Alternatives and Rehabilitation

Proposed Works and Stakeholder Engagement Assessments

Alternatives and Rehabilitation Assessments

Alternatives

Alternatives to Snowy 2.0

If Snowy 2.0 is not developed, the likely alternative is a combination of gas-fired and diesel peak electricity generating plants being built.

However, compared to these alternatives, Snowy 2.0 provides:

Increased supply of energy generation and competition for the NEM putting downward pressure on energy prices
Increased efficiency of the NEM by absorbing excess energy
Increased storage capacity, longer lifespan for storage and cheaper full life cycle when compared to current lithium storage batteries
More efficient dispatch of electricity
Improved security and reliability of supply

Alternatives within Snowy 2.0

In addition to the alternatives to Snowy 2.0, the EIS also outlines 12 other alternatives within the project itself. The report clearly describes each alternative and lays out the reasoning for not proceeding with each of the 12 alternatives and emphasizing why the original plan outlined is the most optimal.

Table 1: Provides a description of all the alternatives within Snowy 2.0

Rehabilitation

This is a high-level document that outlines the framework and proposed approach to decommissioning and rehabilitation activities associated with the Snowy 2.0 development project, to demonstrate the understanding of, and commitment to, the protection and rehabilitation of Kosciuszko National Park (KNP) throughout all Snowy 2.0 works. This rehabilitation strategy provides the overarching standard for decision making, in terms of rehabilitated landscapes and complements the post-approval Rehabilitation Management Plan which provides further specific details for implementation, management, and monitoring of all aspects of rehabilitation and decommissioning. This report provides a detailed list of all the policies, guidelines, and requirements around which the rehabilitation strategy was devised.

Rehabilitation Objectives

The report distinctly outlines Snowy 2.0’s rehabilitation objectives. These specific rehabilitation objectives appear to be in consideration of the proposed final land use:

Preserve the KNP’s natural assets and values;
Agree on future land use and consider long-term site management;
Establish processes prior to construction works to enable organic matter to be used in revegetation and ongoing rehabilitation during the construction works phase;
Establish appropriate treatments for minimisation of runoff into waterways;
Protect existing native fauna and their habitats including the Smoky Mouse and Booroolong Frog, critically endangered under Commonwealth legislation, respectively;
Where reasonable and feasible, rehabilitate disturbed areas to their pre-existing or improved state at the completion of construction activity in consultation with NPWS; and
Minimise the visual impact of construction works from significant public viewpoints

The ultimate rehabilitation objective for Project is to create safe, stable, and sustainable landforms and allow the achievement of the agreed final land uses. They aim to accomplish this ultimate objective through the seven rehabilitation phases.

Table 2: Provides a description of Seven rehabilitation phases of the Rehabilitation Strategy

Along with this they also have clear completion criteria which are objective target levels or values assigned to a variety of indicators. These can be measured against to demonstrate progress and the ultimate success of rehabilitation. A very detailed outline is provided for each for the completed criteria, performance measures, and associated indicators for the project in accordance with the relevant project approvals. These criteria are provided for each phase of the rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation Implementation

The rehabilitation plan also includes a very detailed skeleton of the implementation measures for each phase of the rehabilitation strategy.

The measures range from very specific ones such as the collection and storage of indigenous seeds and alpine sods to more general measures such as minimizing access to and disturbances to watercourses and aquatic habitats by construction plants. Furthermore, Vegetation removal, Topsoil stripping, Stabilization, revegetation, and landform reshaping measures along with Reuse and disposal of excavated rocks plans re also clearly outlined. An overview of the decommissioning processes is also clearly represented.

The rehabilitation strategy includes reshaping to natural appearing landforms or returning to pre-disturbance conditions. This includes construction areas at Lobs Hole which comprise surplus cut materials that are required for the construction. Additionally, areas to be used by Snowy Hydro in the long term may be reshaped and rehabilitated to maintain access and operational capabilities.

Furthermore, it is proposed that all areas not retained for permanent infrastructure will be revegetated and rehabilitated. At the Lobs Hole, final landform design and planning has been undertaken to identify opportunities for the reuse of excavated material in rehabilitation to provide landforms which complement the surrounding topography in the KNP. Most disturbed areas, not retained by Main Works will be returned to land uses generally consistent with their pre-disturbance use

Rehabilitation Monitoring

A dedicated monitoring system is also established to track the progress of rehabilitated area towards completion. The program will incorporate the most appropriate indicators and methods that:

Provide a measure of completion criteria to be assessed in accordance with defined rehabilitation objectives
Are reproducible
Utilize scientific recognized techniques
Are cost-effective

A part of the monitoring program, reference sites will be established to allow for a comparison of the development and success of the rehabilitation against a control.

Critique

The rehabilitation strategy appears to be extremely thorough. The completed criteria tables are very detailed and provided for each phase of rehabilitation, which allows for the measurement of the rehabilitation success quantitatively throughout the life-time of the project.

A robust monitoring plan was outlined, however, there was no mention of the identity of the authoritative body that would be responsible for conducting the monitoring process. If there is no monitoring body, the monitoring plan would be futile. In addition to this, the rehabilitation measures are not fail-safe. There was no clear plan on the response that would be taken In the case that any of these rehabilitation measures does not meet their corresponding completed criteria.