Hello Anthony, please find attached our response for the segmenting factory. Sorry it is late Mike was out of the office on Friday

Hi Anthony
Please find attached response from the EPA.
Regards
Stefan

TfNSW Submission SSI 10034 - 11/11/2019

Hi
I have been using the northern end of the Kosciuszko National Park since 1966.
In that time I have seen many bureaucratic changes that have adversely effected my enjoyment of the Park. I have bush walked caved and ridden horses in the area for all of that time.

I have 2 objections to the project.
1) To close the Tantangara Rd, the only access to 2 of only 5 approved Horse camps, is a major imposition on all horse riders who use the Park.
My solution would be for Snowy 2.0 to use one of the many old Snowy Camps that have not been returned to their natural state or indeed any of the 3 quarry sites that still exist on that road.
If traffic is your concern then widen and seal the road so we have a long term benefit from this project. Horse trucks and fishermen use the road infrequently please modify your use to avoid our peak times. Weekends and public holidays.

2) What will happen to the water in Tantangara Dam when it is heated by the generation process and reheated by the pumping process to return it to the Dam.
What will happen to the environment with the introduction of water borne spices from the Lower Tumut river system.

Bottom Line
If it was not feasible when the scheme was created due to lack of water and geological faults in the tunnel path how is it viable now.

Having read the EIS for the Snowy 2 project, I am appalled by the environmental insensitivity shown.
I have many concerns including those listed below and find that the summary from the National Parks Association sums up my objections.
It amazes me that people have not learnt from the Queensland experience with the Cane Toad. To allow invasive fish species to potentially ruin our waterways and storage systems is criminal. This in itself should be sufficient to stop the project let alone it is just not being commercially viable.
As a pensioner who has not received reasonable increases in the pension for many years I strongly object to the public money being squandered on this project which is not cost effective. It will be a net consumer not a net generator of electricity. I do not want Governments to support projects which have a negative impact on the environment. Solar and wind projects are far less destructive. I implore all governments to stop raping our precious environments especially rare ones in our highly valuable and ecological National Parks (such as Kosciusko National Park).

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.

Kosciuszko National Park is an area of great biological diversity and importance to the nation. As a botanist, I have done field research in the area over several decades and named and described a number of newly recognised plant species from the Park.

I believe that the project 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?

Tunnelling will depress the water table in some sections and have an impact 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.

The works and water flows are likely to spread noxious pests and weeds through the Snowy Scheme and downstream, including Redfin Perch (a Class One Noxious Pest) and aquatic weeds.

Kosciuszko National Park is one of the most loved and frequently visited Parks in Australia, it is important that the pristine areas retain their character.
The EIS contains a totally incomplete and inadequate assessment of alternatives to Snowy 2.0.

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. Snowy 2.0 will be a net consumer of electricity, not a generator, with ‘round-trip’ losses of 30%, plus another 10% for transmission.

The original $2 billion cost estimate is now approaching $10 billion, questioning its economic viability

Many other pumped storage opportunities have been identified in NSW with a combined capacity considerably greater than Snowy 2.0. These alternatives, together with batteries and other forms of storage, must be explored before undertaking construction of such a huge project within a National Park. Such an environmentally destructive development must not proceed without an exhaustive exploration of viable alternatives?
Barbara G Brigggs

I have read that the Snowy 2.0 project will cause immense and permanent damage to the rare montane habitats of Kosciuszko National Park. Please protect the unique flora and fauna of Kosciuszko National Park. The purpose of a National Parks is for conservation. Throughour the world, precious wild places are being lost, along with the animals, birds and insects that depend on them We are causing massive damage to the planet.
Please take into account the following points:
• 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.