see attachment

This will create a lot of traffic through Cooma, is there any possibility that the construction of the tunnels could be made in Adaminaby instead of Polo Flats Cooma? Construction material could come to Adaminaby via a direct road from Canberra, this road is due to be upgraded soon. Workers could be bused in daily from Cooma. This is just a suggestion, hoping you will consider. Adaminaby has ample water and electricity and I believe it could handle this enterprise.
Regards,
Jan

please see attachment

I agree with the proposal to dump spoils into Talbingo Dam. However I disagree with the disposal methodology, which is to build a new bitumen road and use B double trucks to transfer spoils to Ravine Bay.
I suggest that the spoils be transferred using an inland waterways transport system that utilises an autonomous barge train.
The use of split hopper barges was considered in the initial project phase but was discarded pursuant to quotes from marine companies being too high and the cost to deliver too expensive. The tender specification provided to marine companies was based upon a traditional method of spoil management, which uses a single large split hopper barge (1500m2). A vessel of this size requires modulation to be transported to site and recommissioning to be mobilised, rendering it a logistically difficult and very expensive exercise.
Instead of using the above method I suggest using an autonomous barge train of six smaller barges (335m2) linked together to provide higher volume. The barge train is equipped with autonomous thrusters, which have 360-degree steering capability thereby offering “intelligent manoeuvrability” capacity. The autonomous barge train offers a number of advantages over the “road & truck” concept.
- fuel efficiency
- negates the need to construct a new road in a national park
- higher safety outcomes due to reduce personnel involved in operation therefore lower risk
- “intelligent” manoeuvring delivers pinpoint accuracy to a location based within the spoil dump grid
- cheaper capital cost outlay
- cheaper maintenance outlay
- higher volume per movement reduces size of stock pile quickly and therefore reduces environmental footprint on shoreline
- heavy equipment can be transported to site via barges
- smaller split hoppers have less draft enabling them to create a higher spoil mound
Barge trains are used extensively in Europe and America on inland waters and the technology to create autonomous, intelligent barges is also commercially available.
The spoil management method I am proposing has the ability to remove spoils as they are produced, which is the normal approach of projects of this scale. Creating a stockpile for removal at a later date dramatically increases the environmental footprint of this part of Snowy Hydro 2.0 and significantly contributes to project costs. Autonomous barge trains have the capacity to reduce stockpiles quickly and are cost efficient.

Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
Major Projects Team
Attention: Anthony KO

2nd November 2019
Submission on Snowy 2.0 Main Works Environmental Statement

I wish to make a strong statement opposing the construction of the Snowy 2.0 Project as described in the Main Works Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

I live in Queanbeyan, NSW & have always regarded the Snowy Mts. as 'my home park', visiting during all seasons. I have been observing the early groundworks as they occur in the northern part of the park & I am extremely worried at the potential damage to an extremely fragile & already vulnerable (due to the impact of wild brumbies & climate change effects) area of the park. It is not a small area, it will have some degree of impact on one third of the park.
The impact on the sub-alpine areas of the park is magnified by the increase in temperatures in Australia - these rare habitats will not recover from any disturbance & are a vital habitat for any species that are forced to retreat due to loss of their present habitats by global warming.
The huge footprint of the construction is understated in the EIS document. There will be 100's of kms of new & upgraded existing roads; kms of transmission lines with a 120 metre-wide easement swathe; tunnel construction will have unknown effects on ground water, especially in the sensitive Yarrangobilly area. Construction camps for workers & equipment storage areas will affect the delicate & vulnerable landscape & wildlife for all future as evidenced by the 'scars' still visible throughout KNP from the initial Snowy Mts. Scheme.
The EIS does not give a detailed or adequate explanation of how it is going to deal with the mountains of excavated materials that will come from the construction. Any dispersal/disposal of this material will have an unalterable effect on the unique landscape of KNP. It cannot be easily rehabilitated in such a harsh climate.

One of the most worrying impacts is the certain dispersal of unwanted aquatic pests such as redfin perch, eastern gambusia, wild goldfish, the Epizootic Haematopoietic Necrosis Virus (EHNV) & Elodea weed throughout the waterways of KNP and downstream. My questioning of staff in the NSW Freshwater Fish agency tell me the EIS does not assure them that there will not be an environmental catastrophe when inevitably these noxious species are transferred from Talbingo to Tantangara water reservoir. KNP is a renown recreational angling destination in the state/Australia, this will be ruined by the dispersal of these pest species within KNP & worse still, eventually the inevitable will happen & they will find their way into the Murrumbidgee R., Lake Eucumbene & the Murray R. As if these river systems don't already have enough problems to deal with?

The part of KNP to be impacted by Snowy 2.0 is an area known for its wilderness & outstanding aesthetic qualities, all of which will be seriously impacted by the infrastructure associated with this project, especially the massive transmission lines & their swathe of cleared easement.
2019 has been the 70th Anniversary of the start of the original Snowy Mts. Scheme & I believe the government has been 'pushing' the ideal that this project made us great as a nation with its amazing engineering feats & that it is time we saw this 'greatness' rise up again! The fact that it sounds environmentally sound, using water as a renewable source of much needed energy is another carrot being dangled at an unsuspecting community who will be bearing the real cost of this 'feel-good' project. I believe it is not economically feasible for this project to contribute in any sustainable way to our projected power requirements - an idea being touted by our politicians!

When I travel through the northern end of the park I see construction work that is already having a considerable environmental impact on the ethos of a national park of this stature & yet the Main Works EIS has only recently been made available for public comment. This lag in an environmental assessment of the impacts of such a massive project on a world renown park with a unique habitat & aesthetic within Australia is indicative to me that we are being 'hoodwinked' into accepting this project because it will be 'good for the state/country'.
Where is evidence of the 'offsetting process'? This system is a joke, as any comparably classified (alpine & sub-alpine) areas of NSW are already contained within the KNP.
In conclusion I believe the Snowy 2.0 Project as outlined in the Main Works EIS, does not meet the requirements of an 'Ecologically Sustainable Development' as described in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The impacts of a development of this scale will ameliorate all the original reasons for declaring this area of NSW a national park & makes a mockery of our environmental legislation.
Yours sincerely,
Alison Crawley

I strongly object to the entire concept of Snowy 2.0. It is financially and environmentally irresponsible for the government to try to push this to fruition.
Before the first clod of soil has been turned, we have already seen the cost of the project increase from $2billion to over $5billion, without even including the installation of transmission infrastructure. The closure or part closures of both Talbingo and Tantangara Dams will affect revenue for local businesses who supply equipment for fishing and camping. Tourism will suffer. Also, the entire concept of pumping water to Tantangara using "off-peak" electricity, is in defiance of improving CO2 emissions. The same energy that pumps the water uphill at night time will be sourced from coal fired power stations, because solar does not make power at night. Pumped hydro was a great "battery" concept back in the 1950s when off-peak electricity helped stabilise the power grid, but it is not suitable as a bulk energy storage system today when coal is being replaced as an electricity source.
Environmentally, the Snowy 2.0 project does not make things any better. Putting the spoils of the tunnel excavations into the bottom of Talbingo Dam reduces it's storage capacity. With drought affecting the nation presently and forecasts of even dryer conditions, how is reducing our catchments a smart idea? Also, the quality of water is a big concern, especially for the trout in the dam. I have been a trout fisherman for over four decades in the Snowy region and anything which could lessen the number of trout in the area is bad for me and bad for fishermen who come from far and wide to catch the beautiful species that have lived there for generations. I'm sure the N.S.W government will have no plans to help re-populate the fish, nor to stop the spread of Redfin. It will only take a few hundred eggs to get sucked into Tantangara and that ecology will be destroyed by this invasive species.
Also, with all that water moving rapidly, how will the trout in Tantangara Dam handle the inevitable clouded water from the extra currents? Tantangara is not like Talbingo Dam, in that the bottom is mainly mud and silt instead of rocks. Any extra flow from pumping water will stir up this silt and create a place where trout cannot survive. For evidence of the trouts' inability to cope with this continuous change in water quality, look no further than Blowering Dam which has lost most of its trout fishing stock due to silt muddying the water, constantly changing levels and invasive species eating up their offspring.
With Tantangara then becoming a part of the hydro scheme, how will the flow of water into the Murrumbidgee River be maintained? Already there have been studies that show insufficient flows to maintain habitats prior to the weir's construction. How then, when Tantangara is interlinked with this new system, do they plan to keep enough water running into the Murrumbidgee River? It will probably come from Talbingo, if that decision is made, but then it's storage will be further reduced.
In conclusion, I submit that the Snowy 2.0 project is not just financially and environmentally unsound, but also that there are better ways for the N.S.W and Australian Federal Government to spend this enormous amount of money. Whilst energy is a big issue at the moment, I believe water is an even bigger problem. Why should we be toying around with hair-brained schemes designed last century, instead of looking at 21st Century technology and ideas for powering our country. Building a power generation system that relies on water, when drought is and continues to wipe out livelihoods, just defies belief. How can a government with any wisdom look for a solution to a crisis, by relying on another system that is also facing a crisis. There must be a smarter way.

My husband and I drive down tantangera road with our children quite regularly as we go fishing and camping around these areas. It would be quite disappointing for our family to miss out on seeing the beautiful country on our road trips and not having the opportunity to show our children this beautiful part of our land. We go camping at wares yard and would love to continue to do so on a regular basis as it is very important for our family traditions. We don't think it is fair to stop us from doing something we have been doing together and individually for the past 20 years.