Snowy 2.0 - Main Works

I am strongly opposed 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.

Kosciuszko National Park is quintessentially Australian. It is significant internationally, nationally, and in its regional setting. The value of its landforms, rivers, streams, native plants, native animals, wilderness, ecosystem processes, aesthetics, cultural significance, recreation and tourism will all be significantly impacted by this project.

In addition to the unacceptable environmental impacts on KNP, the fractured assessment process means the full catastrophic extent of the environmental impacts of the project will not be assessed by the main works EIS. Additionally, there is a distrinct 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. Furthermore, alternatives have not been adequately addressed by the proponents.

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.

See attached for detailed submission

Submission on Snowy Hydro 2.0
I am greatly concerned about the proposed Snowy Hydro 2.0 and do not support it going ahead. My reasons are as follows:
1. The EIS contains a totally incomplete and inadequate assessment of alternatives to Snowy 2.0.
2. 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. It will also be a net consumer of electricity, which means that the carbon emissions for NSW will increase, not decrease.
3. Snowy 2.0 isn’t economic. The original $2 billion cost estimate is now approaching $10 billion, including transmission.
4. Many other pumped storage opportunities have been identified in NSW with a combined capacity considerably greater than Snowy 2.0. Why haven’t these, together with batteries and other forms of storage, been explored before proposing construction of such a huge project within a National Park?
5. 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. Normally, this type of project would not be allowed in a National Park. Why, then, is it being considered in Australia’s most frequently visited park?
6. The EIS has understated the full environmental impact on the Park. The vegetation clearance, earthworks, dumping and damage to water streams and water-dependent ecosystems will exceed 10,000 ha. Clearing of native vegetation (when we so desperately need to keep our trees) will destroy 992 ha of threatened species habitat.
7. Noxious weeds and pests will be spread through the Park.
This proposal is totally unacceptable. The destruction of large sections of the National Park for a badly thought out, environmentally destructive and economically unsound project cannot be justified.

As a long term resident and landholder in the Adaminaby area, I am greatly concerned about the magnitude of the proposed Snowy 2.0 project.
We are a farming family whose property is bordered by the national park to the west and the Murrumbidgee to the east. The potential for both of these natural resources to be greatly affected by this massive development has practically gone unanswered. We have had no direct contact from Snowy Hydro and there is no information about any potential impacts on the flow, fish stocks, pest invasion to the Murrumbidgee, below Tantangara dam.
As neighbouring landholders and tourism operators our livelihood could be greatly reduced if there are any negative impacts to the river.

Also as a long term resident and community member of Adaminaby I am very concerned about the potential negative economical and social impacts on our town.
Already house and property prices have increased, with no discernible reason, beside speculation about the project. Its almost impossible to find long term rental accommodation and return tourist are finding short term rental rate increases. Tourism is the mainstay of the Adaminaby economy and if Selwyn Snowfields along with the fishing streams, rivers and lakes are restricted and fundamentally changed, then people will not visit our town, they will go to others areas of the state that are not being developed and restricted.
Below is a list of all my concerns with the proposed project.
- The 400 odd heavy vehicles travelling on the Snowy Mountains Hway and through Adaminaby everyday. (The noise, increased risk of accidents, the wear and tear on the road.)
- The negative social and economic impacts on Adaminaby and the surrounding villages. (increased land prices, no new jobs, less tourism)
- The destruction of the Tantangara Dam foreshore and plateau. This is an area of great significance to visitors to the park.
- Development in a National Park ( The fact that 100% of this project is being undertaken in a environmentally significant area (eg National Park)
- Waste dump of material along the Tantangara foreshore and water quality of Tantangara .
-The spoil being pushed into the side of the dam on the western side (below maximum lake level) potentially reducing the size of the reservoir.
- Impacts on fish stocks in Tantangara, Murrumbidgee and Eucumbene
- Invasive fish species in the waterways therefore severely affecting our fishing economy and polluting our waterways
- The monumental amount of tax payers money being spent on a project that has a very real possibility of being redundant in 10 years due to the increased take up of renewable energy generation projects and advances in battery and renewable technology
- The fact that coal fired power stations will be used to pump the water back up the hill
- The likely hood that power prices will not go down at all
- The closure of designated horse camps along Tantangara road.
- Access to Currango and old Camp Site
- Possibility of restricted access throughout the park - (this could last the entirety of the project, which at this stage is about 5-7 years, would likely be longer)
- Lack of access to mountain huts for conservation and maintenance works
- Potential impact of work required to upgrade the transmission network for Snowy 2.0;
- Boating, fishing and camping on and around Tantangara
- Access to the mountain rivers and streams
- The potential for the waterways flowing in and out of Tantangara to be compromised
- a 500 person campsite at Tantangara, complete with water treatment plant, accommodation etc.
- That there was not enough information publicly available about the true impacts of the scheme
- That multiple approvals would be sought for different components of Snowy 2.0;
All the community consultation / surveys were not wide spread enough to hear peoples true and valid concerns.
To say community consultation is mostly positive when people do not have the full picture is absurd

The Ryde Gladesville Climate Change Action group is composed of over 650 people who are greatly concerned about climate change and the need to for urgent action to reduce our carbon emissions and move to 100% renewables by 2030.
We are, therefore, greatly concerned about the proposed Snowy Hydro 2.0 and strongly do not support it going ahead. Our reasons are as follows:
1. 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. It will also be a net consumer of electricity, which means that the carbon emissions for NSW will increase, not decrease.
2. The EIS has understated the full environmental impact on the Park. The vegetation clearance, earthworks, dumping and damage to water streams and water-dependent ecosystems will exceed 10,000 ha. Clearing of native vegetation (when we so desperately need to keep our trees) will destroy 992 ha of threatened species habitat.
3. Snowy 2.0 isn’t economic. The original $2 billion cost estimate is now approaching $10 billion, including transmission. The EIS contains a totally incomplete and inadequate assessment of alternatives to Snowy 2.0.
4. Many other pumped storage opportunities have been identified in NSW with a combined capacity considerably greater than Snowy 2.0. Why haven’t these, together with batteries and other forms of storage, been explored before proposing construction of such a huge project within a National Park?
5. 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. Why, then, is this type of project being considered when normally no such project would be allowed in a National Park.
6. Noxious weeds and pests will be spread through the Park as a result of the works.

Pamela Reeves
Secretary
Ryde Gladesville Climate Change Action Group

Conservation impacts of Snowy 2.

The Snowy 2 concept is at face value not unattractive from a conservation viewpoint. We applaud the development of energy storage systems that can reinforce the advantages of renewable energy in avoiding the climate impacts of fossil fuelled electricity generators. But the impacts of land clearing, roads, accommodation camps, spoil dumps etc. for the major engineering works involved in Snowy 2 will be detrimental to the ecosystem protection values of Kosciuszko National Park, arguably the most important in NSW. These impacts must therefore be weighed against the benefits and alternatives, which is properly the function of an environmental impact assessment.

The option for many smaller alternative pump-storage sites, explored by Prof. Blakers of ANU, are acknowledged in the project summary document but dismissed without cost-benefit-impact analysis in that document. The Snowy 2 concept was apparently the thought-bubble of ex-Prime Minister Turnbull, prompted no doubt by SMC engineers.

Assurances of environmental protection or restoration for Kosciuszko National Park features and values under Snowy 2 are called into question by the erratic history of environmental management by the NSW Government. From 1889 to 1957, NSW over-issued summer grazing leases with the same gay abandon more recently recognisable with Murray-Darling water rights. Seasonal overstocking and damaging erosion followed the free-for-all pattern of gold-mining at Kiandra.

Fortunately, with the creation of Kosciusko State Park in 1944, the erosion impacts of overgrazing by sheep and cattle were recognised as incompatible with engineering aspects of plans for the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Scheme. A far-sighted program by the Soil Conservation Commission of soil stabilisation and revegetation eg. around Mt Twynam on the Main Range was established to protect catchments, streams and reservoirs against erosion and siltation.

After establishment of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and Kosciusko National Park in 1967 a firmly conservation based program was pursued but steadily undermined over subsequent decades by resort over-development, run-down of NPWS staffing for scientific and wildlife management and political distortion of priorities. The most recent and damaging of such perverse priorities has been the Kosciuszko Wild Horse Heritage Act, placing higher protection priority for feral horses than on threatened native species. Horses, having bred to a population of around 6000 are, as with stock prior to 1944, again pugging streams and swamps, mobilising silt, destroying habitat for eg. the corroboree frog, driving macropods from valleys and plains along the Cascades-Tin mines track and now even threatening walkers with dangerous attack. The NSW Government’s failure to address this current management problem destroys credibility for the promise of environmental responsibility in developing Snowy 2.

Snowy 2 might indeed be beneficial, even essential, to address climate change but it will not be accepted as such unless rigorously and transparently assessed against decentralised energy storage options in terms of cost, benefit and impact.

Please see the attached submission on behalf of STEP Inc.
We oppose the project in its current form. The ability of the project to achieve its objectives have not been proven from the information provided to date.

See Attached File

See attachment

1. AABR is not convinced that sufficient cost-benefit analysis has been done to ensure that this project is the best way of attaining pumped hydro for Australia, taking into account the environmental losses that are likely to occur. To gain social license for Snowy 2, the net environmental benefits and need must be much more thoroughly evaluated after consideration of environmental risk of this project and the availability of alternative projects

2. AABR is also not convinced of the commitment of the project to an appropriate level of ecological restoration. Despite some good work in rehabilitation in recent decades in the National Park, the predictability of rehabilitation or restoration outcomes is not sufficiently reliable to remove environmental risk associated with the Snowy 2 developments. Most industrial development in Australia have failed to attain acceptable restoration outcomes. Satisfactory results have only been attained where there is a very high commitment to restoration to the pre-existing natural condition - which is missing in the current Snowy 2 development proposal.

To gain social license for Snowy 2, the rehabilitation plan framework would need explicit commitment to a five-star recovery outcome for all sites in a manner consistent with the National Standards [Standards Reference Group SERA (2017) National Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in Australia. Second Edition. Society for Ecological Restoration Australasia URL: http://www.seraustralasia.com/standards/home.html] as well as commit to adequate compensation for the inevitable net environmental damage of such a project. This compensation would need to be provided in the form of offsets that attain additional restoration of current degradation in Koscziusko National Park including the removal of feral horses and rehabilitation of damage to bogs and fens created by their presence.

I object to this project on environmental grounds due to its detrimental impact on the surrounding environment including threatened species of flora and fauna.
I object on grounds of energy sustainability where Australia has to be investing in sustainable energy production ,namely wind and solar.
I object on economic grounds -this project will not provide the necessary economic boost to number of Australians with minimum environmental harm needed for sustainable growth .

See attached submission

In response to the EIS for the Snowy 2.0 Main Works I would like to raise the following points.
1. Tunnel Boring Machine: This will cause powder & dust, unlike drill & blast method, will it cause a film on Talbingo & Tantangara Dams when the spoil is placed in the dams. What effect will this cause on ski / fishing boats and on the general fish population
2. Asbestos: This is found on the western side of Talbingo Dam, is it on the eastern side as well? What measures are in place that it won't enter water with the spoil in both solid & powder form?
3. Spoil: What guarantee is there that in the long term that there will be no effect on fish, both breeding & life expectancy for the long term of the tourist trade?
4. Will boring cause any damage to Yarrangobilly Caves, the water table and the minerals that create the stalagmites & stalactites? What guarantee that this will not harm or change the water quality to affect the caves long term as they have large visitor numbers and it will have a huge impact on tourism in the area if they are affected adversely.
5. The area is well known for its copper. Will a small or large amount of copper be in the spoil in either dust or solid form. What are the long term effects on water qulity and fish quality?
6. With large amounts of trucks using Link Road and the snow season increase in traffic, this will affect the tourists going to the snow with a build up of traffic around the National Park booth and the Selwyn Snowfields turn off. What measures will be in place?

I've taken a good look at the EIS and conclude that there is a large amount of scientific rigor omitted that may negate many of the proposals within it. I find it astonishing that the EIS is so lengthy, often repeating rhetoric (eg. “it is just 0.25% of the park”) and laden with emotive images most of which are not linked to text or even identified, yet objection submission is limited to 10k characters.
Snowy Hydro has bombarded the public with emotive documents, claiming that Snowy 2.0 must go ahead because it is in the public interest to reduce power bills. eg. One defense of criticism absurdly compares the footprint in the national park to the Sydney Opera House; two very different projects in different eras. Emotion should be omitted and decisions back by peer reviewed science only. The unreasonable behaviour displayed by Snowy Hydro in the EIS and in associated public statements is repetitive, tantamount to bullying as defined by the Premier’s Dignity and Respect Charter.
My central objection centres around the prevention of feral fauna and/or introduced native predator species and pathogens in the event of water, polluted by uphill transfer into Tantangra from Talbingo, flowing into Eucumbene; in the event of overtopping into the Eucumbene R (or future environmental release) and/or water transfer into Jindabyne, the Snowy System is effected by, so far unmeasured and unmitigated invasion, both downstream and in the montane areas. An unacceptable and preventable alteration of what is left of the natural Snowy R. environment.
Two fauna species that will pose grave risk to Stocky Galaxias and Macquarie Perch are Climbing Galaxias and Redfin Perch. Attempts to address this problem appear severely inadequate. As I understand it mitigation measures for the preservation of fish species have been deemed too expensive in cost and environmental change and have been rejected.
Further, epizootic haematopoietic necrosis virus (EHNV) is widely studied. It will be transferred from the Tumut River Valley by pumping and decimate native species.

Macquarie Perch (EPBC listed species) and Stocky Galaxias (pending listing) must be protected on ethical grounds regardless of non-compulsion due to pending processes.

These species populations (and possibly more that have been omitted) knowingly suffering extinction is an unacceptable consequence of this project.
There are numerous impacts on ecology that are apparent. It appears that elements of the impact have divided between Transgrid, Snowy Hydro (3 separate EIS stages) and the governments in order to strategically confuse and exhaust concerned citizens for the benefit of a politically influenced agenda. Numerous alternatives have been proposed by prominent academics, yet are ridiculed by Snowy Hydro. The studies are economically viable, environmentally more responsible (particularly not in national parks) and provide socially acceptable assets (jobs, recreation, etc).
I put it to you that the damage to the ancient national park has been significant in the past 200 years (particularly in the past 70 years) and it must be left alone to recover as best as possible without the impacts posed by this project. More responsible alternative projects are viable.

I wish to indicate our strong opposition to the Snowy 2.0 project as described in the Main Works Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Please refer to the attached document for my full submission

Please refer to my attached submission.

I strongly object to the Snowy 2.0 project. I am alarmed at the widespread destruction of delicate sub-alpine habitat. We have enormous problems with the river systems and this area is the headwater for many large rivers. The water table will be disturbed and large quantities of tunnel debris will be dumped. The contribution to renewable energy is debatable. I am disgusted by this government's lack of credibility with regard to National Parks. They are supposed to be protected. We members of the public expect that the government would respect their protection but instead this government is pushing forward infrastructure at all costs. There is hardly any wilderness remaining. I am most concerned by the upcoming loss of a unique, irreplaceable piece of our planet.

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 distinct 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 concerns about the project. Issues of particular concern are described below:

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 consider this assessment to be 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 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 do 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.

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.

For many years I have been a regular visitor to Kosciusko National Park for bush walking, cycling and camping. This is a unique and beautiful area. It is a fragile alpine ecosystem which is extremely slow to recover from disturbance and, in some cases will never fully recover.

I wish to object to the Snowy 2 project and the EIS which inadequately addresses the environmental impacts.
This is a project which will affect one third of the National Park and will involve work which will have long term negative impacts on native vegetation communities and the flora which depends on them. Activities such as clearing native vegetation, earthworks, dumping into streams, tunneling will all have significant impacts which have not been adequately assessed.
Road widening and construction has significant short and long term environmental impacts. I have already witnessed the destruction caused by the widening/construction of the road to Goandra hut. The environmental impacts were obvious and detrimental.
The waterways of this region are precious habitat and extremely fragile. It is not acceptable to dump excavated spoil into waterways. It appears that spoil which may contain asbestos will be dumped into Talbingo and Tantangara Reservoirs. This is not acceptable.
Montane streams and alpine bogs are essential components of these alpine ecosystems and yet this project , through activities such as tunneling, risks drying up these wet environments and/or affecting water quality.
Kosciusko National Park is a popular tourist destination. It is not appropriate to destroy the visual impact of this area through the construction of roads and high voltage transmission lines which also require 120m wide easements.

Hydroelectricity is an important, renewable energy resource. However, the Snowy Project 2 must be properly assessed on both environmental and economic grounds. It fails to adequately protect a fragile alpine environment which is of considerable significance. It also fails on economic grounds with the original $2 billion cost already expected to blowout to $10 billion. Other pumped storage opportunities have already been identified in NSW and should be considered.
With Climate Change predictions of a hotter and drier future we cannot be assured that this project will even be viable.
There are too many environmental and economic dangers to risk this unique and fragile alpine environment.

I support the project but I have a number of concerns arising from the EIS.
1. The EIS does not appear to have adequately canvassed various alternative sites for new pumped hydro schemes in much detail. While it refers to the work of Blakers et al, a detailed critique of the relative merits of various sites does not appear to have been provided. I acknowledge the central location of Snowy Hydro 2.0 in relation to eastern states capitals, and the use of existing storages, but the hard rock geology is a serious cost.
2. There is concern about the precedent set by encroaching on a national park with industrial development. I acknowledge that the existence of the Snowy Mountains National Park is largely as a result of the desire to reduce erosion from the impact hard-hoofed grazing animals (cattle and sheep) in an environment with a very short growing season, I would be very concerned if a precedent of development in conservation reserves were to be more widely adopted. The erosive effects of hard-hoofed animals continues with the explosion of feral deer and horse populations, further degrading the National Park.
3. The deposition of rock spoil from the tunneling operations in the existing dams should be carefully carried out to armour the perimeter against the erosive effects of rapid and repeated water level changes. This may involve considerable expenditure but this would probably be a worthwhile expense.
4. A more thorough examination of emerging technologies for storage of low-priced energy to provide peaking power should be included in a supplementary EIS. These technologies might include Zinc-Bromide batteries, Compressed Air and Hydrogen from electrolysis, stored as the compressed gas or chemically transformed to Ammonia or some other chemical.
Overall, I support the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme because the provision of storage in the system has the potential to increase the overall thermal efficiency of the East Coast Grid. The issues are whether the scheme is the most cost-effective way of doing this.

It is vital that Tantangara Road be kept open throughout the project as otherwise public access to Wares Yards, Currango Homestead & Old Camp site will not be possible for visitors to the park. These are major hubs for park activities. I appreciate that work needs to be carried out but it should be done in such a way that the road remains open. Port Phillip Fire Trail isn't an alternative as it is often closed due to dam levels