I am a resident of Adaminaby NSW, the closest town to the Snowy 2.0 project and wish to raise some concerns with regard to the limited access to the Northern end of the National Park. Adaminaby survives on seasonal visitors to the area in all seasons as a ski town, but also as a fishing destination and also as a destination for horse riders, hikers, mountain bike riders and others. I am aware that Tantangra Road will be closed and as a result both Tantangra Dam and the many creeks and river will no longer be accessible nor will Currango, Wares Yards and Old Snowy Camp as horse camps. This will have a significant impact on both the social, cultural and economic viability of Adaminaby and surrounding areas. The local shops all stock fishing gear and trade will be significantly reduced. A number of commercial horse riding businesses will no longer be able to operate. These businesses employ local people who have been in their respective jobs for years. My family have a cultural history in the Northern end of the National Park, as my ancestors had leases in that country back when cattle and sheep were grazed during the warmer months. I now take my children (7th generation here) up there on horseback and reflect on the challenges our deceased relatives faced on a daily basis and the country they enjoyed in an era now passed.
The closure of Tantangra Road is completely unnecessary and will have a devastating effect on the entire area. I am aware of that heavy vehicles are intended to be used throughout the construction of the Snowy 2.0 project. As a retired police officer with 10yrs experience and a heavy vehicle operator I see no unmanageable risk in the road remaining open and access not being restricted.
Very little is known about this project and I think some further consultation and information should be provided. I'm sure that some common ground can be found where everyone is satisfied with the result.
The impact of restricting access will be wide spread and where the project is supported, this should not be at the expense of a community that has struggled to prosper since the snowy scheme started. We often see local projects postponed and Government funds being redirected away from Adaminaby to Jindabyne. The town has already been moved to its current location, away from Lake Eucumbene, where it should have been located on the foreshore of the lake as Jindabyne is. Adaminaby needs support, not limitations placed on the access to a major tourism draw card and access to places we have had access to for generations. 7 years (likely longer) is a long time for our area to suffer when it isn't necessary.
I respectively request that access remain open so our town and community can continue to enjoy the prosperity we currently are.

On a side note, we are a rural community with an ageing population and a lot of people are not IT savvy enough to provide a submission online so this process will not provide a true reflection of the community's general views and concerns.

Please do no close Tantangara Road - we want access to Wares Yards, to Currango Homestead and to Old Camp Site. Members of our club regularly stay and/or ride around these areas. These areas are the ultimate for horse riding, please do not deny us this experience especially as horse riding areas are continually being reduced.

I am pleased to finally be able to make a submission as provided for in NSW Planning law. It is disgraceful that this project has proceeded so far before the EIS was exhibited and submissions were sought. The NSW Government should not let the haste of the Commonwealth Government to proceed with the proposal, get in the way of proper careful consideration of any of the many planning issues or deter the NSW Government from refusing planning consent.
I object to the Snowy 2.0 project because:
1. The environmental impacts of this scheme are unacceptable and outweigh any social or economic benefits. The location where the scheme is proposed is a National Park for good reason - it is a sensitive and very special environment. It has already been compromised by the original Snowy Scheme. The extensive clearing will cause permanent damage. Revegetation of some disturbed areas will only involve partial repair. Alterations to the hydrology and groundwater of the local area will adversely affect ecosystems beyond the cleared areas. Roads and vehicle movements will also have wider adverse effects on wildlife. It is not possible to "offset" the horrendous environmental impacts.
2. I do not believe it is a cost-effective way to improve the reliability or availability of electrical power. While I appreciate that pumped storage in the best locations can contribute to reliability and availability, the proponents have failed to justify their proposal. There are many other pumped storage sites in south-east Australia - some marginal, some very good in various ways. Many alternative combinations of these could produce similar peak supply capacity. They include sites that would have little impact on riverine ecosystems and relatively small impacts on terrestrial ecosystems or on existing social and economic values such as agricultural production. A combination of several projects in different parts of NSW could have less environmental impact and more social, economic and electricity system benefits than Snowy 2.0. The enormous cost of Snowy 2.0 has not been properly explained let alone contrasted through proper benefit-cost analysis with such a multi-project alternative. Nor has it been demonstrated that such a large, publicly subsidised scheme will be needed. Our needs could be met from a combination of smaller schemes, batteries, extra renewable generation from a diversity of sources and locations, and significant enticements to limit electrical demand management. The EIS fails to justify that Snowy 2.0 even in economic and electrical system terms.
3. Construction and operation of the scheme will have adverse effects on river management. Management of the Murray system is already complex due to multiple objectives. Meeting the needs of ecosystems as well as the wishes of irrigators and other extractive users is already made difficult by the sometimes-competing wishes in relation to power generation. The desire to operate storages to manage availability of storage space and water to be in the best locations for generation at times of peak demand will sometimes be at the expense of ecosystems and other water users.
4. Snowy 2.0 will have adverse global heating effects. The fossil fuels used to construct it including producing the materials used and the heat released from chemical energy in concrete will directly warm the planet. It will be a massive net consumer of electrical energy which initially will be supplied from burning fossil fuels so the mining and burning of that additional amount of fossil fuel will heat the planet and add to the greenhouse effect. Demand management has no such impacts. Puting half as much money into a combination of alternatives, including demand management, would enable our society to achieve al that is reasonably necessary for our electricity supply system with far less greenhouse gas contributions.
5. Snowy 2.0 is not ecologically sustainable development. Approving it would not be consistent with or achieve and of the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. I request that the Minister refuse consent.

5/11/2019
Submission on Snowy 2.0 Main Works Environmental Impact Statement
I would like to register my strong objection to the Snowy 2.0 Project as described in the Main Works Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The huge size and blunt force of this project in a sensitive delicate environment such as that of the sub alpine region of the Kosciuszko National Park (KNP) is beyond inappropriate. I was shocked when I realized the full impact that this project would have on that beautiful delicate environment and frankly I am ashamed of our former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull for his unwavering support of Snowy 2.0, unless he was not fully informed.
The erratic planning and assessment process of this massive project and the piecemeal release of impact statements seems to have been designed to obscure the full extent of the environmental impact of Snowy 2.0 on the KNP. In addition, lower impact less expensive alternatives have not been properly considered - claims about energy storage potential are dubious and the excessive cost will ultimately be paid for by the Australian taxpayer.
These failures clearly demonstrate that the Snowy 2.0 project does not meet the requirements of an Environmentally Sustainable Development and should be rejected by the Minister for Planning.

Kosciuszko National Park is one of the most loved and frequently visited Parks in Australia. I have visited the Park many times in both summer and winter and I am always struck by the beauty and uniqueness of the landscape which is like nowhere else in Australia. I and others like me will be put off visiting KNP in the future if Snowy 2.0 goes ahead due to the visual blight of a massive civil engineering project and associated infrastructure on the pristine montane landscape, from vantage points over thousands of square kilometres. The ‘project area’ described in the EIS is 250,000 ha, one third of Kosciuszko National Park and the proportion of the landscape actually destroyed is seriously underestimated as when vegetation clearance, earthworks, dumping and damage to streams and water-dependant ecosystems are taken into account will exceed 10,000 ha. Major infrastructure, including the widening and construction of 100 km of roads and tracks as well as two side-by-side high voltage transmission lines with a 120m wide easement swathe are proposed, some of which will destroy sensitive environmental and geologically significant areas. Under normal circumstances these would not be allowed within a National Park, so why under Snowy 2.0?
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 warming. 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. On this basis alone, the project should be rejected.
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.
Despite the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 requiring "an analysis of any feasible alternatives to the carrying out of the development activity or infrastructure", no such analysis has been done. Given the amount of environmental destruction proposed within a National Park, this project must be put on hold until this information can be provided.
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. Even if this statement were true, it by no means justifies the destruction of a pristine mountainous National Park, especially when there has been no attempt to identify credible alternatives which would be more effective and less destructive, both within and outside the KNP. 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. Apart from the catastrophic effect on the environment of the Kosciuszko National Park it would have, the project is already costing 4 or 5 times more than in the original plan and would ultimately be a remarkably inefficient generator of electricity. Snowy 2.0 fails no matter how you look at it and it should be soundly rejected.
Yours sincerely
Rachel Cassidy

Cochran Horse treks in principle support the Snowy Hydro 2.0 project and make comments in regard to the immediate economic and logistical impact the project will have on our operation and profitability. In correspondence to Snowy Hydro in 2017 (see attached), those immediate issues identified as being a threat to the business, were anticipated to be addressed in the feasibility study and have not been addressed in the either the feasibility study or current EIS. This is disappointing.
Those issues identified in correspondence attached relate to, but are not limited to,
*access in areas used under the current NPWS licence- Tantangara Road, Port Phillip fire trail
* Logistical management of Staff, Plant and Equipment, horses and guests
* Loss of staff due to uncertainty in long term planning ( 2 key personnel have recently resigned)
* Increased costs to operate under substantially changed conditions
*Risk Management and changes to Safety management plan
* Visual amenity and impact of dust and noise.
As an Eco tourism operator offering a unique experience in Kosciuszko National Park for guests, access into the park to camp, ride and enjoy the wilderness and the visual amenity of the surrounds are a big part of our business and we will be greatly impacted by the closure of Tantangara road and exclusion zones created due to construction activities. Many of these locations are accessed during the treks due to their visual amenity and historical significance and will now be closed to our guests, diminishing the quality of the service we offer and have offered to the public for 20 years.
Given the impending disruptions to our business, attempts have been made with the NPWS to have our licence to operate and modus operandi amended, see attached letter to NPWS.
In addition Cochran Horse treks have initiated investigations into the possibility of relocating into other areas a far a field as NSW south coast, The Western fall and Northern tablelands. None of these options have been feasible or viable.
In closing Cochran Horse Treks remains concerned, as expressed in our previous correspondence that the future of the business is in immediate threat of serious negative impact or facing the prospect of permanent closure

Snowy 2.0 is hugely expensive, will be uneconomic, will make a questionable contribution to the nation's power generation and critically, does not belong in a National Park. I object to this project.

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