2 is a terrible concept. There are far better sources of renewable energy available which better deserve the public funding which is being thrown into this project.
The project will result in the loss of 1/3 of the irreplaceable Kosciusko National Park, which attracts so many visitors every year.
It will result in habitat loss for many native species, destruction of waterways and spread of noxious species of flora and fauna.
In this critical time in the planet's future, we need to keep all the pristine areas intact, and conserve our remaining native plants and animals to have a hope of survival.
Please stop this atrocious project.
Name Withheld
Comment
RHINE FALLS , New South Wales
Message
Mr D Kitto
Executive Director Special Projects

RE SNOWY 2.O Construction Phase

I wish to comment on the construction phase of Snowy 2.O and the increase in traffic along the Snowy Mountains Highway during the construction.

My husband and I conduct a sheep and cattle business along a section of the Snowy Mountains Highway, along which there will be an increase in traffic during the construction phase of the Snowy 2.0 project. It is my understanding that this increase will consist largely of trucks.

As we own land on both sides of the Highway it is necessary for us at times to cross stock across the highway. Whilst we always display stock crossing signs, hold the relevant Permit from Local Land Services and are covered by insurance, I am concerned that the increase in traffic may lead to a dangerous situation. As our property is located close to a number of crests, I am concerned that a loaded truck travelling at speed may not be able to slow down/stop in time, resulting in danger to the driver, ourselves, stock and other motorists.

In order to limit a potentially dangerous situation or accident occurring whilst we cross stock, we ask that consideration be given to installing permanent stock crossings signs. These signs could be raised to increase visibility to motorists and could be locked shut when not in use and unlocked to display the stock crossing sign as required.

Regards
Sue Lynch
Chris Ross
Object
HELENSBURGH , New South Wales
Message
Please see my submission in the attachment. In summary the project is totally inappropriate and the cost has blown and would be totally uneconomic.

regards,
Chris Ross
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
MINNAMURRA , New South Wales
Message
This is a politically driven, as opposed to sound science/planning, based project. It will do long term damage to one of Australia's top 5 National Parks, and one of the top 2 in NSW.
As background, my current home generates 20% more power than it uses over a year. I am well versed in alternative energy and have been an early investor in battery technology, not lithium, for remote applications.
Clearly, renewable energy generation in Australia is growing MUCH faster than planned. As just a personal example, my current system is just 5KW and I plan to double it in next 2 years; I am not alone, 100,000s are doing likewise. Every month another commercial scale solar or wind project is announced.
Clearly, energy storage of the this, mostly daytime generated energy, is needed to fulfil evening and night use.
Clearly, pumped hydro is the current best value and cleanest way to store large amounts of this energy.

However there are two major problems with this proposal, that anyone with common sense can see.
1. It should be stored in a much more decentralised way. The era of centralised power generation /storage coupled with major transmission systems running long distances is coming to an end. Technology is driving the future to more resilient decentralised generation and storage. At times down to the household level, perhaps suburb level. These are likely to bettery systems based on multiple technologies.
At the state level pumped hydro is currently the most cost effective and cleanest long term solution. There are many potential sites for stored hydro power in NSW; thus moving toward this future decentralised model. Surely the NSW Planning Department has been doing major work on these. These make more economic sense, more environmental sense; and perhaps most important they make sense from a project risk perspective. To have so many eggs in a single Snowy 2.0 project is very high risk.
2. We should not be destroying major parts of an iconic National Park when there are obvious alternatives.

Please don't let NSW be branded with the same 'environment destruction label' as the Federal Government.
Bruce Diekman
Object
ENMORE , New South Wales
Message
This is a massive project by any definition. I object to it on two main grounds:

Firstly that it is proposed to take place within Kosciuszko National Park which should remain protected; and
Secondly, it is a 'white elephant' and won't deliver the outcomes stated in the EIS.

In more detail:
The EIS seriously understates the full area in Kosciuszko National Park which will be impacted.

14 million cubic metres of excavated spoil, some of which contains asbestos and/or is acidic, will be dumped in Kosciuszko National Park.

Major infrastructure, including the widening and construction of 100 km of roads and tracks is proposed throughout the national park, some of which will destroy sensitive environmental and geological significant areas.

Snowy 2.0 requires tunnelling through 27 kms of rock. This will depress the water table in some sections by more than 50 m and have an impact for up to 2 kms either side of the tunnel. This will lead to montane streams and water dependant alpine bogs drying up, further impacting vulnerable habitats and native species. It will also lead to a reduction of inflows to Snowy reservoirs and downstream rivers. These river systems are already under threat from feral animals and global heating. Any works that threaten water quality and quantity must be avoided.

Noxious pests and weeds will be spread throughout the Snowy Scheme and downstream, including Redfin Perch (a Class One Noxious Pest) and aquatic weeds. These pests and weeds will be transported from Talbingo Reservoir up to pest-free Tantangara, the Upper Murrumbidgee catchment, and then to Eucumbene and throughout the Snowy Scheme and downstream rivers.

Kosciuszko National Park is one of the most loved and frequently visited Parks in Australia. Snowy 2.0 will put off future visitors by its visual blight on the pristine montane landscape from vantage points over thousands of square kilometres. Who wants to see transmission lines and major civil engineering structures in a natural landscape? And who will want to fish in Tantangara anymore, with introduced pest species?

The EIS contains a totally incomplete and inadequate assessment of alternatives to Snowy 2.0. How can such an environmentally destructive development be proposed without an exhaustive exploration of viable alternatives? Kosciuszko is a National Park, not an industrial park!

Snowy Hydro claims that Snowy 2.0 will benefit the renewable energy sector. Yet, for the next decade or so, most of the pumping electricity for Snowy 2.0 will come from coal-fired power stations, not renewables. Worse still, Snowy 2.0 will be a net consumer of electricity, not a generator, with ‘round-trip’ losses of 30%, plus another 10% for transmission.

Not only is Snowy 2.0 environmental vandalism, it un-economic. The original $2 billion cost estimate is now approaching $10 billion, including transmission.

Many other pumped storage opportunities have been identified in NSW with a combined capacity considerably greater than Snowy 2.0. Why were these alternatives, together with batteries and other forms of storage, not explored before proposing construction of such a huge project within a National Park?

Never before has a project of such immense size and environmental destruction been proposed within a National Park. Under normal circumstances these would not be allowed within a National Park, so why under Snowy 2.0?

PLEASE TERMINATE THIS SMOWY 2.0 WHITE ELEPHANT BEFORE IT STARTS!
Malcolm Fisher
Object
MANLY VALE , New South Wales
Message
This is a diabolical disgrace of a proposal dreamed up by a former Prime Minister desperate to appear to be taking action on climate change. What is the point of supposedly doing something for our environment whilst putting the wrecking ball through one of our most fragile areas of unique natural beauty?? It would be shockingly damaging to the much loved Kosciuszko National Park, its capacity for power generation is weak compared to other renewable schemes and the cost has been massively underestimated. I list below some of the reasons why this is such a destructive and flawed plan. Only a total Philistine could have possibly cooked up this concept:-
IT MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO PROCEED !!

The EIS seriously understates the full environmental impact on the Park, which, when vegetation clearance, earthworks, dumping and damage to streams and water-dependant ecosystems are included will exceed 10,000 ha (The ‘project area’ described in the EIS is 250,000 ha, one third of Kosciuszko National Park and three times the size of metropolitan Sydney !!)
Even the EIS admits that the Main Works will ‘disturb’ 1,680 ha, clear 1,053 ha of native vegetation and destroy 992 ha of threatened species habitat.
14 million cubic metres of excavated spoil, some of which contains asbestos and/or is acidic, will be dumped in Kosciuszko National Park. Most of the spoil will go into Talbingo and Tantangara Reservoirs, decreasing their storage capacities, with the remainder to go into roads or to ‘landscape’ the park.
Major infrastructure, including the widening and construction of 100 km of roads and tracks are proposed throughout the project area. Some of which will destroy sensitive environmental and geological significant areas. Under normal circumstances these would not be allowed within a National Park, so why under Snowy 2.0?
Two side-by-side high voltage transmission lines for 10 km through the Park, with a 120m wide easement swathe.
Snowy 2.0 requires tunnelling through 27 kms of rock. This will depress the water table in some sections by more than 50 m and have an impact for up to 2 kms either side of the tunnel. This will lead to montane streams and water dependant alpine bogs drying up, further impacting upon vulnerable habitats and native species. It will also lead to a reduction of inflows to Snowy reservoirs and downstream rivers. These river systems are already under threat from feral animals and global heating. Any works that threaten water quality and quantity must be avoided.
Noxious pests and weeds will be spread throughout the Snowy Scheme and downstream, including Redfin Perch (a Class One Noxious Pest) and aquatic weeds. These pests and weeds will be transported from Talbingo Reservoir up to pest-free Tantangara, the Upper Murrumbidgee catchment, and then to Eucumbene and throughout the Snowy Scheme and downstream rivers.
Kosciuszko National Park is one of the most loved and frequently visited Parks in Australia. Snowy 2.0 will put off future visitors by its visual blight on the pristine montane landscape from vantage points over thousands of square kilometres. Who wants to see transmission lines and major civil engineering structures in a natural landscape? And who will want to fish in Tantangara anymore, with introduced pest species?
The EIS contains a totally incomplete and inadequate assessment of alternatives to Snowy 2.0. How can such an environmentally destructive development be proposed without an exhaustive exploration of viable alternatives? Kosciuszko is a National Park, not an industrial park!
Snowy Hydro claims that Snowy 2.0 will benefit the renewable energy sector. Yet, for the next decade or so, most of the pumping electricity for Snowy 2.0 will come from coal-fired power stations, not renewables. Worse still, Snowy 2.0 will be a net consumer of electricity, not a generator, with ‘round-trip’ losses of 30%, plus another 10% for transmission.
Not only is Snowy 2.0 environmental vandalism, it isn’t economic. The original $2 billion cost estimate is now approaching $10 billion, including transmission.
Many other pumped storage opportunities have been identified in NSW with a combined capacity considerably greater than Snowy 2.0. Why were these alternatives, together with batteries and other forms of storage, not explored before proposing construction of such a huge project within a National Park?
Never before has a project of such immense size and environmental destruction been proposed within a National Park.
Name Withheld
Object
Leura , New South Wales
Message
Snowy 2.0 Main Works
I object to the proposal on the grounds that:
1. It is over-sized, and will occupy one-third of the NP;
2.Nearly 1000ha of threatened species habitat will be destroyed;
3.Other values of the NP will be destroyed: habitat, indigenous vegetation, scenic.
4. If this damaging process is allowed, then the NP will have virtually no protections in the future, as more dangerous precedent has been set;
5. It is inevitable that weeds will enter the park via the project works and multiply;
6. Development and disturbance create habitat for pest animals;
7. Restoration has its limits and will not fully restore the qualities and values of the NP.
Thank you.
Name Withheld
Object
FARRER , Australian Capital Territory
Message
See attached submission
Attachments
ian tanner
Object
LAWSON , New South Wales
Message
The project is damaging to the National Park and totally over priced for what to will deliver.
Paul Ticli
Object
HABERFIELD , New South Wales
Message
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
Major Projects Team
Attention: Anthony Ko
5/11/19

Submission on Snowy 2.0 Main Works Environmental Impact Statement

Our pristine National Parks need to be respected and treated in a way they were designed. To reserve priceless nature for all of humanity - not degraded for poorly planned short term financial gain.

I want to voice my strong opposition to the Snowy 2.0 project as described in the Main Works Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Kosciuszko National Park is a national treasure and Heritage Listed national park. It needs to be kept pristine and protected for future generations to enjoy.

This project involves large environmental impacts and there is a district lack of credible consideration of less expensive, lower impact alternatives. Claims about energy storage potential are dubious and the excessive cost will be paid for by the Australian public, the ultimate owners of the Snowy Hydro scheme.

These failures clearly demonstrate that the Snowy 2.0 project does not meet the standards required of Environmentally Sustainable Development and therefore the project should be refused by the Minister for Planning.

Environmental impacts

• This construction will be largest ever proposed loss of critically important habitats in a NSW National Park. The EIS describes extensive impacts on water dependent habitats and species through disruption to ground water systems by the tunneling as well as in works beside 8 kms of the Yarrangobilly River.


When will we start to value the environmental amenity over short term financial gain. Once lost these environments will arguably never be recovered. One of KNP’s core values is the sense of wilderness and solitude unique to alpine landscapes. These aesthetic qualities, and the experience of visitors, will be seriously diminished by the increases in roads, permanent large structures and especially the transmission lines. The project will not only impact directly on the areas trashed by the project - the overall sense and experience of the Park landscape will be damaged forever. The implication in the EIS that the community will regard the proposed infrastructure as evidence of the nation’s engineering prowess offers hollow recompense for the loss of the Park’s unique aesthetic qualities.

Minimal contribution to renewable energy;
• Snowy 2.0 will be a net consumer of electricity, not a generator, with ‘round-trip’ losses of 30%, plus another 10% for transmission.
• For the next decade or so most pumping electricity will come from coal-fired power stations, not renewables, belying the claim that Snowy 2.0 will ‘store’ electricity from renewable generators.

Uneconomic
It is clear that the cost of Snowy 2.0 will be many times greater than the original $2 billion and then $3.8 billion estimates – a single contract for $5.1 billion has recently been awarded. At anything approaching this amount the project is totally uneconomic.

Snowy Hydro is wholly owned by the Commonwealth Government, hence the Australian community. The ultimate bearers of the risk of Snowy 2.0 are the Australian community.

Our pristine National Parks need to be respected and treated in a way they were designed. To reserve priceless nature for all of humanity - not degraded for poorly planned short term financial gain.

Yours Sincerely
Paul Ticli
Ingrid Strewe
Object
BRONTE , New South Wales
Message
Snowy 2.0 will cause immense damage to the Kosciuszko National Park. The large area proposed for works, the huge cost, the additional requirement for water are all unacceptable impacts for negligible gain. Energy storage can be achieved with renewables and batteries we do not need to damage a unique national park.
Name Withheld
Object
YATTALUNGA , New South Wales
Message
Please see attached file.
Attachments
Stephanie Knox
Object
WEST RYDE , New South Wales
Message
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
Major Projects Team
Attention: Anthony Ko


5/11/2019

Submission on Snowy 2.0 Main Works Environmental Impact Statement

I Stephanie Knox wish to indicate my strong opposition to the Snowy 2.0 project as described in the Main Works Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The project covers a large area of Kosciuszko National Park and the amount of construction work required is enormous and will have major, wide spread, devastating deleterious impacts on Australia’s sensitive and rare Alpine region.

I have detailed some of my objections below:


The Snowy2.0 development proposal is huge and environmentally destructive on many fronts, including loss of wilderness and landscape values, loss of critically endangered ecological communities, threats to critically endangered species and the spread of invasive fish and plant species across water catchments. Such a project carrying such large scale adverse environmental impacts is unacceptable in a declared and established National Park of national and international significance.


The affected area as described in the EIS is 250,000 ha, one third of Kosciuszko National Park, a national park that was set aside to protect Australia’s high Alpine country, including the nation’s highest peak Mount Kosciuszko. The project will therefore seriously degrade the conservation, heritage and landscape values of a very large proportion of the iconic Kosciuszko National Park (KNP).

The project will deliberately destroy large areas of habitat of critically endangered species and ecological communities, within a declared National Park. There is no way to ‘offset’ the impacts of the loss of this habitat as Kosciuszko National Park contains all alpine and most sub-alpine environments found in NSW. There is nowhere else where these critically endangered ecological communities can be found. Once destroyed they are extinct forever.

The Snowy2 proposal will move Noxious fish species such as Redfin Perch from one catchment to another and contaminate catchments that are free of this Noxious species. The spread of this species will have catastrophic impacts on native fish populations and on recreational fishing.

It has been proposed that excavation material from 27km of tunnel works will be disposed of within Kosciuszko National Park as well as being dumped in the existing pondages such as Talbingo and Tantangara. This approach to disposing of contaminated fill is environmentally irresponsible and will add further to the serious degradation of KNP as well as the existing Snowy Hydro impoundments.

I will leave it to others to provide a critique of the economic and impacts on energy supply.

Conclusion

The Snowy Hydro 2.0 proposal will have extensive adverse environmental impacts over a large area of Australia’ alpine high country. These impacts are exacerbated by the projects location in the heart of Kosciuszko National Park, a park which was established to protect Australia’s high country and its many values for species conservation, wilderness protection and recreation. The Snowy 2.0 project will change the Park forever and cause an irrevocable loss of its character and many of its conservation values.
It is unacceptable for such a project as Snowy 2.0 with so many deleterious impacts to go ahead within one of Australia’s most iconic National Parks.

Yours faithfully,


Stephanie Knox

West Ryde 2114
Tamworth Namoi Branch, National Parks association of NSW
Object
North Tamworth , New South Wales
Message
See attachment.
Attachments
The Colong Foundation for Wilderness Ltd
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Snowy 2.0 Main Civil and Hydro-electrical Engineering Works
NSW Department of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached the Colong Foundation for Wilderness submission as an objection to the Main Works for Snowy 2.0 EIS - SSI-9687

Yours sincerely,

Keith Muir
Director
Attachments
John Chapman
Object
OATLANDS , New South Wales
Message
Please see my comments in the attached letter. The Snowy 2.0 project, as described in the Main Works EIS, does not meet the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development as mandated in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. In short, the staggering scale and severity of environmental impacts are by no means commensurate with the environmental, economic and community benefits of the project.
Attachments

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSI-9687
Assessment Type
State Significant Infrastructure
Development Type
Electricity generation - Other
Local Government Areas
Snowy Monaro Regional, Snowy Valleys
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
Minister
Last Modified By
SSI-9687-Mod-1
Last Modified On
28/01/2022

Contact Planner

Name
Anthony Ko