Snowy 2.0 - Segment Factory

Snowy 2 is a total waste of my taxes. Pump water up to let it flow down again. Never have I heard of anything quite so ridiculous,
Then there is the consequential damage to such a precious, sensitive environment.
Utterly stupid.
If I had the ability I'd chain myself down there to prevent it occurring and I'm a mild-mannered senior with lots of common sense - more than I can say for the proposer of this idea!

Please see see attached.

See attachment.Please give consideration to the points in this submission.

Please ensure most of the workers are from local regions like cooma , Jindabyne, berridale . Snowy 2.0 is a great project.
Best wishes.

Please review a more environmentally appropriate energy scheme that wont build upon 1/3 of a national park

If this will affect access for camping and fishing to tantangara via tantangara Rd . I object unless alternative access for this is arranged for duration of project

The article appearing in Monaro Post Wednesday October 23 2019 has my concern on number of areas particularly in its effect on the existing traffic up Sharp Street Cooma
The number of Pantex, semi trailers,logging trucks, cement trucks Tourist busses, caravans, tandem trucks, stock trucks, workers trucks and vehicles and that is when it is not the peak snowing season
I have nearly run over with a lady with 2 children because of the need for vehicles to get through Sharp Street as quickly as possible
I believe with the extra trucks stated in the article in the Monaro Post will more than aggravate the situation for locals and tourists alone
Cooma is growing and will grow some more as the Snowy 2 project gets under way and more people want to cross Sharp Street in their daily shopping or tourist enquiries
May I suggest that an alternative for the trucks to get to Adaminaby and return to Polo Flat would be as follows
Polo Flat to the Monaro Highway, turn right to head north to Billiligra road which is between Cooma and Bredbo
Monaro Highway up an upgraded road Lets say a NSW CLASSIFIED road to Shannons Flat road, turn right to BOBEYAN ROAD turn left and travel to Adaminaby
Media release from John Barilaro MP on 18 June Key election commitments
$20 M to seal Bobeyan Road to Adaminaby
$17.5 M to seal and reseal Shannons Flat road one of 8 core roads
This leaves the Bobeyan road as the missing like between the Monaro Highway and Shannons Flat and on to Adaminaby
The advantages are that it will not add to the excess traffic through Sharp Street
It a to and fro route for the trucks to travel for the 5 years it is needed
It is through a farming community which initially might object,BUT when they realise they have a real good exit when there fire in the area like the Murrumbucca 2014 fire they can get out quickly
Also trucks alone after the Polo Flat trucks no longer need the access the trucks that want to travel to Canberra from the other side if the mountains do not have to go through Sharp Street Cooma
I am aware it would take a commitment by the Local member John Barilaro Mp to support the upgrade and the NSW Gov. the possibly finance the project
But it give second alternative route when there are accidents, fires between Bredbo and Cooma
At the moment the alternative is Bredbo, Jerangle Peak View and Numeralla roads for cars, buses and trucks to get to Cooma or Cooma to Bredbo, ALL CLASSIFIED ROADS
Could you review this as a positive solution that people will not view Snowy Hydro is putting TRUCKS before PEOPLE in what is an good and major project

Please find submission attached

My husband Bill and I believe the project not go ahead.
We understand that 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.
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.
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.
Thank you.

I, Julie Ho, wish to register my opposition to the Snowy 2.0 project as described in the Main Works Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). I am disappointed that this project, proposed to benefit our environment and increase renewable energy use, will actually cause irreparable damage to Kosciuszko National Park (KNP), a National Heritage Listed national park and a uniquely sensitive sub alpine region already under threat from development, feral species and climate change.

The EIS reveals unacceptable environmental impacts on KNP: the Project Area covers approximately 50 km by 50 km (250,000 ha), which is a third of KNP. The portion containing sub-alpine habitats, the areas to be destroyed by Snowy 2.0, has some of the rarest habitat in Australia, areas that are critical for the retreat and adaptation of alpine species affected by the irrefutable trend to rising average temperatures.

It is shocking that a government could promote or even consider this scheme, which will mean the largest ever proposed loss of critically important habitats in a NSW National Park.

The EIS acknowledges that the construction footprint will ‘disturb’ 1,680 ha, clear 1,053 ha of native vegetation, and destroy 992 ha of threatened species habitat (threatened fauna, threatened flora and Threatened Ecological Communities). However it understates the permanent damage outside the heavy construction zones, including Talbingo and Tantangara Reservoirs, 100 km of new and upgraded roads, 10 km of transmission lines with a 120-metre-wide easement swathe, ground water depleted areas above the tunnels, construction camps (for 2,100 workers) and multiple works areas. In fact Snowy 2.0 will permanently damage more than 10,000 ha of KNP.

It is also expected that Snowy 2.0 will disperse pest species throughout the waterways of KNP and downstream. They may be moved throughout the rest of the Snowy Scheme and into downstream rivers including the Murrumbidgee and Murray.

Because the Snowy 2.0 project does not meet the standards required of Environmentally Sustainable Development, it should be refused by the Minister for Planning.

The data in the EIS also refutes claims that the project will be cost-effective and will deliver clean 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. Most alarming is the revelation that for the next decade pumping electricity will come from coal-fired power stations, not renewables, belying the claim that Snowy 2.0 will ‘store’ electricity from renewable generators. If Snowy 2.0 ever generated its claimed 350 GWh of energy, it would take 500 GWh of pumping energy to re-charge, incurring 150 GWh of losses.

It is also clear that the cost of Snowy 2.0 will be many times greater than the original $2 billion. It is likely that the project, including transmission, will be $10 billion, or even more. This indicates that it is not economically viable.

Yours sincerely,
Julie Ho
2/11/2019

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.

In addition to the unacceptable environmental impacts on KNP, the fractured assessment process seems designed to conceal the catastrophic extent of 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 accordingly the project should be refused by the Minister for Planning.

The project is of vast scale and the quantity of documentation makes it very difficult to address all my/our concerns about the project. Issues of particular concern are described below:

Environmental impacts

The EIS repeatedly asserts that the Snowy 2.0 project will have a minor impact on KNP on the basis that the development footprint represents approximately 0.25% of the total area of the park. I/we consider this assessment to be utterly incorrect for the following reasons:

• The “Project Area”, as depicted in the EIS, covers approximately 50 km by 50 km (250,000 hectares), which is a third of KNP - an area twice the size of Greater Sydney.
• While KNP is one of the largest National Parks in NSW (690,000 hectares), the portion containing sub-alpine habitats, the areas to be destroyed by Snowy 2.0, is much smaller. This sub-alpine area has some of the rarest habitat in Australia, and will prove increasingly important for the retreat of alpine species affected by the heating climate. These rare habitats provide the appropriate context for assessing the adverse environmental impacts of Snowy 2.0, not the lower altitude landscapes that characterise the majority of KNP.
• This construction will be largest ever proposed loss of critically important habitats in a NSW National Park. The EIS acknowledges that the construction footprint will ‘disturb’ 1,680 hectares, clear 1,053 hectares of native vegetation, and destroy 992 ha of threatened species habitat (threatened fauna, threatened flora and Threatened Ecological Communities). The construction footprint acknowledged in the EIS substantially understates the full extent of permanent damage outside the heavy construction zones, including Talbingo and Tantangara Reservoirs, 100 kms of new and upgraded roads, 10 kms of transmission lines with a 120 metre-wide easement swathe, ground water depleted areas above the tunnels, construction camps (for 2,100 workers) and multiple works areas. When all these areas are taken into account, Snowy 2.0 will permanently damage more than 10,000 ha of KNP (100 square kms), rather than the claimed 1,680 ha.
• No development of this scale or intensity is appropriate in the sensitive habitats of a declared conservation reserve. The issue should not be whether the impacts of a proposal of this scale and intensity can be ‘mitigated’, offset or otherwise approved under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act framework. On the contrary, such a proposal simply should not be contemplated in an internationally renowned conservation reserve in the first place.
The project requires tunnelling through 27 kms of rock, large scale quarrying, road building and widening and the establishment of large accommodation and construction sites. The EIS does not provide a credible account of how 14 million cubic metres of spoil, some of which is heavily contaminated by asbestos and acidic compounds, can be disposed in KNP without further significant environmental impacts. It is clear that much of the excavated materials will be used in ‘landscaping’ works that will further exacerbate the damage to the Park. Unbelievably, over 8 million cubic metres is to be dumped in the active storage areas of Talbingo and Tantangara Reservoirs, depleting their capacities. How could approval be given for anyone to dump waste material, some of which is contaminated, in a National Park, let alone 14,000,000 m3 - enough to cover a football field to a height of 3 km?

The EIS describes extensive impacts on water dependant habitats and species through disruption to ground water systems by the tunnelling as well as in works beside 8 kms of the Yarrangobilly River.

Watertable drawdown is predicted to be in excess of 50 m above the tunnel in areas of high hydraulic conductivity (Gooandra Volcanics). The drawdown at 3 km either side of the tunnel is still 0.5 m in the western plateau. This will have a catastrophic impact on the environment along sections of the 27 km tunnel, will dry up existing creeks, impact the local fish and animals and reduce inflows to the reservoirs and hence water releases.

It is remarkable that Snowy Hydro would show such disregard for the protection of water dependant ecosystems not just in alpine areas but at the headwaters of our major waterways. I/we do not accept the assertion that such impacts are ‘acceptable’. Experience demonstrates that once ground water systems are disrupted by mining activities the damage is irreversible and can become even more extensive over time.

Snowy 2.0 will disperse pest species (including redfin perch, eastern gambusia, wild goldfish, Epizootic Haematopoietic Necrosis Virus (EHNV) and elodea weed) throughout the waterways of KNP and downstream. Redfin is a Class One Noxious Pest - it is illegal to transfer Redfin between waterways in NSW. Snowy Hydro acknowledges that it is inevitable that these noxious species will be transferred from Talbingo to Tantangara. Establishment of the dominant Redfin Perch will be to the detriment of both recreational anglers and significant populations of threatened native fish.

Even worse than it being accepted that these noxious species will be transferred to Tantangara, it is highly doubtful that the barrier and filtration systems proposed by Snowy Hydro will stop their eventual transfer downstream to the Murrumbidgee River and Lake Eucumbene and thence throughout the rest of the Snowy Scheme and downstream rivers (Snowy, Murrumbidgee and Murray).

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 Hydro claims that Snowy 2.0 will play a pivotal role in stabilising the national energy market as new renewable generation is added to the grid. I/we don’t not accept that such claims justify the extent and severity of environmental destruction that the project will cause to KNP, especially in the absence of a credible assessment of alternative ways of providing this service. In any case, the data provided in the EIS seriously undermines the claimed benefits of the project. Specifically:
• 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.
• The claimed 350 GWh would only be available in the most exceptional of circumstances, requiring the top reservoir (Tantangara) to be full. If the full volume was used, at least one-third of the water couldn’t ‘fit’ within the smaller capacity of the lower reservoir (Talbingo) and would be discharged to Blowering and ‘lost’ to the Snowy 2.0 system. If Talbingo were not empty (historically it is kept near full to provide for operation of the Tumut 3 pumped hydro station), then most of the water from Tantangara would be discharged to Blowering and ‘lost’ to Snowy 2.0.
• The practical recyclable capacity of Snowy 2.0 is considerably less than the claimed 350 GWh.
• Whenever Tantangara were emptied, it would then require several months of pumping to be returned to full supply.
• If Snowy 2.0 ever generated its claimed 350 GWh of energy, it would take 500 GWh of pumping energy to re-charge, incurring 150 GWh of losses.

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. It is likely that the project, including transmission, will be $10 billion, or even more. 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.

In addition to its shareholding the Commonwealth increased the commitment of public funds through a $1.38 billion subsidy into the project. Why was this necessary and why is the Commonwealth Government playing favourites in the National Electricity Market?

Please see attachment

I strongly oppose the proposed Snowy 2.0 project, on both environmental and economic grounds.
There are two major environmental issues with this project.
The first is the unique and precious nature of the Kosciuszko National Park, which will sustain substantial damage to irreplaceable ecosystems across a significant percentage of its area. Bogs will dry out, vegetation will be destroyed. Enough damage has been done in this beautiful park already. We need to protect it and continue to support sustainable tourism that will contribute to the economy of the region.
The second is that this is not the best way to make the urgent and vital reductions in electricity emissions in order to address the rapidly worsening climate emergency. Pumped storage is a vital part of the renewable energy mix, but far better, cheaper and less environmentally destructive sites for this kind of power generation have already been identified. In addition, my understanding is that the energy used for pumping will initially come from coal, so the project's "clean power" credentials are still many years down the track from being realised.
Economically, the project simply does not stack up. Costs have apparently already blown out, and much more power generation can be achieved much more cleanly at much lower cost elsewhere. In terms of contributing to the local economy, tourism generates many more jobs and dollars than Snowy 2.0 can expect, and some of these tourism jobs will in fact be threatened by the environmental destruction created by the project.
As a parent deeply concerned about the terrifying impacts that climate change and other environmental catastrophes will have on my children, I am strongly opposed to Snowy 2.0 and urge the NSW government to listen to scientists and renewable energy experts in order to come up with the best and fastest ways to lower our carbon emissions.

I am writing to express my deep concern in regard to the Snowy 2.0 project as described in the Main Works Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and to request that this development be refused by the Minister for Planning. Kosciuszko National Park (KNP) is one of Australia’s most iconic, National Heritage Listed, national parks. The environmental impacts, if the project were to be approved, would cause irreparable and extensive damage to the environment.

Furthermore, the approval process is flawed as it ignores the catastrophic extent of environmental impacts and there is no 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.

The project is of vast scale and the quantity of documentation makes it very difficult to address all my concerns, so I am including below some information provided by the National Parks and Wildlife Association which I have read and agree with. However, it is very clear that the project does not meet the standards of Environmentally Sustainable Development and should be refused by the Minister for Planning.

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.


Conclusion

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.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Roslyn Irwin

The Snowy 2 hydro proposal project area would cover a huge part of the Northern part of Kosciuszko National Park. This is totally unacceptable for a National Park, which exists to preserve the natural environment and provide recreational opportunities such as bushwalking.
You might think that you can pull the wool over the eyes of the public by making it appear to be an environmentally-friendly proposal that helps mitigate global warming. However, the energy to power the proposal is planned to come from COAL-FIRED POWER STATIONS, at least for the first 10 years. This negates any carbon-reducing supposed credits.
The cost of the proposal is extortionate, and is constantly rising. This is at a time when far, far too little money is allocated by the NSW Government or the federal government for conservation purposes, such as proper maintenance of existing National Parks (which are suffering badly from lack of funding), and preservation of endangered species.
I urge the Government to reject this bad proposal.

See attachment

Please keep access to tantangara rd open. It will be a tragedy to horse riders and fisherman and dramatically impact tourism to a town (Adaminaby) that relies heavily on it. Especially in this drought, the town and farmers are struggling, this will be an extra kick in the gut to local economy.
Port Phillip fire trail is not a suitable option B as it has been closed more often than not in the last 12 years since I’ve worked and lived in Adaminaby due to high water levels in tantangara dam.
Please keep tantangara road open, it is the only access to many horse riding camps, without access, the people who would usually camp over Christmas/New Years/Easter/Australia day etc will be overcrowding into long plain, rocky plain etc which are already spacially restricted and overcrowded, especially during these busy times.

Thankyou

• Please can you maintain access to Tantangara Road, Wares Yards, Currango Homestead & Old Camp site
• Port Phillip Fire Trail isn't an alternative as it is often closed due to dam levels

See attached file.

As a frequent user of the Snowy Mountains National Park and its limited available local camping facilities I would be concerned if work on the project significantly limited access to the Tantangara area. Individuals that I enjoy the park with will want to maintain access to Tantangara Rd, Wares Yards, Currango Homestead and the old camp site.
The Port Philip Fire Trail is not an alternative as it is often closed due to dam levels.