Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd Benbullen Quarry Environmental Effects Report
February 2017 Table of contents
1. Introduction...... 3
2. Proponent Information...... 4
3. Project Description ...... 4 3.1 Description of Project...... 4 3.2 Project Area, Map and Site Plan...... 5 3.3 Rationale and Alternatives...... 10
4. Potential Environmental Effects ...... 10 4.1 Flora and Fauna...... 10 4.2 Rivers, Creek, Wetlands and Estuaries ...... 15 4.3 Significant Areas ...... 17 4.4 Air Emissions ...... 17 4.5 Liquid Effluent ...... 17 4.6 Solid Wastes ...... 18 4.7 Noise Emissions ...... 18 4.8 Transport Impacts...... 20 4.9 Other Off-site Impacts...... 20 4.10 Hazardous Substances and Chemicals...... 20 4.11 Site Contamination...... 21 4.12 Sustainability and Climate Change...... 21 4.13 Cultural Heritage ...... 21 4.14 Sites of High Public Interest...... 22 4.15 Rehabilitation ...... 22
5. Management Commitments...... 24
6. Stakeholder Consultation...... 26
7. Conclusion...... 27
8. Limitations ...... 28 9. References...... 29
Table index
Table 5-1 Management Commitments...... 24
Figure index
Figure 3-1 Project location map ...... 7
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | i Figure 3-2 Project site plan ...... 8
Figure 3-3 Indicative cross sections of North Pit (top) and South Pit (bottom) (see Figure 3- 2 for cross-section locations) (source TasIrrigation)...... 9
Figure 4-1 Vegetation Mapping of the Project Site (Northern Area) (source, ECOTas 2016)...... 13
Figure 4-2 Vegetation Mapping of the Project Site (Southern Area) (source, ECOTas 2016) ...... 14 Figure 4-3 Vegetation Mapping Legend...... 15
Appendices
Appendix A – SIS – Camden Dam and Quarries Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction
Appendix B – Ecological Assessment
Appendix C – Aboriginal Heritage Assessment (Confidential document) Appendix D – Historic Heritage Assessment
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | ii 1. Introduction
Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd (TI) are seeking statutory approval for the proposed Benbullen Quarry located at 70 Calverts Road, Tayene; 20 km south of Scottsdale in North-east Tasmania (the Project). The Project is planned to supply construction materials for the proposed Camden Rivulet Dam (the Dam) in the event that insufficient quality material can be won from the Dam footprint. The Dam is a key component of TI’s Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (SIS). TI intends to favour use of rock and clay materials won within the Dam inundation area wherever possible, with the proposed Benbullen Quarry available as a backup resource if required.
The 9300 ML earth and rock fill embankment Dam will require in the order of 100,000 m3 of rock and clay material; which is to be sourced from both within the footprint of the Dam, and if required, from the proposed Benbullen Quarry. The appointed contractor will determine the requirement for material from the Project. It is TI’s preference to have the quarry approved and available to the contractor prior to construction commencing to prevent any construction delays in the event material is needed beyond that available within the Dam footprint.
This application, therefore, seeks approval to extract up to 100,000 m3 of rock and clay/silt material from the proposed Benbullen Quarry for the exclusive use of construction of the Dam.
A Notice of Intent (NoI) for the Project was submitted to the Tasmanian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in April 2016, with the EPA subsequently assigning the Project as a class 2A assessment under the Environment Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA). This level of assessment requires the proponent to provide an Environmental Effects Report (EER) (this document) for assessment by the EPA board. The EPA has provided TI with project specific EER guidelines, which have been followed in the development of this document.
TI have developed an environmental management document for the broader Camden Dam project, Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme – Camden Dam and Quarries Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction (see Appendix A). The document outlines the management and mitigation required to be incorporated into contractor construction environmental management plans (CEMPs) for the Project (and the Dam). The document contains a series of Environmental Protection Guidelines (EPGs) that form the basis for the proposed management and mitigation in this document.
Additional to this approval, a mining lease has been sought from Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT) for the Project site.
Separate approvals are being sought for the Dam (a Dam Works Permit was secured 18 November 2016) and all other associated works. This application relates only to the proposed Benbullen Quarry.
The Project is not proposed to be assessed under the Bilateral Agreement made under Section 45 of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). As the proposed quarry forms part of a broader project (the SIS), consideration of EPBC Act matters is being dealt with as part of the greater SIS project. It is noted however, there are no known EPBC Act matters of National Environmental Significance within the proposed quarry site and no apparent implications from the EPBC Act for the Project.
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 3 2. Proponent Information
Name: Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd Address: PO Box 84, Evandale, 7212
Contact: (03) 6398 8433 or [email protected]
ACN: 133 148 384 ABN: 9572 2799 075 3. Project Description
3.1 Description of Project
The Project will consist of two separate quarry areas within a single defined area (the Project Site) near to the Dam construction area:
The Benbullen North Pit (North Pit) with a 5.6 ha footprint (approx. 350m long, 170m wide and 7 m deep); and
The Benbullen South Pit (South Pit) with a 6.4 ha footprint (approx. 480m long, 120m wide and 3 m deep).
The target resource of the North Pit is basalt rock. This resource is located on a basalt capped hill south-west of the proposed Dam site. Drilling results from a geotechnical investigation undertaken for the Dam (TI, 2015) suggest there will be an initial clay layer approximately 1 m deep before the target basalt is reached, which continues for a depth range of 7-11 m. A conservative volume estimate of resource in the North Pit has been made of 56,000 m3. This estimate represents an area of 100 m long, 80 m wide and 7 m deep. The actual length and width of the resource is expected to extend further than this (hence the application for a larger quarry footprint) potentially providing additional material if required.
The target resource of the South Pit is dam core material in the form of low to moderate plasticity clay and/or silt, which is estimated to extend across an approximate 6 ha footprint (approximately 480 m long and 120 m wide) on the slopes of a basalt ridge to the south of the Project Site. It is predicted from test pit results that in the order of 40,000 m3 of suitable material can be won from this location.
As the Project will be run under a design and construct contract, the detailed design will be undertaken by the contractor, with only indicative designs available at this stage. As the northern resource is atop a hill, the work face will be generally limited to the horizontal plane, with one potential step down, as the resource will be won by excavation of the hill top area. The southern resource will require quarried faces to proceed down the sloped ridge area, with bench heights and widths to be determined by the contractor. Preliminary staged designs of the two quarry areas (North Pit and South Pit) are shown in Figure 3-3.
Topsoil will initially be stripped at the quarry and stockpiled within the Project Site boundary for use in rehabilitation of the Project Site. Excavation of the target material will then continue to the estimated depths as required (~7 m for the North Pit and ~3 m for the South Pit) during the Dam construction period. Blasting may be required in the North Pit to fracture the basalt but will not be undertaken in the South Pit, as only clay/silt extraction is required from that resource. Crushing and screening may occur at the North Pit, with only screening to occur at the South Pit.
The main vehicles and items of equipment expected to be used by the Project include excavators, bulldozers, haulage trucks, blast hole drilling equipment and light vehicles.
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 4 There are no proposed temporary or permanent buildings required for the Project, with offsite facilities to be used by staff (at the nearby Dam site).
Throughout the extraction process, rock and clay/silt will be hauled from the Project Site to the Dam site via temporary access tracks using suitable haul trucks. A new access track will be constructed within the Project Site to connect the north and south quarries to an existing access track that already bisects the site centrally. This new access track within the Project site forms part of this application. Material will then be trucked to the Dam site via a combination of new and existing access tracks. Where these new tracks fall outside of the Project Site (refer Figure 3-2) they do not form part of “the Land” for this Project and are covered in a separate approval. If found to be required (i.e. if sufficient material cannot be won from the Dam footprint), the Project will commence during the Dam construction phase. This will occur within the greater SIS construction phase, commencing in the fourth quarter of 2017 and continuing for an estimated 18 months. The Project will be completed and rehabilitated within this timeframe (i.e. maximum 18 months).
Operating hours of the Project will be limited to between 0700 and 1900 Monday to Friday. Production rates will be variable and dependant on the amount of material required to be excavated, with rate of production governed by the Dam construction requirements (and availability of material within the Dam footprint). There is not expected to be any seasonal variation of the material extraction rate, with continuous operation until the Dam is complete. A combined total of up to 100,000 m3 of rock and clay/silt material is proposed to be won from the North Pit and South Pit during the Dam construction period (up to 18 months duration).
3.2 Project Area, Map and Site Plan
“The Land” on which the activity will take place is defined on Figure 3-2 by the red polygon and encompasses the North Pit and South Pit quarry areas, all topsoil stockpiles, internal access roads and sediment control measures.
The Project Site is located on the Camden Plain to the east of Mt Barrow at an elevation of approximately 625 m above sea level (asl). The general area is dominated by a combination of rural grazing land, plantation timber and native forest.
The Project Site is situated on a recently harvested eucalypt plantation which has not yet been re-established. Surrounding the site is a combination of grazing paddocks to the west, with plantation/native forest in the remaining directions.
The geology of the site is a combination of tertiary basalt and Devonian granodiorite, the overlying soil is predominantly derived from weathering of the underlying bedrock, and consists of generally clayey silt to silt (TI, 2015).
The topography of the site includes a ~50 m high hill in the northern area of the Project Site and a moderately sloping hillside in the southern area; the topography of the site ranges approximately 50 m. The majority of the Project Site drains to the east directly into the Camden Rivulet; a small portion of the north-western part of the Project Site drains westerly into Camden Creek which reports to Camden Rivulet downstream.
Historically, the area appears to have been associated with the logging industry, with several European logging trees identified in previous heritage surveys of the Dam area (CHMA 2016). Surrounding land uses are predominately forestry and agriculture.
There are no buildings on the Project Site and the only infrastructure is existing access roads (refer Figure 3-3).
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 5 The Project site occurs over four property titles, all owned by the same owner. The tenure of the land is Private Freehold. TI is in the process of making arrangements with the landowner for use of the Project Site either via compensation from TI or direct payment for the use of the material by the Contractor.
The Project Site is generally isolated, with the nearest residence approximately 700 m to the south (and others over 1 km to the south and north east); there are no other sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site.
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 6 537,000 538,000 539,000 540,000
LILYDALE
UNDERWOOD TARGA Project Site
TAYENA ROCHERLEA S t NUNAMARA R P 5,426,000 iv a 5,426,000 Y e tr r ic A k W s IG H INVERMAY N H TASMA Road m LAUNCESTON u le BURNS CREEK d id ST LEONARDS TRESSICK HILLS D st a PROSPECT E
Project Site Coordinates Node Easting Northing 1 538187 5424619 2 538328 5424526 ad Ro 3 538338 5424428 leum Didd 4 538366 5424462 5 538418 5424437 6 538403 5424242 5,425,000 5,425,000 7 538296 5424065 8 538130 5423937 9 538145 5423888
10 538096 5423805 1630 m 11 538144 5423615 1 20 12 538117 5423495 2 13 537974 5423407 14 537811 5423473 3 4 SIS - Proposed Camden Rivulet Dam MFL 15 537825 5423924 19 5 16 537963 5424035 Project Site 17 537904 5424083 18 (the Land) 6 18 537826 5424237 19 537830 5424381 17 20 538072 5424599 16 7 5,424,000 5,424,000 15 8 9
10
11
14 12
13
1168 m 679 m Camden Rivulet 5,423,000 5,423,000
C am de n R d o a a o d R s rt ve al C
R ankins Road 5,422,000 5,422,000
Camden the LIST © State of Tasmania Rivulet 537,000 538,000 539,000 540,000 LEGEND Residence Project Site (the Land) Road SIS - Proposed Camden Rivulet Dam wall footprint Track SIS - Proposed Camden Rivulet Dam MFL
Job Number 32-18294 Paper Size A3 Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd Revision B 0 150 300 600 Ben Bullen Quarry (SIS) EER & DA Date 23 Feb 2017 Metres Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994 Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55 Site Location Figure 3-1 G:\32\18294\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\BenBullenQuarry_FIG01_B.mxd 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7000 Australia T 61 3 6210 0600 F 61 3 6210 0601 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2017. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data source: TI, DPIPWE. Created by: jtoregan 537,600 537,800 538,000 538,200 538,400 538,600 5,424,600 5,424,600
TO DAM WALL Camden Creek 0 m North Borrow Cross-Section
50 m
100 m 650m 5,424,400 5,424,400 150 m
Ben Bullen North Quarry 250 m
300 m
350 m
384 m 5,424,200 5,424,200
Camden Rivulet 600m 5,424,000 5,424,000
650m Ben Bullen South Quarry 5,423,800 5,423,800 350 m 300 m South Borrow Cross-Section250 m 200 m 150 m 100 m 50 m 0 m
600m 5,423,600 5,423,600
650m
650m 5,423,400 5,423,400
the LIST © State of Tasmania 537,600 537,800 538,000 538,200 538,400 538,600 LEGEND Index contour (50m) Existing Access Track Project Site (the Land) Intermediate contour (10m) Proposed Access Track Proposed Borrow Area Proposed_Drainage Cross section Topsoil stockpile Watercourse Drainage sump Drainage culvert
Job Number 32-18294 Paper Size A3 Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd Revision B 0 25 50 100 150 200 Ben Bullen Quarry (SIS) EER & DA Date 23 Feb 2017 Metres Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994 Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55 Site Plan Figure 3-2 G:\32\18294\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\BenBullenQuarry_FIG02_B.mxd 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7000 Australia T 61 3 6210 0600 F 61 3 6210 0601 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2017. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data source: TI, DPIPWE. Created by: jtoregan Figure 3-3 Indicative cross sections of North Pit (top) and South Pit (bottom) (see Figure 3-2 for cross-section locations) (source TasIrrigation)
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 9 3.3 Rationale and Alternatives
Geotechnical investigations associated with the construction of the Dam have identified that there is potential for there to be an insufficient volume of suitable construction material (earthen and rock fill) within the proposed dam footprint to construct the Dam wall. It was therefore deemed necessary to secure a secondary source of material should this turn out to be the case. The identification of a material source adjacent to the Dam site was deemed the most cost- effective and efficient way of mitigating the risk of having an insufficient volume of material to complete the construction of the Dam, hence the need for the Project. The Project Site itself is dominated by recently cleared plantation and therefore represents a preferable site compared to other nearby agricultural land or native forest.
Alternatives to the Project considered included the trucking in of required materials from existing quarry sites. This was seen as a potential constraint on the Project should sufficient material not be available in the area. This alternative would result in the generation of significant offsite hauling traffic and also increase the cost of the Dam construction considerably. 4. Potential Environmental Effects
4.1 Flora and Fauna
An ecological survey of the Project Site was undertaken by ECOTas in 2016 (attached as Appendix B) (ECOTas, 2016). That survey is related to two previous studies of the broader Dam area including one by SEMF in 2012 (SEMF, 2012) and ECOTas in 2015 (ECOTas, 2015).
The 2016 report by ECOTas covers the proposed Project Site as well as additional areas including road upgrades excluded from this application and assessed elsewhere. The salient information from the 2016 ECOTas report is summarised below.
No threatened vegetation communities, threatened flora or threatened fauna have been identified within the development footprint and permits/approvals for ecological impacts are not expected to be required (one listed community has been identified in the study area, but outside of the footprint).
4.1.1 Vegetation Communities
The vast majority of the proposed Project Site footprint is within recently cleared plantation area, with small patches of other exotic and native vegetation as follows:
Plantations for Silviculture (FPL) make up the vast majority of the Project Site and have been recently harvested, leaving predominantly cleared land; Acacia dealbata forest (NAD) occurs in several patches amongst the ex-plantation. This community is mainly dominated by acacia dealbata (silver wattle) with some occurrence of acacia melanoxylon and some patches having a sparse cover of Eucalyptus delegatensis;
There is a small patch of Freshwater Aquatic Sedgeland and Rushland (ASF) mapped along the Camden Rivulet on the very eastern margin of the Project Site in the ECOTas Report (2015). This is a listed community and will be entirely avoided by the proposed works; Nothofagus- Atherosperma rainforest (RMT) occurs in a very small area on the north eastern margin of the Project Site to the east of the existing road (outside of the quarry footprint). This is part of a broader parcel of this vegetation community, extending from outside the Project Site. As this community lies to the east of the existing road, it will be excluded from impact by the quarry operation;
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 10 The existing tracks within the Project Site are mapped as Extra Urban Miscellaneous (FUM); and
Agricultural land (FAG) is mapped in the southwest part of the Project Site and is utilised for cattle grazing.
The abovementioned vegetation communities relate to the entire study area, which extends well beyond the Project Site footprint. With respect to planned infrastructure, this will be restricted to areas of former plantation (predominantly), agricultural land and very small parcels of acacia dealbata forest. The very small area mapped as rainforest in the north-eastern corner lies to the east of the existing road and will be entirely excluded from impact. The small area mapped as ASF (aquatic sedgeland and rushland) along the Camden Rivulet on the eastern side of the Project Site will also be entirely excluded from impact by the quarry operation.
4.1.2 Threatened Flora
There were no listed flora species identified in the 2016 (or 2015) ecological survey of the Project Site. The 2015 ECOTas survey concludes that the study area does not support significant potential habitat for listed species such that further surveys are not warranted. This is consistent with vegetation mapping (the majority of the site is ex-plantation, acacia dealbata forest and agricultural land) such that the likelihood of threatened species occurring and having been overlooked by the survey is considered to be low. It should be noted that the listed Pimelea curviflora var. gracilis (slender curved riceflower) was identified within the Project Site during the 2012 SEMF ecological survey. However, the ECOtas 2015 survey (see Appendix B) assessed that the records of the species were most likely misidentifications of the species Pimelea pauciflora, a non-threatened species. ECOtas did not identify Pimelea curviflora var. gracilis within the Project Site.
4.1.3 Fauna Habitat and Threatened Fauna
The Project Site is comprised predominantly of recently cleared plantation area, as well as agricultural land and small patches of remnant acacia dealbata forest. Whilst native and possibly threatened fauna may pass through these areas and use them for foraging, they are unlikely to provide core habitat for listed fauna species.
No dens or nests were identified within the study site during the 2016 survey.
It is recognised that the Tasmanian devil occurs in the area (scats recorded from the nearby Dam footprint and species confirmed to occur in the broader area in the 2015 ECOTas report) and would be likely to forage across the Project Site. However, as the planned quarry impacts predominantly cleared land, has a very short lifespan (up to 18 months) and will be rehabilitated to its original land use after development, long term impacts to devil populations are not expected.
4.1.4 Weeds and Pathogens
The ECOTas 2016 report did not identify any environmental weeds within the Project Site (noting that weeds were identified in the nearby area as part of the broader survey, namely gorse). Despite this, weed and pathogen management will be a key component of preventing future weed invasion and spread.
4.1.5 Management and Mitigation
The Project Site has limited ecological values and is dominated by recently cleared plantation; scattered with remnant patches of native vegetation. The key mitigation measures proposed to limit impact to flora and fauna of the area include:
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 11 The small remnant patch of rainforest on the eastern side of the access track (north of North Pit) and the small mapped area of ASF along Camden Rivulet will be marked on the CEMP and taped off onsite as ‘no-go’ zones and excluded from impact.; A Weed and Hygiene Management Plan will be included as part of the CEMP, which will include as a minimum: . Wash-down prior to entry and exit from the site in accordance with the Weed and Disease Planning and Hygiene Guidelines – Preventing the spread of weeds and diseases in Tasmania, DPIPWE, 2015; and
. Weed inspection and control during and post operation in accordance with the Quarry Code of Practice.
Additional mitigation measures as outlined in Environmental Protection Guideline (EPG 1) – Disturbance to Terrestrial and Aquatic Flora and Fauna which forms part of the Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Environmental protection Requirements for Construction 2016. In particular, that EPG provides protocols for unexpected discovery of dens or nests.
The above measures will be included in the contractor’s CEMP.
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 12 Figure 4-1 Vegetation Mapping of the Project Site (Northern Area) (source, ECOTas 2016)
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 13 Figure 4-2 Vegetation Mapping of the Project Site (Southern Area) (source, ECOTas 2016)
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 14 Figure 4-3 Vegetation Mapping Legend
4.2 Rivers, Creek, Wetlands and Estuaries
4.2.1 Environmental Values
The environmental values of the Camden Rivulet were assessed in an aquatic ecological survey undertaken for the broader SIS project (GHD, 2014). From the Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) database, the Camden Rivulet is considered to have a high level of naturalness (i.e. unchanged from pre-European settlement), but is not considered important in terms of conservation value.
CFEV predicts the F55 fish assemblage for the rivulet, which contains only the short-finned eel. The physical survey undertaken for the assessment (GHD, 2014) found only brown trout (Salmo trutta) within the waterway, no crayfish were observed during searches of the rivulet.
The EPBC Act listed Barbarea australis (riverbed wintercress) (Endangered) is known to occur downstream of the Project site along the Camden Rivulet (reference ECOTas 2015), but has not been identified on the Project Site (during the 2015 or 2015 ECOTas surveys).
There are no wetlands or estuaries within or adjacent to the Project Site.
4.2.2 Site Drainage
As identified in Figure 3-2, the Project site is situated between the Camden Rivulet (to the east) and Camden Creek (to the west). Camden Creek is approximately 250 m to the west of the Project Site boundary at its closest point. The Camden Rivulet enters the Project Site in several places to the east (well within 200 m of the pit sites) and one of its minor drainage lines runs in between the pit areas.
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 15 The topography of the South Pit area results in all drainage falling to the east towards Camden Rivulet. The North Pit area drains both easterly into Camden Rivulet and westerly into Camden Creek (which eventually reports to Camden Rivulet). Stormwater and topsoil stockpile management is proposed (refer below) to protect the ecological values of Camden Rivulet and Camden Creek.
4.2.3 Watercourse Impoundment or Excavation
A small drainage line of the Camden Rivulet will require an access road crossing and will also be excavated and enlarged above its confluence with the Camden Rivulet to act as a drainage sump. The sump will include a geofabric silt trap at the outflow to minimise silt loads entering the rivulet. The sump location can be seen in Figure 3-2.
4.2.4 Riparian Vegetation
Some small areas of vegetation within 200 m of the Camden Rivulet will be cleared for the South Pit area and for the new access road within the Project Site. At its closest point the new access road will be approximately 20 m from the Camden Rivulet. This vegetation primarily consists of plantation timber and Acacia dealbata forest with no high priority vegetation or flora and vegetation exclusion zones identified.
Construction will also occur along the drainage line flowing into the Camden Rivulet, in particular culvert installation and drainage sump construction. The vegetation mapping provided by ECOTas does not show any riparian vegetation mapped along this drainage line, which is believed to be a small ephemeral drain, rather than an established waterway.
4.2.5 Management, Mitigation, and Monitoring
An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) will be developed by the Project contractor during the detailed design phase. This will be developed in accordance with the Quarry Code of Practice 1999, relevant approvals (e.g. this document), permits, and Australian Standards. The following key mitigation measure will be incorporated into that plan.
Management, Mitigation and Monitoring The following water related management and mitigation measures are proposed for the Project:
For erosion and sedimentation control, drainage lines will be trenched both upstream and downstream of the southern pit area and will also encompass the northern pit area and topsoil stockpiles. Drainage from upstream of the Southern Pit area will be directed around the southern pit to the Camden Rivulet as it will be unaffected water. All remaining drainage will be directed to a sump on the Camden Rivulet drainage line within the Project Site as shown in Figure 3-2; The drainage sump will be constructed on the Camden Rivulet drainage line just prior to its confluence with the rivulet and will include a geofabric silt trap to minimise silt discharge;
Wet-weather stop work procedures will be included in the CEMP to minimise erosion and run-off;
Vegetation removal along the Camden Rivulet will be minimised wherever possible. The nearest infrastructure to the rivulet is the new access road which lies approximately 20 m from the rivulet. Where works are planned within 100 m of the rivulet, any vegetation that can be protected will be marked on the CEMP plans and on-ground to minimise impacts near the waterway as far as practical; and
Following completion of quarrying and rehabilitation, artificial drainage lines will be removed to return surface flows to their original condition. The drainage sump will be backfilled to
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 16 restore the existing drainage line to its previous state. Sediment and erosion design controls will be included in the final landform design, as required.
The Contractor will be required to include monitoring in their ESCP with the following minimum requirements:
Erosion and sediment control devices will be inspected weekly during dry weather and daily during wet weather; Waterways will be monitored in accordance with the SIS Camden Dam Turbidity Management Framework; and
Weekly audits of waterway management will be undertaken, with monthly reports to TI.
4.3 Significant Areas
There are no conservation reserves, geoconservation sites or other known significant areas within or adjacent to the Project site.
There is a Private Timber Reserve across the far eastern side of the Project Site (and extending into the Dam site) and a small portion of the South Pit falls within this timber reserve.
4.4 Air Emissions
4.4.1 Dust generating sources
Dust may be generated by the Project through vegetation clearance, establishment of access tracks, excavation of quarry material, crushing, screening, blasting, haulage of excavated material to the Dam site, and windblown material from roads and stockpiles.
Failure to mitigate against dust has the potential to impact on flora and vegetation, visual amenity and public safety.
The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project Site is a residence approximately 700 m south of the Project Site boundary (and approximately 800 m from the nearest quarry edge).
4.4.2 Management, Mitigation and Monitoring
The contractor will be required to prepare a CEMP to comply with the Quarry Code of Practice 1999 and the Construction EPRs. As a minimum the following mitigation measures will be included in the CEMP:
Daily visual monitoring by site staff of dust levels;
Spraying of stockpiles and roads if dust generation becomes problematic, with the potential use of dust suppressants if water spraying is not sufficient;
Restriction of vehicle speeds within the Project Site;
Maintenance of a complaints register to monitor and address any dust complaints; Blast teams to manage blast times to minimise dust generation (e.g. during low wind periods); and
Rehabilitation of exposed areas as soon as possible (refer Section 4.15).
4.5 Liquid Effluent
No liquid effluent waste streams are expected to be generated by the Project. Stormwater is addressed in Section 4.2.5..
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 17 4.6 Solid Wastes
Solid wastes generated by the Project will be restricted to general contractor wastes including rubbish, and small amounts of construction wastes. These waste streams will be collected in onsite covered skip bins and removed from site on a regular (i.e. weekly) basis. Where possible waste segregation will be applied, with separate vessels for recyclable and non-recyclable wastes.
4.7 Noise Emissions
The key noise generating activities from the Project include access track construction, potential blasting (within the Northern Pit only), excavation, crushing, screening, haulage of material from the site to the Dam and light vehicle movements to and from the Project Site
The main vehicles and items of equipment with potential to generate noise include excavators, crushers, screener vibrators, bulldozers, haulage trucks, blast hole drilling equipment and light vehicles.
Any blasting potentially required would be restricted to the North Pit area only, as it contains the rock (basalt) component of the proposed quarry resource. Blasts will be utilised to fracture the basalt resource, with the process to utilise either emulsion explosive or ammonium nitrate/fuel oil (ANFO) as the bulk explosive component. Frequency of blasting will depend on how easily the resource can be won from the pit using excavators and other quarry machinery. If blasting is required, it will likely be limited to small blasts spread intermittently throughout the Dam construction phase. Blasts will be sized accordingly to ensure noise thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptor are met. Fly rock, dust generation and noise from blasting may result in impacts to environmental receptors if not managed appropriately.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are residential properties to the south and north-east as shown on Figure 3-1. The distances shown on that figure represent distance from the nearest houses to the boundaries of the land; distances from the houses to the quarry edge are slightly greater, as follows:
One house approximately 800 m south of the South Pit (and approx. 1.5 km from the North pit);
One house approximately 1.2 km southwest of the South Pit; and
One house approximately 1.8 km northeast of the North Pit.
There are other houses further south but no other sensitive human receptors within the vicinity.
As noted in the Quarry Code of Practice (DPIWE 1999) all quarrying activities will be restricted to daytime operations from 0700 to 1900, Monday to Friday.
4.7.1 Attenuation Distances and Potential Noise Impact
The Quarry Code of Practice (DPIWE 1999) recommends the following separation distances measured from the planned maximum extent of quarry operations to any sensitive use in order to limit potential for environmental nuisance:
Where regular blasting takes place - 1000 metres
Where material is crushed only - 750 metres
Where vibrating screens alone are utilised - 500 metres
Where no blasting, crushing or screening occurs - 300 metres
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 18 The proposed North Pit will potentially involve blasting, crushing and screening (1000 m attenuation applies) and the proposed South Pit excavation and screening only (500 m attenuation applies). The northern pit lies approximately 1.5 km away from the nearest sensitive receptor (a residence to the south). The southern pit lies approximately 800 m from the same residence.
As blasting will be undertaken at the North Pit, the 1000 m attenuation distance is applied and met readily (distance to receptor 1.5 km). As only extraction and potentially screening will be undertaken at the South Pit, the 500 m attenuation distance is applied and is readily met (distance to receptor 800 m away). The haul route from the quarry to the Dam site follows a proposed new access track (excluded from this application) as shown on Figure 3-1. There are no residential properties along this route with the nearest property being to the east of the proposed Camden Dam. Any noise associated with haulage of material from the quarry to the Dam site will be minor in the context of the Dam construction (subject to separate approval).
Given the distance of the nearest resident (~800 m away from the South Pit and 1.5 km away from the North Pit where blasting may occur), the nature of the produced noise and vibrations from the identified sources, the daytime only operating hours and the short duration of the Project (18 months max); the impacts from routine noise generation from the Project is expected to be minimal if proposed management and mitigation measures are implemented.
It was therefore decided not to conduct noise modelling for the activity as the risk of nuisance noise is considered to be low.
4.7.2 Management, Mitigation and Monitoring
Noise mitigation measures will be outlined by the contractor in the CEMP and will include the following as a minimum.
Management and mitigation for construction and operational machinery will include:
Operation of machinery and equipment will be restricted to normal daytime operating hours (7:00 am – 7:00 pm);
Machinery will be selected with consideration of noise generation and plant will be fitted with industry standard noise reduction mechanisms;
The contractor shall regularly service and maintain equipment used to minimise noise emissions; and
A complaints register will be developed and maintained to monitor and address any noise complaints. Management and mitigation for blasting for the Project will include the following:
All blasting will be undertaken by a licenced blasting contractor in accordance with the Quarry Code of Practice 1999; The blasting contractor will prepare a Blast Management Plan prior to works addressing noise and vibration;
The contractor will notify nearby residents (within 1.5 km) 24 hours prior to blasting; Blasting will occur during daylight hours only from Monday to Friday between 1000 hrs and 1600 hrs; and
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 19 All blasting will occur in compliance with the relevant Australian standards, guidelines and regulations and will be sized accordingly to minimise fly rock and noise generation to within acceptable levels.
4.8 Transport Impacts
Excavated material from the Project Site will be hauled to the Dam wall via a proposed new access road running along the northern edge of the Dam inundation area (excluded from this application). The new road is not in close proximity to any houses or other sensitive receptors. It is estimated that during peak quarrying periods, two to three haul trucks (~20 tonne capacity) will be utilised to transport the material the 1 km to the Dam construction site. As the haulage route will be via a new private road, there will be no impact on the public road network from hauling. There is no intention to use the Project for any other application, so no other offsite haulage will occur.
In addition to haulage of quarried material, the Project will also generate a very small number of vehicle movements to and from site, including: Construction and quarry equipment delivered at the commencement of works and removed at completion; and
Daily light vehicle access for site workers (estimated at approximately two to five vehicles per day during the operational period with occasional periods of higher activity).
These ancillary movements (i.e. aside from material haulage) will be predominantly via Diddleum Road, Camden Hill Road and then Tasman Highway; the movements are expected to be relatively minor in the context of the existing road use, with no significant amenity impacts to surrounding users expected.
Management of transport impacts in this case is generally limited to control of noise, the management of which is covered in Section 4.7.2.
Additional management will include ensuring truck engines are well maintained by the contractor to ensure exhaust emissions remain acceptably clean.
4.9 Other Off-site Impacts
Following the initial start-up of the Project, the activity will be constrained to the Project Site and access road to the Dam site and therefore is not anticipated to generate any additional off-site impacts aside from those already addressed (e.g. air/noise).
4.10 Hazardous Substances and Chemicals
The Project requires the use of heavy machinery and trucks which will require regular refuelling and maintenance as required.
Wherever possible machinery and vehicles will be refuelled offsite, most commonly at the Dam construction site (excluded from this application). The exception to this will be quarrying machinery that is to remain in situ during quarrying operations; this machinery will be refuelled via mobile fuel trucks. Mobile fuel trucks will be sourced from the Dam construction site (excluded from this application) and visit the quarry site only briefly for the purposes of refuelling.
Minor servicing of quarry machinery will be undertaken onsite by a mobile mechanic, with any major servicing required to be undertaken at the Dam construction site, which will contain a suitable servicing area (excluded from this application). Small volumes of hydraulic fluid and fuel
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 20 will be transported into the site as required (not stored onsite), with the storage of this material to occur at the Dam construction site (excluded from this application).
Explosives for the quarry will be brought to site as required by the blasting contractor, with no storage proposed within the Project Site.
4.10.1 Management, Mitigation and Monitoring
Mitigation measures will be further documented in the CEMP and include as a minimum: Chemical and hydrocarbon spill kits will be kept on the Project Site and all staff trained in their use.
Refuelling trucks will contain hydrocarbon spill kits In the event of a fuel or oil spill, soil will be bunded around the affected area to prevent run- off. Any soils affected by a spill will be excavated and removed off site by a licenced contractor to a suitable disposal facility; All refuelling or servicing events will be undertaken well away from any drainage lines or waterways within the Project Site; and
4.11 Site Contamination
The Project Site is within and adjacent to a logging coup, which is not expected to present a land contamination risk. There are no known indications of previous soil contamination at the site.
4.12 Sustainability and Climate Change
The Project will result in the emission of limited greenhouse gases from the burning of fuel in machinery and trucks. In order to reduce carbons emissions and implement best practice greenhouse impact management, the following management and mitigation is proposed for the Project:
Use of modern earth moving equipment and haul vehicles to maximise efficient use of fuel;
Regular scheduled maintenance of vehicles and earth moving equipment; and
Maximising efficiency of haul routes and speed limits to ensure the least amount of fuel is required per tonne of material hauled.
As the Project is short-term in nature, climate change is not expected to significantly affect the Project, therefore additional management and mitigation for more severe weather in the long- term is not seen as necessary in this instance.
4.13 Cultural Heritage
4.13.1 Aboriginal Heritage
An Aboriginal heritage assessment was undertaken for the Project site and surrounds in 2016 (CHMA, 2016a) (Appendix C). The desktop component of the assessment found no registered Aboriginal sites within the Project Site. There were several registered sites within 1 km of the Project Site, including one on the proposed haul road to the north of the Project Site, this area is not considered part of the Project Site under this assessment.
Field surveys of the Project Site and surrounds identified two newly discovered artefact scatters within the Project site, AH 13183 and AH 13184. Site AH13183 comprised four surface artefacts located on the northern end of the Project Site, and Site AH13184 comprised two surface artefacts located on the eastern edge of the Project Site boundary.
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 21 The assessment identified both artefact sites to have the same degree of significance, with a ‘Low’ scientific significance, ‘Low/Medium’ aesthetic significance and ‘Low/Medium’ social significance. The assessment concluded that a Permit under the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 would be required for the sites (CHMA, 2016a). A Permit to disturb (Permit number P32) was subsequently acquired under the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 for the abovementioned heritage sites.
4.13.2 European Heritage
A historic heritage assessment was undertaken for the Project Site and surrounds in 2016 (CHMA, 2016b) (Appendix D). The assessment included a desktop and field component. All relevant heritage registers were searched via desktop, with no heritage sites or features identified within the Project Site. Field surveys of the Project Site also failed to identify any significant heritage sites. Two heritage sites were discovered in a previous survey undertaken for the greater SIS project several hundred metres to the north-east of the Project Site, these will not be impacted as a result of the Project.
4.13.3 Management, Mitigation and Monitoring
Aboriginal Heritage The following mitigation and management will be undertaken by TI and the contractor in relation to Aboriginal heritage management:
All works will be undertaken in accordance with the Aboriginal heritage permit (Permit P32) acquired for the Project;
The contractors CEMP will incorporate an Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Aboriginal sites in accordance with the methodology outlined in CHMA (2016a).
European Heritage The following mitigation and management will be undertaken by the contractor in relation to European heritage management:
The contractors CEMP will incorporate an Unanticipated Discovery Plan for historic heritage sites in accordance with the methodology outlined in CHMA (2016b).
4.14 Sites of High Public Interest
The Project Site is not located within or adjacent to a site of high public interest.
4.15 Rehabilitation
The Project is an optional material resource for the construction of the Dam in the event that insufficient material is available from the Dam footprint. As such, it is possible the proposed Project will not proceed (if sufficient suitable material can be won from the Dam footprint). Given the optional nature of this application, a detailed rehabilitation plan has not been prepared at this stage. Instead, high level rehabilitation commitments are provided herein and in the event the Project proceeds, the contractor will submit a detailed rehabilitation plan to the EPA prior to commencement of the Project.
The following rehabilitation principles will be followed:
The site will be rehabilitated to its pre-quarrying condition to the satisfaction of the landowner and suitable for recommencement of its former land use (forestry);
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 22 All site infrastructure will be removed;
All quarried slopes will be restored to a maximum grade of 15%;
On site stockpiled topsoil will be reinstated to quarry surfaces; A suitable seed mix consistent with surrounding native species or pasture will be applied to the topsoil, as required by the landowner;
Drainage infrastructure installed at the Project site will be removed to reinstate natural drainage to the site, with any necessary long-term sedimentation or drainage infrastructure installed to maintain the site in a stable condition;
All temporary roads will be graded, covered with topsoil and seeded, and natural drainage reinstated through the removal of any artificial drainage infrastructure; and
Rehabilitation will be monitored and remedial planting and weed control undertaken if required by the Contractor. A detailed rehabilitation plan will be submitted to the EPA by the contractor at least 30 days prior to the commencement of construction of the Project.
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 23 5. Management Commitments
Table 5-1 Management Commitments
Number Commitment Completion Date By Whom
1 A site specific Construction Prior to Contractor Environmental Management construction Plan (CEMP) will be prepared and submitted to the EPA prior to construction
2 The remnant patch of Prior to Contractor Nothofagus- Atherosperma construction rainforest (RMT) and small clearance patch of mapped aquatic sedgeland and rushland (ASF) within the Project site will be marked out on site as no-go zones and remain un-impacted (unless within Dam permit area)
3 A Weed and Hygiene Prior to Contractor Management Plan will be construction included as part of the CEMP
4 An Erosion and Sediment Prior to Contractor Control Plan (ESCP) will be construction included as part of the CEMP
5 Drainage and sedimentation Prior to operation Contractor control will installed at the Project site prior to operation
6 Water management During operation Contractor infrastructure will be inspected weekly during dry weather and daily during wet weather
7 Waterways will be monitored in During Contractor accordance with the SIS construction and Camden Dam Turbidity operation Management Framework
8 An complaints register to During TI monitor and address any dust, construction and noise or other complaints will operation be maintained
9 Operation of machinery and During Contractor equipment will be restricted to construction and daytime hours (7:00 am – operation 7:00 pm) Monday to Friday
10 The Contractor will prepare a Prior to operation Contractor Blast Management Plan addressing noise and vibration prior to blasting
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 24 Number Commitment Completion Date By Whom
11 The contractor will notify nearby During operation Contractor residents 24 hours prior to blasting
12 Blasting will occur during During operation Contractor daylight hours only (between 10 am and 4 pm).
13 Hydrocarbon spill kits will be During Contractor present for all construction and refuelling/servicing events in- operation situ
14 An Unanticipated Discovery Prior to Contractor/TI Plan for Aboriginal/European construction heritage sites will be included in the CEMP
15 A detailed Rehabilitation Plan 30 days prior to Contractor/TI will be submitted to the EPA by construction the contractor at least 30 days prior to commencement of construction of the Project.
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 25 6. Stakeholder Consultation
Extensive local community consultation has been undertaken for the SIS project as a whole since 2010, with regular public meetings, letter drops and media releases. The local community is represented by an SIS Working Group with whom TI meet with regularly.
Specific to the Project, TI has regularly consulted with the landowner regarding the acquisition of the Dam site over the past five years and the Notice of Intent for the Project was supported by the landowner.
TI communicated with Launceston City Council their intentions to submit the Notice of Intent for the Project on 2 March 2016 via their Manager of Planning Services; TI received a response in April 2016 confirming a Council planning permit would be required.
TI have had an aboriginal heritage assessment undertaken which has been sent to Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania, who have facilitated discussions with the Indigenous community, who have provided advice on permit conditions.
Local stakeholder consultation will continue throughout the Project life.
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 26 7. Conclusion
The proposed Benbullen Quarry will result in the extraction of up to 100,000 m3 of material (rock and clay/silt) from two separate pits (the North Pit and the South Pit) for the exclusive use of the Camden Rivulet Dam construction. The Project is an optional resource for the Dam construction, with TI favouring material extraction from the Dam footprint where possible. Approval is being sought for the quarry at this time to avoid significant Project delays in the event the resource is found to be needed during construction of the Dam. The proposed quarry will be a short-term operation for the exclusive use of the Camden Rivulet Dam construction and is expected to operate for less than 18 months in total.
This Environmental Effects Report has found the environmental impacts form the Project are likely to be limited and localised in nature. The key impacts to be managed, as outlined in the mitigation measures in this report, are related to noise and water.
A series of pre-construction plans will be prepared to further document the mitigation measures outlined in this EER, including a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Weed and Hygiene Management Plan, Blast Management Plan and Rehabilitation Plan. These plans may form components of the overall CEMP where relevant and will be developed in line with the management requirements of this document and TI’s SIS – Camden Dam and Quarries Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction (Appendix A).
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 27 8. Limitations
This report: has been prepared by GHD for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd and may only be used and relied on by Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd for the purpose agreed between GHD and the Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd as set out in section 1 of this report.
GHD otherwise disclaims responsibility to any person other than Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd arising in connection with this report. GHD also excludes implied warranties and conditions, to the extent legally permissible.
The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this report were limited to those specifically detailed in the report and are subject to the scope limitations set out in the report.
The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on conditions encountered and information reviewed at the date of preparation of the report. GHD has no responsibility or obligation to update this report to account for events or changes occurring subsequent to the date that the report was prepared.
The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on assumptions made by GHD described in this report (Section 7.2). GHD disclaims liability arising from any of the assumptions being incorrect.
GHD has prepared this report on the basis of information provided by Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd and others who provided information to GHD (including Government authorities)], which GHD has not independently verified or checked beyond the agreed scope of work. GHD does not accept liability in connection with such unverified information, including errors and omissions in the report which were caused by errors or omissions in that information.
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 28 9. References
CHMA (2016a). Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Addendum Report. Cultural Heritage Management Australia, June 2016.
CHMA (2016b). Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report, Cultural Heritage Management Australia, July 2016. ECOtas (2016). Ecological Assessment of the Proposed Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme, Tasmania. Addendum: Camden Dam – borrow pits and additional roads, Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas), July 2016 ECOtas (2015). Ecological Assessment of the Proposed Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme, Northeast Tasmania: Camden Dam Extension Area, Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas), April 2015. GHD (2014) SIS Environmental Flows, Transmission Loss & Aquatic Assessment, Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd, GHD April 2014
SEMF (2012). Camden Rivulet Dam, Camden Plains, Ecological Assessment and Recommendations, Report to Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd, SEMF 2012.
TI (2015). Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Rivulet Dam, Geotechnical Investigation for Construction Materials, Tasmanian Irrigation, August 2015.
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 | 29 Appendices
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 Appendix A – SIS – Camden Dam and Quarries Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme – Camden Dam and Quarries Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction July 2016
Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd PO Box 84, Evandale, 7212
Phone: 03 6398 8433| Fax: 03 6398 8441 Email: [email protected] Web: www.tasirrigation.com.au
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction
Section 1: Purpose and Scope Tasmanian Irrigation (TI) is committed to ensuring that all of its construction activities adhere to the highest environmental standards and comply with all environmental permits and approvals. Consequently, contractors and service providers must be able to demonstrate to TI that the execution of works and the provision of services will be undertaken in a manner that has minimal impact on the natural environment and complies with the relevant legislative requirements, regulations, codes of practice and policies. This document outlines the environmental protection controls that are required for the design and construction of the following components of the Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (SIS): Camden Rivulet dam; and dam inflow and outflow monitoring weirs; and the Benbullen Quarry; The Construction Environmental Management Plans (CEMP), which will be prepared by the Contractor, and associated sub-plans for the project will be assessed to ensure that the environmental requirements outlined in this document have been addressed appropriately. Section 2: Guidelines for Works and Services Contractors and Service Providers shall, as a minimum, comply with the requirements of relevant Commonwealth and Tasmanian Legislation, Regulations, Codes of Practice and Environment Policies. In addition Contractors and Service Providers shall abide by all Ordinances, permit requirements and By Laws designated to protect the environment. To ensure that TI’s commitment to environmental outcomes are achieved environmental management must be monitored, audited and reported. Tasmanian Irrigations’ Responsibilities Tasmanian Irrigation is responsible for sound environmental management practices including: Ensuring that the Contractor’s CEMP and associated sub-plans complies with TI’s legislative requirements and Environmental Protection Requirements (EPRs); Auditing of Contractor compliance with the EPRs and the CEMP. TI must document compliance to an appropriate level to ensure that an external audit by a regulatory authority can be completed; Reporting any breaches to the relevant government agency; and Enforcing a compliance process to ensure that environmental requirements are upheld throughout the entire construction period. Contractor’s Responsibilities Contractors and Service Providers are responsible for sound environmental management practices including: Understanding environmental permits and legislation as it relates to their activities and the activities of subcontractors and / or consultants working on their behalf; Keeping informed about any amendments and changes to environmental legislation; Ensuring that managers, supervisors, sub-contractors, employees and visitors within their control or influence comply with the projects environmental controls and TI’s environmental objectives;
1
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction
Providing support, training and resources to ensure reasonable precautions, due care and diligence are applied to prevent non-compliance; Developing and monitoring environmental policies, procedures and work instructions; Reporting on environmental performance both internally and to TI; Minimising environmental damage in the event of an incident; and Developing and monitoring a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) The Contractor’s Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) must: Comply with the environmental protection requirements identified within this document; Comply with the environmental approvals for the project; Identify major activities to be performed under this contract; Identify activities that pose significant environmental risks; Document how the environmental impacts shall be addressed, managed, avoided or minimised; Document the environmental legislative responsibilities relating to the Contractors’ and / or Service Providers’ activities; Outline an appropriate environmental management training program; Identify the impacts likely to arise from the actions of any subcontractors and consultants; and Document auditing and reporting procedures including incident reporting. There are a number of environmental sub-plans that fit under the CEMP. TI expects the following sub-plans to be developed and implemented by the contractor: 1. Camden Rivulet Dam Erosion Sediment and Control Plan; 2. Drainage Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for Benbullen quarry; 3. Construction Water Quality Management Program for Camden Dam and associated quarries; 4. A Rehabilitation and Reinstatement Plan for the Camden Rivulet dam site and Benbullen quarry; 5. A Weed and Hygiene Management Plan.
Section 3: Protection Aspect Checklist This section lists environmental aspects applicable to the project. As there is no specific industry standard for the construction of dams relating to environmental controls, The Australian Pipeline Industry Association Ltd – Code of Environmental Practice: Onshore Pipelines; May 2013 (APIA Code) and the Division 3 Permit Dam Works Code 2015 have been used to set the minimum environmental protection standards. The checklist also identifies project specific environmental controls required by Tasmanian Irrigation that are additional or different to those outlined within the APIA Code. The Contractor’s Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) must address the issues identified in this checklist.
2
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction
Protection Aspect Checklist Sections 1, 3 and 4 of the APIA Code relate to introductions, development and compliance guidelines for environmental management systems and risk evaluation processes. TI requires that these valuable processes be incorporated within the contractor’s CEMP.
Relevant APIA Relevant Code Construction Aspect APIA Code Relevant TI EPG Additional project specific environmental controls or modifications Environmental Section Guideline Regulatory context 2.1 _ _ Contractors and Service Providers must comply with the requirements of the relevant Commonwealth and Tasmanian Legislation, Permits and Approvals, Regulations and Environment Policies. Current permits expected to apply to the Camden Rivulet Dam and associated quarries are: - EPBC - Dam Permit - Development application Planning Permit Part A – (Benbullen Quarry) - EPA Planning Permit Part B (Benbullen Quarry) - Permit to take threatened flora (Benbullen Quarry) - Permit to take wildlife (Benbullen Quarry) - Mining Lease (Benbullen Quarry) Any additional permits acquired by the contractor for the project such as waterway and road crossings must be supplied to TI. Dam site selection and design 5.1 _ 1,4 All changes to the dam site location and design proposed by the contractor must be approved by TI and be consistent with the outcomes of existing environmental approvals. Stakeholder consultation 5.5 - - The CEMP and associated sub plans must be approved by TI and works must not commence until the CEMP is approved by TI. The erosion and sediment control plan for the Camden Rivulet Dam must be approved by the Water Assessment Branch of DPIPWE prior to works commencing at the site.
3
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction
Relevant APIA Relevant Code Construction Aspect APIA Code Relevant TI EPG Additional project specific environmental controls or modifications Environmental Section Guideline The CEMP, erosion and sediment control plan and construction water quality monitoring program for the Benbullen quarry must be approved by the EPA prior to any quarry works commencing. The erosion and sediment control plan must be approved by Mineral Resources Tasmania prior to quarry works commencing. Contractors must abide by the construction specifications including those for Stakeholder/Landholder Relationship Management. In periods of wet conditions, the Contractor must liaise with landowners prior to any vehicular movement across paddocks. Access to site 6.1 9.1-9.3, 9.6-9.8, _ Construction of site access points to be restricted to a corridor of no more than 9.10, 9.11, 9.13 6m.
Areas where management prescriptions apply to access tracks are indicated on
alignment sheets.
Traffic is to avoid waterways unless approved by TI.
Clearing 6.2 9.1-9.12 1,2,3,4,5 Clearance activities are to be conducted in accordance with the Dam Works Practices Plan and EPBC referral decision. The Camden Rivulet Dam: Den Management Protocol must be implemented during clearing activities at the Camden Rivulet Dam site. Areas where exclusion zones apply for threatened flora and fauna apply are indicated on alignment sheets. The CEMP must describe the measures to install and monitor exclusion zones. Grading 6.3 9.1-9.8, 9.13 1,2,3,4,5 The process for determining wet weather non-work periods must be detailed within the CEMP. Soil that has to be stockpiled must not be transferred across a waterway or placed on the opposite side of a drain or waterway trench by any method that
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction
Relevant APIA Relevant Code Construction Aspect APIA Code Relevant TI EPG Additional project specific environmental controls or modifications Environmental Section Guideline provides potential for the soil to contaminate the drain or waterway. A rehabilitation and reinstatement plan that minimises the time between grading and reinstatement must be supplied to TI for approval. Blasting 6.6 9.2, 9.4, 9.5, 9.7, _ 9.9-9.11 Borrow pits 6.9 9.1, 9.2, 9.5-9.7, 3,5 Any material required to be sourced from quarries or borrow pits will need to be 9.10-9.12 of weed-free status. Any necessary approvals will be obtained and provided to TI prior work commencing at the site. Construction camps and 6.10 9.1, 9.3, 9.6-9.10, 1,3,5 worksites 9.12-9.14 Dam site and weirs 6.11 9.1-9.3, 9.6-9.9, 1,2,3 Before construction of the dam begins an erosion sediment control plan must be 9.14 approved by TI and DPIPWE. Contractors must develop and implement a Construction Water Quality Monitoring Program (CWMQP) for the Camden Rivulet Dam site and associated quarries. The CWQMP must comply with the SIS Camden Dam Turbidity Management Framework and be approved by TI and the EPA. Works at the dam site shall not commence until the CWQMP is approved. Water quality monitoring results must be provided to TI on a weekly basis. Erosion and sediment controls installed during clearing at the Camden Rivulet Dam site must comply with the Dam Works Practices Plan. Surveys for maternal Tasmanian Devil dens must be conducted in accordance with the Camden Dam: Den Management Protocol at the Camden Rivulet Dam during vegetation clearing. Testing and commissioning 6.12 9.2,9.3,9.7-9.9, Water sourced for commissioning purposes must be in accordance with relevant 9.14
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction
Relevant APIA Relevant Code Construction Aspect APIA Code Relevant TI EPG Additional project specific environmental controls or modifications Environmental Section Guideline water licences. Reinstatement and 6.13 9.1-9.3, 9.6, 9.7, 1,5 A rehabilitation and reinstatement plan for the dam site and areas where clearing rehabilitation 9.11-9.13 has occurred must be submitted to TI for approval. A decommissioning and rehabilitation plan that is consistent with the Quarry Code of Practice for the Benbullen Quarry must be submitted for approval to the EPA. Contractors must develop and implement a Weed and Hygiene Management Plan (WMP). The WMP must comply with the APIA Code guideline 9.3, DPIPWE (2015) Weed and Disease Planning and Hygiene Guidelines - Preventing the spread of weeds and diseases in Tasmania. The WMP must also include a weed eradication plan for the construction corridor after the completion of construction. The WMP must be approved by TI. Works shall not commence until the WMP is approved and implemented. Evidence of compliance with hygiene requirements shall be documented e.g. on a Vehicle Washdown Register. Disturbance to areas containing identified weed species to be minimised.
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction
Section 4: Environmental Protection Guidelines (EPGs) This section contains the Environmental Protection Guidelines (EPGs) that specify detailed environmental controls outlined in the previous section. The EPGs incorporate specific environmental protection requirements for this project that have been required to gain approval for the project from regulators. The Contractor’s CEMP must address these issues. The following Environmental Protection Guidelines are included: Document No. EPG 1: Disturbance to Terrestrial and Aquatic Flora and Fauna EPG 2: Erosion, Sedimentation and Surface Run-off EPG 3: Aboriginal Artefacts – Unanticipated Discovery Plan EPG 4: Weed and Hygiene Control
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GUIDELINE - EPG 1 Disturbance to Terrestrial and Aquatic Flora and Fauna
Objective To minimise the effects of construction activities on local flora and fauna, particularly any endangered or protected species or ecological communities. Target No negative impacts on flora, fauna or ecological communities in the vicinity of the project beyond those outlined within planning approvals. Responsibilities The Contractor has a responsibility to ensure that the conditions outlined in Tasmanian Irrigations approvals under Tasmania’s Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA) and the Nature Conservation Act 2002 (NCA), and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) are met. Control Methods 1. General Areas indicated on alignment sheets as environmentally significant or designated as Exclusion Zones are to be clearly marked in the construction corridor in accordance with the standardised marking system outlined within the CEMP. Areas where significant fauna and flora values exist within the corridor will be walked with the Superintendent or Principal to ensure that environmental controls are understood. Ensure all site workers and machine operators are familiar with the conditions of the permits and environmental aspects of the project at the site induction. Prior to the commencement of works, the Contractor will arrange a toolbox meeting to be held with the Principal to outline environmental requirements for the project. 2. Protection of Flora Threatened flora within the Benbullen quarry area must be taken in accordance with the Permit to take threatened flora. There are flora and vegetation Exclusion zones marked on alignment sheets across the construction corridors. These must be marked in the field and maintained as Exclusion Zones throughout the construction period. All known threatened flora locations outside of, but adjacent to, the permitted works area must be taped or fenced off by a suitably qualified person to prevent incursion by machinery or personnel.
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction
In areas of identified threatened flora, traffic and cartage routes are to be designated and signed. Machine operators and other workers must be instructed on the standardised marking system, limits of clearing, special fauna and flora in the area and the importance of remnant vegetation patches.
3. Protection of Fauna No animals are to be deliberately killed. Where possible any injured native animals are to be transported an animal hospital, vet or refuge. If this is not possible animals are to be dealt with humanely. The ends of pipe must be closed to ensure that fauna cannot enter the pipe. Tasmanian devil and spotted-tailed quoll Wombat burrows and other similar holes, may be used by Tasmanian devils or spotted-tail for dens or refuge. A number of potential dens/refugia are identified within the dam footprint. Theses burrows must be managed in accordance with the dam permit and Permit to take wildlife permit and the associated Camden Dam - Den Management Protocol. If further potential dens/refugia are identified during construction these must be avoided. If avoidance is not practicable the approved Camden Dam - Den Management Protocol will be implemented. Any previously unidentified habitat trees (hollows, nests, dens) discovered in the construction corridor must be marked as an Exclusion Zone and avoided. Wedge-tailed eagle If a previously unknown wedge-tailed eagle nest is discovered during the breeding season (August – January inclusive) within 500 m of the construction zone, or within 1 km if in line of sight of the nest, all construction activity will immediately cease within this radius. The nest site will be inspected by a suitably qualified specialist, who will provide advice on appropriate further action.
Grey Goshawk If a previously unknown grey goshawk nest is discovered all construction activity will immediately cease within a 1 kilometre radius of the nest site. The nest site will be inspected by a suitably qualified specialist, who will provide advice on appropriate further action.
Tasmanian Masked Owl If a previously unknown Tasmanian Masked Owl nest is discovered all construction activity will immediately cease within a 1 kilometre radius of the nest site. The nest site will be inspected by a suitably qualified specialist, who will provide advice on appropriate further action.
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction
Monitoring and Reporting The Contractor must ensure that fauna and flora controls outlined within the CEMP are complied with and that compliance is documented. Compliance will be recorded in: - Daily Site Diary - Weekly environmental checklists (provided to TI) - Monthly reports provided to TI compiling the results of the weekly audits. Numbers of threatened flora that are disturbed or taken within the construction corridor must be documented by authorised personnel ad provided to TI in a timely manner to complete permit to take reporting. The Site Supervisor will at a minimum complete monthly inspections of any key habitat sites identified as susceptible to disturbance by construction activities. Emergency Response In the event that a breach of compliance regarding flora and fauna environmental controls occurs: The Contractor will immediately notify the Superintendent and the TI Project Manager; The Contractor will collect evidence at the site and complete an investigation of the incident to the satisfaction of TI; The Contractor, on advice from the Superintendent, may be required to engage a suitably qualified person to determine whether the failure constitutes an ongoing threat to the flora and fauna in the vicinity; and Tasmanian Irrigation will liaise with the relevant regulatory authorities regarding the incident. Records The Contractor will keep written records showing: Compliance with environmental controls outlined in the EPRs and CEMP. All records and compliance documents must be submitted to TI at the completion of the project.
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GUIDELINE – EPG 2 Erosion, Sedimentation and Surface Run-off
Background Information The proposed Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme sources water from the Camden Rivulet, a tributary of the St Patricks River and the St Patricks river itself. The water is to be stored in the proposed Camden Rivulet Dam, located on Camden Plains, high in the catchment on the northern foothills of Mt Barrow. While MRT mapping indicates that Mt Barrow is formed predominately of Jurassic Dolerite (Jd), Devonian Granodiorite (Dgre) and less frequent occurrences of Tertiary Basalt (Tb) comprise the underlying lithologies in the vicinity of the dam. Table 2: Erosion Control Soil erosion Impacts of soil erosion and sediment Risk to the Primary Control runoff Project – Low, Measure Medium, High Raindrop The release of fine sediments and turbid High Erosion control Sheet erosion water into waterways can : High Erosion control Rill erosion - adversely affect the health and High Drainage control Gully erosion biodiversity of aquatic life; Low Permanent - adversely affect fish numbers and fish stormwater breeding; management Tunnel erosion - increase the concentration of High Erosion Control nutrients and metals within Soil management Mass movement permanent waters; Low Vegetation and land - reduce light penetration into pools management Watercourse erosion - increase the frequency, cost and Low Permanent damage of de-silting operations stormwater - increase rehabilitation costs management Coastal erosion N/A Land use management Wind erosion Dust generation on construction sites can Medium Erosion control cause significant problems to neighbouring properties
Watercourse Type Rivers and creeks within the SIS are classified as cobble and gravel based rivers. The main risk to this watercourse type is coarse sediment and silt entering the watercourse. The result of these incursions would be the smothering of essential bed vegetation, damage to aquatic habitats, causing the conversion of gravel creeks into clay-based creeks and damage to riffle systems. Objective To minimise the potential for erosion within the construction corridor and the avoidance of sedimentation in waterways, adjoining properties, dams and drains. Target Minimal erosion within the construction corridor and dam footprint and no sediment entering the waterways within the catchments.
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction
Responsibilities The Contractor is required to submit an erosion and sediment control plan (ESCP) for the Camden Rivulet Dam and Benbullen Quarry. Both plans must comply with the APIA Guidelines (2013) and the associated Erosion Sediment Control - A field guide for construction, and prevent coarse sediment and silt entering waterways of Camden Rivulet and the St Patricks River. Clearing activities undertaken at the Camden Rivulet Dam site must comply with the erosion and sediment controls outlined within the Dam Works Practices Plan. The Contractor is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the erosion and sediment control works. The Contractor is required to regularly assess the need for temporary run-off control. The Contractor is responsible for cleaning and repairing erosion and sediment control works, and notifying the Principal of any failures. The Contractor is required to inspect all erosion controls and sediment control works, and keep a written record of all inspections and observations and advise on improvements. The contractor is required to monitor waterways associated with the dam site in accordance with the SIS Camden Dam Turbidity Management Framework.
Control Methods The environmental management practices are to be in accordance with the APIA Code, relevant approvals and permits and Australian Standards. Monitoring Inspect erosion and sediment control devices weekly (during dry weather) or daily (during wet weather) to ensure correct functioning and placement and that available capacity is adequate. Waterways will be monitored in accordance with the SIS Camden Dam Turbidity Management Framework. The Contractor must ensure that the erosion and sediment controls outlined within the CEMP are complied with and that compliance is documented. Compliance will be outlined in: - Daily Site Diary - Weekly environmental checklists (provided to TI) - Monthly reports provided to TI compiling the results of the weekly audits. Emergency Response In the event of any potentially significant failure of the erosion and sediment control devices: The Contractor will immediately notify the Superintendent and TI Project Manager. The Contractor is to reinstate the erosion and sediment controls as soon as practicable. The Contractor is to determine whether the failure constitutes a threat to any adjoining waterway. o If it is not considered a threat to waterways, procedures are to be reviewed and the Superintendent to be advised of, and approve, any alterations or installation of additional more effective erosion control devices.
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction
o If the failure constitutes a threat to any adjoining waterway, drainage or dam, the Superintendent is to be notified as soon as practicable and within 24 hours. . Additional and more effective erosion control devices to be installed as soon as practicable. . Any instructions provided by the Superintendent must be implemented as soon as practicable. Records Written records must be kept showing: The date and reason for each inspection. Details and the condition of the erosion and sediment control works at each inspection. Details of any erosion of sedimentation sighted during each inspection The date and time of any notification of any failure of the erosion and sediment control works. Copies of records are to be provided to TI at the completion of the project.
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GUIDELINE - EPG 3 Aboriginal Artefacts – Unanticipated Discovery Plan
Objective To protect Aboriginal cultural heritage values, both artefacts and landscape values, that may be encountered during construction. Target Minimal impact on any Aboriginal cultural heritage values along the construction corridors. Responsibilities The Contractor is responsible for the protection (or actioning of permits) of any existing identified Aboriginal cultural heritage values identified along the corridors in accordance with the permit directions. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Values for which specific management requirements are required and permit conditions apply are identified on the alignment sheets. In the event of any unanticipated discovery of Aboriginal cultural heritage material, the Contractor is responsible for undertaking the actions required, as outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Response below.
Control Methods The environmental management practices are to be in accordance with the APIA Code Environmental Guideline 9.5 and the Unanticipated Discovery Response within this EPG. The following control measures are to be established during the whole construction period. They are to be fully operational and provide effective protection prior to disturbing adjacent ground and the commencement of adjacent excavation. Unless otherwise specified in an Aboriginal Heritage Permit, all the identified sites are to be protected with appropriate buffer zones and protection fencing, in accordance with the directions of an archaeologist. Buffer zones and protection fencing are to remain in place until completion of all construction activities at the site.
Unanticipated Discovery Response In the event that any unanticipated discoveries of Aboriginal cultural heritage materials are made during the construction period, the following processes are to be followed so that the requirements of the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 and the Coroners Act 1995 are met.
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction
Discovery of Cultural Heritage Items If any project personnel, contractors or subcontractors believe that they have discovered or uncovered Aboriginal cultural heritage materials, the individual must notify machinery operators that are working in the general vicinity of the area that earth disturbance works must stop immediately. Immediately notify the Superintendent and TI Project Manager. A buffer protection zone of 10m x 10m is to be established around the suspected cultural heritage site or items. No unauthorised entry or earth disturbance must be allowed within this ‘archaeological zone’ until such time as the suspected cultural heritage items have been assessed, and appropriate mitigation measures carried out. Where required, cooperate with management instructions applied relating to site preservation in accordance with the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975. Discovery of Skeletal Material Unless obviously the remains of a common animal (e.g. brush tail possum, sheep), under no circumstances are the suspected skeletal remains be touched or disturbed. If these are human remains, then this area potentially is a crime scene. Tampering with a crime scene is a criminal offence. Any person discovering suspected skeletal remains must notify machinery operators that are working in the general vicinity of the area that earth disturbing works must stop immediately. A buffer protection zone of 50m x 50m should be established around the suspected skeletal remains and the Superintendent and TI Project Manager is to be notified immediately. No unauthorised entry or earth disturbance must be allowed in this buffer zone until such time as the suspected skeletal remains have been assessed. If it is suspected that the remains may be human, then the relevant authorities (police) must be contacted immediately and informed of the discovery. Where required, cooperate with management instructions applied relating to site preservation in accordance with the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975.
Records Written records are to be kept showing: The date of any unanticipated discovery. Details of the actions taken. The date and details of responses from the relevant authorities regarding any unanticipated discovery.
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GUIDELINE - EPG 4 Weed and Hygiene Control Objectives To minimise the transfer of weeds, infectious plant and animal diseases and fungal infestation within and between sites. Targets No spread of weeds, infectious plant or animal disease and fungal infestation within the site or from one site to another or to adjoining land. No importation of infectious plant diseases from another geographic region. Responsibilities The Contractor is responsible for: Identifying legislative infectious plant control regulations. Inspecting the site on a regular basis. Inspection of all machines prior to transport on to the site. Notification of any breaches. Undertaking monitoring activities. Development of a Weed and Hygiene Management Plan.
General Requirements The Contractor to provide suitable qualified personnel to assess constructions sites for the presence of infectious plant, diseases and weeds. Camden Rivulet Dam site Two plant species listed as a Declared Weed on the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 or as a Weed of National Significance on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 was recorded in the dam works and quarry footprint. • Rubus fruticosus, blackberry • Ulex europaeus, gorse
Two plant species considered to be environmental weeds in Tasmania were recorded in the dam works footprint. • Digitalis purpurea, foxglove • Glyceria maxima, reed sweet grass
Quarry site No environmental weeds identified within footprint
Control Methods The Contractor must ensure that all imported topsoil, crushed rock or gravel and organic revegetation matting is certified to be weed and disease free by the supplier prior to being
16
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Environmental Protection Requirements for Construction
brought to site. Any necessary approvals will be obtained and provided to TI prior work commencing at the site. A declared weed eradication programme will be implemented throughout the construction corridor within 12 months of construction completion, with treatments timed in accordance with species-specific prescriptions The Contractor must submit a Weed and Hygiene Management Plan (WHMP) to TI for approval prior to commencing works within the construction corridor. The WMP must comply with the APIA Code Environmental Guideline 9.3, and DPIPWE (2015) Weed and Disease Planning and Hygiene Guidelines - Preventing the spread of weeds and diseases in Tasmania. As a minimum the WHMP plan must define: Vehicle washdown procedures for and locations along the pipeline routes. Vehicle hygiene washdown procedures for arriving at and leaving site. Weed species within the construction corridor to be identified and treatment methods outlined. Declared weeds must be treated in accordance with guidelines and regulations. The types of cleaning to be used ie. washdown with high-pressure water containing disinfectant or application of other cleaning solutions. Stockpile locations for affected soils. A weed eradication programme for declared weeds that appear in the corridor upon the completion of rehabilitation.
Monitoring and Reporting Fortnightly monitoring of plant and materials, and location of stockpiles. Weekly observance of compliance with infectious plant disease controls. Spot inspection of plant exiting the operation prescription areas to ensure the effectiveness of control measures including wash downs. Follow-up monitoring to be undertaken post installation and post rehabilitation for weed identification and appropriate additional control, as disturbance from construction works along the pipeline route is likely to stimulate germination of a range of weed species. The Contractor must ensure that the weed and hygiene environmental controls outlined within the CEMP are complied with and that compliance is documented. Compliance will be outlined in: - Daily Site Diary - Weekly environmental checklist (supplied to TI) - Monthly reports provided to TI compiling the results of the weekly audits.
Appendix B – Ecological Assessment
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED SCOTTSDALE IRRIGATION SCHEME, TASMANIA ADDENDUM: Camden Dam – borrow pits and additional roads
Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd 21 July 2016
Mark Wapstra ABN 83 464 107 291 28 Suncrest Avenue email: [email protected] business ph.:(03) 62 283 220 Lenah Valley, TAS 7008 web: www.ecotas.com.au mobile ph.: 0407 008 685
ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
CITATION This report can be cited as: ECOtas (2016). Ecological Assessment of the Proposed Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme, Tasmania. Addendum: Camden Dam – borrow pits and additional roads. Report by Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd, 21 July 2016.
AUTHORSHIP Field assessment: Mark Wapstra Report production: Mark Wapstra Habitat and vegetation mapping: Mark Wapstra Base data for mapping: TheList, TasMap, GoogleEarth, Tasmanian Irrigation GIS mapping: Mark Wapstra Digital and aerial photography: Mark Wapstra, GoogleEarth, TheList
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Kathryn Pugh & Andy Corbould (Tasmanian Irrigation) facilitated access and provided background information.
COVER ILLUSTRATION Eucalyptus delegatensis mixed forest/wet sclerophyll forest along extra road section.
Please note: the blank pages in this document are deliberate to facilitate double-sided printing.
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) i ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) ii ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
CONTENTS PURPOSE, SCOPE, LIMITATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE SURVEY ...... 1 Purpose ...... 1 Scope ...... 1 Limitations ...... 1 Qualifications ...... 2 Permit ...... 2 THE PROPOSAL...... 2 STUDY AREA ...... 4 METHODS ...... 4 Nomenclature ...... 4 Preliminary investigation ...... 4 Botanical survey ...... 4 Zoological survey ...... 4 ADDITIONAL FINDINGS & DISCUSSION ...... 5 Vegetation types ...... 5 Short road extension southeast of Camden Rivulet ...... 5 Additional plantation area north of Diddleum Road ...... 6 Existing road between Diddleum Road and borrow pits ...... 6 Borrow pit areas ...... 7 New road between borrow pits and central road ...... 9 Plant species ...... 11 Fauna species ...... 11 Other ecological values ...... 11 Weed species ...... 11 Rootrot pathogen, Phytophthora cinnamomi ...... 12 Myrtle wilt and rust ...... 12 Chytrid fungus and other freshwater pathogens ...... 12 REFERENCES ...... 12
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) iii ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) iv ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
PURPOSE, SCOPE, LIMITATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE SURVEY
Purpose
Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd (TI) engaged Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) to undertake an ecological assessment of parts of the proposed Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (SIS), specifically previously unassessed portions of the proposed “Camden Dam” section of the project, primarily to facilitate further land use planning though local, State and Commonwealth government environmental planning approvals protocols. A report was produced titled: ECOtas (2015). Ecological Assessment of the Proposed Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme, Northeast Tasmania: Camden Dam Extension Area. Report by Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd, 12 April 2015. The ecological values associated with the main section of the Camden Dam project area and the initially proposed pipeline components of the SIS were assessed by a different consultant (SEMF 2012). The ECOtas (2015) report only pertained to areas not assessed by the previous consultants, and also provided clarification with respect to several ecological matters including threatened burrowing crayfish, Sphagnum peatland, potential habitat of threatened fauna, and actual occurrence of threatened flora. Subsequent to the ECOtas (2015) assessment, TI identified additional areas that will be impacted by Camden Dam infrastructure, namely two quarry/borrow pits and construction of additional roads (shape files and hard copy maps provided). The area covered by these additional project elements have not been subject to formal ecological assessments. The present report is an addendum to the original report and provides information on the revised area and additional commentary on various matters where the changes affect the original conclusions. The present report should be read in conjunction with ECOtas (2015), and any supplied GIS and other data files.
Scope
See ECOtas (2015) for general statements.
Limitations
See ECOtas (2015) for general statements. With respect to threatened flora surveys, the present assessment undertaken on 18 May 2016 was outside the peak flowering period of spring-summer flowering grasses and herbs. However, based on the extent of previous assessments, I have a good understanding of the most likely habitat for threatened flora species potentially present. Such areas were searched and no evidence of threatened flora was detected such that it is possible to comment on the potential impact of the revised disturbance footprint without the need for further timed targeted surveys. Note that ECOtas (2015) provides substantial commentary in regard to the potential of the subject area to support some species of threatened flora included in previous assessments (SEMF 2012).
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) 1 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
Qualifications
Except where otherwise stated, the opinions and interpretations of legislation and policy expressed in this report are made by the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the relevant agency. The client should confirm management prescriptions with the relevant agency before acting on the content of this report.
Permit
Any plant material was collected under DPIPWE permit TFL 15280 (in the name of Mark Wapstra). Relevant data will be entered into DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas database by the author. Some plant material may be lodged at the Tasmanian Herbarium by the author. No invertebrate or vertebrate material was collected.
THE PROPOSAL
See ECOtas (2015) for general statements. The present report addresses the revised disturbance footprint including two proposed borrow pits/quarries and additional roads (see STUDY AREA below and Figures 1 & 2).
Figure 1. Location of additional survey areas [source: Tasmanian Irrigation]
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) 2 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
Figure 2. Location of extension survey areas relative to previously surveyed areas
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) 3 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
STUDY AREA
See ECOtas (2015) for general statements – the sites covered by the extension survey do not have characteristics significantly different to those previously described (e.g. different geology or topography) so further details are not provided. The present report deals with the area identified on a GIS shape file supplied by TI and includes a nominal buffer of 50 m (Figures 1 & 2).
METHODS
Nomenclature
All grid references in this report are in GDA94, except where otherwise stated. Vascular species nomenclature follows de Salas & Baker (2015) for scientific names and Wapstra et al. (2005+) for common names. Fauna species scientific and common names follow the listings in the cited Natural Values Atlas report (DPIPWE 2014a). Vegetation classification follows TASVEG 3.0, as described in From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s Vegetation (Kitchener & Harris 2013).
Preliminary investigation
See ECOtas (2015) for information on original database interrogations and literature reviews. Updated database reports for DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas, CofA’s Protected Matters Search Tool and FPA’s Biodiversity Values Database were not created because there have been no substantial changes to the lists of species. However, TheList was examined to confirm that there were no new records of threatened flora and fauna from within or close to the project area.
Botanical survey
See ECOtas (2015) for general statements. The additional areas were assessed on 18 May 2016.
Zoological survey
See ECOtas (2015) for general statements. The additional areas were assessed on 18 May 2016.
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) 4 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS & DISCUSSION
For a more detailed discussion of the legislative and policy implications of the findings for the broader assessment of the project area, refer to ECOtas (2015).
Vegetation types
The extension survey area supports the following TASVEG 3.0 vegetation mapping units (Figures 3-9 shows the revised vegetation mapping). Unless otherwise indicated, detailed descriptions of the vegetation types identified from the extension survey areas are not provided because these are included in both SEMF (2012) and ECOtas (2015).
Short road extension southeast of Camden Rivulet
Eucalyptus delegatensis forest with broad-leaf shrubs (WDB) [Plates 1 & 2] The mapping of this short road extension as WDB is consistent with adjacent vegetation mapping. The site is somewhat transitional between WDB and “Eucalyptus delegatensis forest over rainforest” (TASVEG code: WDR) because it is closer to a small stream supporting some Nothofagus cunninghamii (myrtle beech). However, the dominance of typical wet sclerophyll shrubs and the general small stature of most Nothofagus trees suggests classification as WDB is more appropriate.
Plates 1 & 2. WDB and FPE along the short road extension
Acacia dealbata forest (NAD) The mapping of a small area of NAD is consistent with that of SEMF (2012) for an adjacent area and matches the aerial imagery that shows a small patch of canopy dominated by silver wattle (only briefly examined and confirmed in field).
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) 5 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
Extra-urban miscellaneous (FUM) [Plates 1 & 2] To be consistent with previous mapping by SEMF (2012), the short section of forest track in the middle of the road extension has been mapped as FUM. In most cases, such forest tracks that are partially grown over would not be mapped separate from the surrounding vegetation types (even the majority of the Midland Highway road corridor, including the 4-lane sealed sections, is mapped as “agricultural land”). In addition, I do not believe that FUM is the appropriate mapping unit for roads/tracks because FUM is usually reserved for non-linear features such as quarries. In my opinion, roads and tracks in the project area that are mappable at a practical scale are best mapped as “permanent easements” (TASVEG code: FPE), although it is noted that even FPE was not truly intended for such features (intended for infrastructure features such as permanent wide and maintained powerline easements and the like).
Additional plantation area north of Diddleum Road
plantations for silviculture (FPL) The entire extension area north of Diddleum Road could be simply mapped as FPL (Eucalyptus nitens plantation). However, SEMF (2012) separated the gorse infestations within this area of plantation as “weed infestation” (TASVEG code: FWU) so for consistency I have continued this mapping, although it is unusual for gorse-infested plantations to be mapped as anything other than FPL.
weed infestation (FWU) See comments above. Note that the areas separated from FPL are notional because in reality, gorse extends throughout much of this plantation area.
Existing road between Diddleum Road and borrow pits
It is assumed that TI will utilise the existing well-formed gravel road between Diddleum Road and the borrow pit because the entire route is outside the full supply level of the proposed Camden Dam. As such, the comments on vegetation mapping below is for formality only.
Extra-urban miscellaneous (FUM) See previous comments on the appropriate use of FUM vs. FPE vs. surrounding vegetation mapping unit. FUM has been used to map the existing main gravel road but not the minor tracks and open routes through the ex-plantation.
plantations for silviculture (FPL) The majority of this proposed road passes through recently harvested hardwood plantation. In the absence of knowledge of a proposed land use, I am maintaining the existing vegetation mapping as FPL rather than attempting to allocate the “new ground” to another TASVEG mapping unit because, quite simply, there are no totally appropriate units. Until very recently this area was a commercial hardwood plantation and any remnant vegetation that occurred underneath the
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) 6 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting plantation trees that now manifests as an apparently new vegetation community is only a result of the recent harvesting.
Highland Poa grassland (GPH) [Plate 3] SEMF (2012) mapped the grassland on either side of Diddleum Road as GPH. ECOtas (2015) provided comment on the veracity of some of the GPH mapping undertaken by SEMF (2012) for the project area but did not specifically examine, or comment on, this area. Site assessment as part of the present assessment confirmed that the two patches close to Camden Rivulet/Diddleum Road can be interpreted as GPH (recognising that GPH is usually recognised for sites above 600 m elevation). Both sites are in poor to moderate condition due to stock grazing and edge effects from nearby roads. To the best of my knowledge, the area of both these patches will not be affected by the upgrade to/us of the road to the borrow pits.
Plate 3. (LHS) Patch of GPH south of Diddleum Road
Acacia dealbata forest (NAD) The mapping of a small area of NAD at the north end of the road is consistent with that of SEMF (2012) for an adjacent area and matches the aerial imagery that shows a small patch of canopy dominated by silver wattle (only briefly examined and confirmed in field but also partially affected by the recent plantation harvesting so extent is probably over-estimated based on aerial imagery).
Borrow pit areas
Extra-urban miscellaneous (FUM) See previous comments on the appropriate use of FUM vs. FPE vs. surrounding vegetation mapping unit. FUM has been used to map the existing main gravel road but not the minor tracks and open routes through the ex-plantation.
Acacia dealbata forest (NAD) [Plate 4] Several patches of remnant native forest amongst the ex-plantation are mainly dominated by Acacia dealbata (silver wattle). Some patches have a sparse cover of Eucalyptus delegatensis,
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) 7 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting although not sufficient to map as a wet sclerophyll E. delegatensis forest community (such as WDB). Some patches share dominance with Acacia melanoxylon, but have not been classified as “Acacia melanoxylon forest on rises” (TASVEG code: NAR) due to the disturbance history (i.e. better as a disturbance facies of NAD).
Nothofagus – Atherosperma rainforest (RMT) [Plate 5] A small area of rainforest extends into the borrow pit polygon, although in all likelihood this area, which is east of the road, will not be disturbed. It is in poor condition due to recent adjacent plantation harvest and is unlikely to persist as RMT (will probably success to NAD).
Plate 4. (LHS) large area of NAD at southern end of survey area Plate 5. (RHS) Remnant patch of RMT (close to NAD) east of existing road
plantations for silviculture (FPL) [Plate 6] The proposed borrow pits areas are in areas of recently harvested hardwood plantation. See discussion above regarding classification of recently harvested plantation and annotated images for further explanation. While the road has been separately mapped as FUM (see discussion above), the areas within the ex-plantation that were more open have been also been mapped as plantation, this is somewhat inconsistent with mapping of FWU within areas of FPL elsewhere within the project area. However, it is consistent with typical TASVEG 3.0 mapping of plantations that usually include such open areas as part of the plantation concept.
agricultural land (FAG) [Plate 7] The southwestern part of the polygon supports pasture utilised for cattle grazing. The pasture on the flatter higher ground is intensively managed but the pasture below the fence towards the ex- plantation and the silver wattle forest is rougher.
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) 8 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
Plate 6 (LHS) Recently harvested FPL on slopes with remnant patch of NAD/WDB in gully Plate 7. (RHS) FAG at southern end of survey area looking across recently harvested FPL on slopes to north
New road between borrow pits and central road
Extra-urban miscellaneous (FUM) See previous comments on the appropriate use of FUM vs. FPE vs. surrounding vegetation mapping unit. FUM has been used to map the existing road/track through the plantation, simply to continue the mapping by SEMF (2012).
plantations for silviculture (FPL) The majority of this new road passes through existing Eucalyptus nitens hardwood plantation that was unharvested at the time of assessment. Only some poorly-drained areas that were excluded from plantation establishment and some fringing areas have been mapped as anything other than FPL.
Eucalyptus delegatensis forest with broad-leaf shrubs (WDB) [Plates 8 & 9] Several patches of WDB occur along the proposed road. The most easterly patch is close to “Eucalyptus dalrympleana forest” (TASVEG code: WDA) due to shared dominance in the canopy with E. dalrympleana and E. delegatensis (Plate 8). Other patches are more typical wet sclerophyll facies of WDB (Plate 9). One patch on the slope above a minor creekline is close to WDR. The most westerly patch of E. delegatensis forest has been mapped as WDB but it is contiguous with forest mapped as “Eucalyptus delegatensis dry forest and woodland” (TASVEG code: DDE) by SEMF (2012). The forest within the extension survey area was closer to wet sclerophyll forest than dry sclerophyll forest but the distinction between WDB and DDE is blurred by logging history and adjacent plantations. The line between the two mapping units is somewhat arbitrary.
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) 9 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
Plate 8. (LHS) WDB grading into WDA at eastern end of proposed road Plate 9. (RHS) Typical WDB near eastern end of proposed road
Leptospermum lanigerum – Melaleuca squarrosa swamp forest (NLM) [Plate 10] The establishment of the plantation excluded poorly-drained sites supporting mainly Leptospermum lanigerum over dense swards of sedges (mainly Cyperus lucidus and Carex appressa) and grass. The height of the canopy suggests classification as NLM is more appropriate than “Leptospermum lanigerum scrub” (TASVEG code: SLL), although the generally low stature and affinity to this mapping unit is noted. NLM forms a mosaic with NAD in the opening between plantation patches.
Acacia dealbata forest (NAD) [Plate 11] NAD occurs in openings between plantation patches, forming a mosaic with other vegetation types such as WDB and NLM.
Plate 10. (LHS) NLM just west of road crossing Plate 11. (RHS) NAD in plantation opening along roadline
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) 10 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
Of the vegetation types identified from the extension survey area, none are classified as threatened under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002 or equate to threatened ecological communities under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. An updated .shp file is provided with this report that includes the revised vegetation mapping.
Plant species
Refer to ECOtas (2015) for discussion on the potential of the subject area to support threatened flora, including some species reported by SEMF (2012) and included in DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas database. No species listed as threatened on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 were detected from the extension survey area. No species listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 were detected from the extension survey area.
Fauna species
See ECOtas (2015) for general statements. Some additional comments are provided below for some species.
Dasyurus viverrinus (eastern quoll) [TSPA: not listed; EPBCA: Endangered] This species has been listed on the EPBCA since the production of the first report (ECOtas 2015). The species uses a wide range of habitats from undisturbed native forest, woodland, scrub and grasslands to anthropogenic habitats such as pasture. No evidence of the species was detected (e.g. scats, potential den sites). In my opinion, the proposed works in the extension survey area will not result in a significant impact on the species. Management recommendations developed for other threatened marsupial carnivores (Tasmanian devil, spotted-tailed quoll) and other species requiring retention of habitat/offset areas will be applicable to the eastern quoll.
Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil) [TSPA: endangered; EPBCA: Endangered] As previously reported by SEMF (2012) and ECOtas (2015), evidence that the Tasmanian devil is utilising the project area is widespread in the form of scats (refer to Figure 10 for novel scat locations detected as part of the present extension area surveys). In addition, some old wombat burrows were detected (also shown in Figure 10). The plantation areas and wet sclerophyll forest, both with abundant coarse woody debris on the forest floor, provide excellent habitat for the Tasmanian devil.
Other ecological values
Weed species
See ECOtas (2015) for general statements. No novel species of “declared weeds”, Weeds of National Significance (WoNS) or potentially invasive environmental weeds were detected from the extension survey areas.
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) 11 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
Gorse (Ulex europaeus) is localised within the extension survey area (Figure 10), usually occurring as isolated individuals or small patches (e.g. along the surface of the old forest track in the far northeast of the extension survey area), except where it occurs as a dense understorey species amongst the plantation north of Diddleum Road (which includes some areas mapped as FWU).
Rootrot pathogen, Phytophthora cinnamomi
See ECOtas (2014) for general statements.
Myrtle wilt and rust
See ECOtas (2015) for general statements.
Chytrid fungus and other freshwater pathogens
See ECOtas (2015) for general statements.
REFERENCES [refer also to reference list in ECOtas (2015)] de Salas, M.F. & Baker, M.L. (2015). A Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania. Tasmanian Herbarium, Hobart. [for vascular plant species nomenclature] ECOtas (2015). Ecological Assessment of the Proposed Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme, Northeast Tasmania: Camden Dam Extension Area. Report by Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd, 12 April 2015. Kitchener, A. & Harris, S. (2013). From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s Vegetation. Edition 2. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Tasmania. [for vegetation mapping unit nomenclature] SEMF (2012). Camden Rivulet Dam, Camden Plains, Ecological Assessment and Recommendations. Report to Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd. Wapstra, H., Wapstra, A., Wapstra, M. & Gilfedder, L. (2005+, updated online at www.dpipwe.tas.gov.au). The Little Book of Common Names for Tasmanian Plants. Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment, Hobart. [for vascular plant species nomenclature]
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) 12 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
Figure 3. Revised vegetation mapping for extension survey area: short road extension southeast of Camden Rivulet
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) 13 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
Figure 4. Revised vegetation mapping for extension survey area: additional plantation area north of Diddleum Road
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) 14 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
Figure 5. Revised vegetation mapping for extension survey area: existing road between Diddleum Road and borrow pits
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) 15 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
Figure 6. Revised vegetation mapping for extension survey area: borrow pit area (northern section)
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) 16 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
Figure 7. Revised vegetation mapping for extension survey area: borrow pit area (southern section)
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) 17 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
Figure 8. Revised vegetation mapping for extension survey area: new road between borrow pits and central road (western section)
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) 18 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
Figure 9. Revised vegetation mapping for extension survey area: new road between borrow pits and central road (eastern section)
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) 19 ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting
Figure 10. Overview of threatened fauna and weed values from extension survey area
Ecological Assessment of Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme: Camden Dam (borrows and roads) 20 Appendix C – Aboriginal Heritage Assessment (Confidential document)
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (SIS) Stage 1 Additional Footprint Areas
Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Addendum Report
AUTHORS NAME: Stuart Huys 27 Apsley St South Hobart 7004
CLIENT NAME : Tasmanian Irrigation 21.6.2016 Appendix D – Historic Heritage Assessment
GHD | Report for Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd - Benbullen Quarry, 3218294 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (SIS) Stage 1 Additional Footprint Areas
Historic Heritage Assessment
Addendum Report AUTHORS NAME: Stuart Huys and Dr Collins
CLIENT: Tasmanian Irrigation 6.7.2016
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary i
1.0 Project Outline 1 1.1 Project Details 1 1.2 Aims of the Investigation 4 1.3 Project Limitations 4 1.4 Project Methodology 5
2.0 Environmental Setting of the Study Area 7 2.1 Introduction 7 2.2 Landscape Setting Vegetation Structure and Land-use 7 2.3 Hydrology 11 2.4 Geology and Soils 11
3.0 Historical Background 14 3.1 Historic Overview 14 3.2 Heritage Register Search Results 20
4.0 Survey Coverage of the Study Area 22 4.1 Survey Coverage and Surface Visibility 22 4.2 Effective coverage 23
5.0 Survey Results and Statement of Potential Heritage Impacts 27
6.0 Statutory Controls and Legislative Requirements 29 6.1 National Conventions 29 6.2 Commonwealth Legislation 30 6.3 State Legislation 31 6.4 Local Planning Schemes 34
7.0 Heritage Management Plan 35
8.0 Unanticipated Discovery Plan 36
References Cited 38
Appendix Map Series Showing Survey Transects Walked Across Additional SIS Stage 1 Areas 39
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Table of Contents
Page
List of Figures Figure 1: The additional Scottsdale irrigation Scheme (SIS) Stage 1 development footprint areas that were the focus of this Historic Heritage Assessment 3 Figure 2: Geology of the study area, derived from (TheLIST 2016) 13 Figure 3: European settlement across the Northern portion of the study area, Dorset Parish map c. 1940, TheLIST 2016 15 Figure 4: European settlement across the mid portion of the study area, Dorset Parish map c. 1940, TheLIST 2016 15 Figure 5: European settlement across the mid portion of the study area, Dorset Parish map c. 1940, TheLIST 2016 16 Figure 6: Location of previously registered historic sites in relation to the proposed SIS Stage 1 Additional Footprint Areas 21 Figure 7: Location of previously registered historic sites in relation to the proposed SIS Stage 1 Additional Footprint Areas 21 Figure 6: Guidelines for the estimation of surface visibility 23 Figure 7: The location of historic sites HS1 and HS2 in relation to the SIS Stage 1 Additional footprint Areas and the original sis Stage 1 Study Area 28
List of Tables Table 1: Registered Historic Sites within the vicinity of the study area 20 Table 2: Effective Survey Coverage achieved within the SIS Stage 1 study area 24
List of Plates Plate 1: View north across the proposed borrow pit area 8 Plate 2: View north along the alignment of the first access track running through to Diddleum Road 9 Plate 3: View south-east along a section of the second access track running through Forestry coupes, and following a dis-used vehicle track 9 Plate 4: Forestry coupes traversed by the majority of the proposed pipeline route 10 Plate 5: Cleared grazing paddocks traversed by the final 400m of the pipeline route through to the Headquarters Road Dam site 11 Plate 6: The granodiorite bedrock that occurs throughout the study area 12 Plate 7: Undated postcard showing forestry operations at Lebrina near Scottsdale (Tasmanian Library, State Library of Tasmania) 19 Plate 8: View from the Scottsdale Sidling Sawmill, Spurling 1903-1930, National Library of Australia 19
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Table of Contents
Page
List of Plates Plate 9: View west across the Borrow Pit area showing typical conditions of surface visibility 24 Plate 10: View south-east across the small expanded footprint on the west side of the Camden Rivulet Dam area 25 Plate 11: View north along a section of the transfer pipeline corridor passing through Forestry coupes 25 Plate 12: View south along the forestry track which is proposed to be used as an access road between the Borrow Pit area and the Camden Rivulet Dam 26 Plate 13: View south east along the alignment of the proposed access route that runs around the southern perimeter of the Camden Rivulet Dam footprint 26
Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Executive Summary
Project Details Tasmanian Irrigation (TI) are proposing to develop the Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (SIS). The SIS is currently in the Detailed Design phase of development. The key elements of the SIS project are summarised below, and are divided into two main Stages.
Stage 1 Works - A new dam on the Camden Rivulet that will provide an annual yield of 8600ML, with 95% average reliability. The dam will be mainly filled by winter flows of the Camden Rivulet. During summer, the full natural stream flow will be allowed to pass through the dam. The capacity of the dam at full supply level (FSL) is 9 300ML, with a surface area at FSL of 181ha.
- A 1.5km, two-way ‘dam fill’ pipeline from the proposed Camden Rivulet dam through to a proposed pump station is proposed on the St Patricks River, near East Diddleum Bridge. This will allow the dam to be topped up by winter flows from St Patricks River if required.
- From the St Patricks River, water will be piped 5.5km to a proposed mini- hydro station which is to be located immediately above the Headquarters Road Dam. The mini-hydro station will be connected to both the St Patricks River pump station and the Tasmanian electricity distribution network at Springfield via a new 8km long power line.
Stage 2 Works - From the Headquarters Road Dam, water will be delivered to irrigators via: An 83km underground pipeline distribution network throughout the greater Scottsdale area and on to the Waterhouse Area. The distribution pipeline network will be under gravity pressure, and will not require booster pumping. The Greater Forrester River, Brid River and Hurst Creek for direct- take, from releases at various points along the distribution pipeline network.
CHMA (2013) has already completed the Historic heritage assessment for Stage 1 works of the SIS project. The findings of this assessment were presented in a report titled “The Stage 1 Historic Heritage Assessment of the Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme”.
Since completing this assessment, the proposed development footprint for the SIS Stage 1 works has changed slightly. The main changes to the footprint are summarised below.
i Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
- A proposed borrow pit area which abuts the south-west boundary of the Camden Rivulet Dam footprint. The borrow pit area encompasses approximately 100ha. - Two proposed access track alignments. The first runs from the northern end of the proposed borrow pit, through to the dam wall alignment at the northern end of the dam. This track follows the alignment of an existing vehicle track. The second track runs along the southern edge of the Camden Rivulet Dam footprint. Both track alignments are around 1.5km in length. - Two minor expansions to the footprint of the Camden Rivulet Dam footprint, totalling approximately 8ha. The first area is situated on the west edge of the dam footprint, with the second area being sited on the north edge of the dam footprint. - The widening of the proposed transfer pipeline corridor alignment between the St Patricks Pump Station site and the Headquarters Road Dam, a distance of approximately 5.5km. The original pipeline corridor width was 20m. This has now been expanded to 30m (an additional 5m either side of the corridor centre line). The expansion of the width of the corridor is required because a power line will be constructed along the centre line of the pipeline corridor, and TasNetworks require a cleared buffer of 15m either side of the power line.
Figure 1 shows the location of the additional SIS Stage 1 footprint areas.
CHMA Pty has now been engaged by TI to undertake an Historic heritage assessment for the additional SIS Stage 1 development footprint areas. This report presents the findings of the assessment. The report is designed to act as an addendum to the original SIS Stage 1 Historic heritage assessment report prepared by CHMA (2013).
Results of the Current Assessment No Historic heritage sites or features were identified during the survey assessment of the SIS Stage 1 additional footprint areas. The search of the heritage registers shows that there are no known historic heritage sites located within the SIS Stage 1 expanded footprint area.
The previous survey assessment of the original SIS Stage 1 footprint resulted in the identification of two historic sites (HS1 and HS2). Both sites are located within the original SIS stage 1 area, and are just to the east of the expanded Stage 1 footprint. Figure 7 shows the location of these two sites. The two sites are both European logging trees, representative of the historical forestry industry.
Based on the findings of the current survey assessment, together with the outcomes of the heritage register searches and the previous survey assessment undertaken by CHMA (2013), it is advised that there are no identified historic features located within the bounds of the expanded SIS Stage 1 footprint. It is assessed that there is a very
ii Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
low potential for undetected historic features to be present within the expanded footprint.
Management Recommendations The heritage management options and recommendations provided in this report are made on the basis of the following criteria. - The legal and procedural requirements as summarised in section 6.0 of this report, with specific reference to the Work Guidelines for Historic Heritage Places. - The results of the investigation as documented in section 5.0 of the report. - Background research into the extant archaeological and historic record for the study area and its surrounding regions (see section 3).
The recommendations are aimed at minimising the impact of the proposed SIS Stage 1 additional works on historic heritage.
Recommendation 1 No Historic heritage sites or features were identified during the survey assessment of the SIS Stage 1 additional footprint areas. The search of the heritage registers shows that there are no known historic heritage sites located within the SIS Stage 1 expanded footprint area.
Based on these negative findings, it is advised that there are no historic heritage constraints or requirements for the SIS Stage 1 additional footprint.
Recommendation 2 CHMA (2013) identified two historic heritage sites during the heritage assessment of the original SIS Stage 1 development (HS1 and HS2). Both sites are located within the original SIS stage 1 area, and are just to the east of the expanded Stage 1 footprint.
The recommendations for these two sites are presented in the SIS Stage 1 Historic heritage assessment report prepared by CHMA (2013).
Recommendation 3 If suspected historic heritage sites or features are identified during the course of construction works within the SIS Stage 1 additional footprint areas, then the procedures outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan provided in Section 8 should be followed.
Recommendation 4 Copies of this report should be submitted to Heritage Tasmania for their records.
iii Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
1.0 Project Outline
1.1 Project Details Tasmanian Irrigation (TI) are proposing to develop the Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (SIS). The SIS is currently in the Detailed Design phase of development.
The scheme is designed to deliver 8 600ML of high reliability summer irrigation water to the areas of Scottsdale, Springfield, Bridport and Waterhouse in North East Tasmania. Winter flows, surplus to environmental requirements would be stored in the proposed Camden Rivulet Dam and distributed via a network of 90km of underground pipelines and three local water ways, these being the Great Forrester River, the Brid River and Hurst Creek. The scheme will include the ability to generate clean, renewable energy through a mini hydro power station at South Springfield.
The key elements of the SIS project are summarised below, and are divided into two main Stages.
Stage 1 Works - A new dam on the Camden Rivulet that will provide an annual yield of 8600ML, with 95% average reliability. The dam will be mainly filled by winter flows of the Camden Rivulet. During summer, the full natural stream flow will be allowed to pass through the dam. The capacity of the dam at full supply level (FSL) is 9 300ML, with a surface area at FSL of 181ha.
- A 1.5km, two-way ‘dam fill’ pipeline from the proposed Camden Rivulet dam through to a proposed pump station is proposed on the St Patricks River, near East Diddleum Bridge. This will allow the dam to be topped up by winter flows from St Patricks River if required.
- From the St Patricks River, water will be piped 5.5km to a proposed mini- hydro station which is to be located immediately above the Headquarters Road Dam. The mini-hydro station will be connected to both the St Patricks River pump station and the Tasmanian electricity distribution network at Springfield via a new 8km long power line.
Stage 2 Works - From the Headquarters Road Dam, water will be delivered to irrigators via: An 83km underground pipeline distribution network throughout the greater Scottsdale area and on to the Waterhouse Area. The distribution pipeline network will be under gravity pressure, and will not require booster pumping. The Greater Forrester River, Brid River and Hurst Creek for direct- take, from releases at various points along the distribution pipeline network.
1 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
CHMA (2013) has already completed the Historic heritage assessment for Stage 1 works of the SIS project. The findings of this assessment were presented in a report titled “The Stage 1 Historic Heritage Assessment of the Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme”.
Since completing this assessment, the proposed development footprint for the SIS Stage 1 works has changed slightly. The main changes to the footprint are summarised below. - A proposed borrow pit area which abuts the south-west boundary of the Camden Rivulet Dam footprint. The borrow pit area encompasses approximately 100ha. - Two proposed access track alignments. The first runs from the northern end of the proposed borrow pit, through to the dam wall alignment at the northern end of the dam. This track follows the alignment of an existing vehicle track. The second track runs along the southern edge of the Camden Rivulet Dam footprint. Both track alignments are around 1.5km in length. - Two minor expansions to the footprint of the Camden Rivulet Dam footprint, totalling approximately 8ha. The first area is situated on the west edge of the dam footprint, with the second area being sited on the north edge of the dam footprint. - The widening of the proposed transfer pipeline corridor alignment between the St Patricks Pump Station site and the Headquarters Road Dam, a distance of approximately 5.5km. The original pipeline corridor width was 20m. This has now been expanded to 30m (an additional 5m either side of the corridor centre line). The expansion of the width of the corridor is required because a power line will be constructed along the centre line of the pipeline corridor, and TasNetworks require a cleared buffer of 15m either side of the power line.
Figure 1 shows the location of the additional SIS Stage 1 footprint areas.
CHMA Pty has now been engaged by TI to undertake an Historic heritage assessment for the additional SIS Stage 1 development footprint areas. This report presents the findings of the assessment. The report is designed to act as an addendum to the original SIS Stage 1 Historic heritage assessment report prepared by CHMA (2013).
2 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Figure 1: The additional Scottsdale irrigation Scheme (SIS) Stage 1 development footprint areas that were the focus of this Historic Heritage Assessment
3 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
1.2 Aims of the Investigation The principal aims of the Historic heritage assessment of the SIS Stage 1 additional footprint areas are as follows. - To document the extent of Historic heritage sites or features within and in the general vicinity of the SIS stage 1 expanded development footprint (the study area). - To assess the archaeological sensitivity values of the study area; - To assess the scientific values of identified historic heritage sites; - To develop a detailed set of management strategies which are aimed at minimising the impacts of the proposed Stage 1 SIS project on the heritage resources in the study area.
1.3 Project Limitations All archaeological investigations are subject to limitations that may affect the reliability of the results. The main constraint to the present investigation was restricted surface visibility due primarily to vegetation cover.
The proposed borrow pit area, which encompasses approximately 100ha, is sited within forestry coupes, which have recently been harvested. Surface visibility across this area was generally low-medium, constrained to an estimated average of 40%. The main impediment to visibility was vegetation cover. There are a series of forestry vehicle tracks as well as erosion scalds present throughout the area which provided locales of improved visibility.
Surface visibility along the proposed 1.5km long access road between the borrow pit area and the northern end of the Camden Rivulet Dam was excellent, averaging 80%. The proposed track alignment follows an existing graded vehicle track. Surface visibility along the second proposed access track (also 1.5km in length), which loops around the southern end of the Camden Rivulet Dam footprint, was low, averaging 20%. This track runs through forestry plantations and remnant patches of native forests. Some sections of the alignment follow existing vehicle tracks, however the majority of the route traverses thick vegetation.
Surface visibility within the two minor expansions to the footprint of the Camden Rivulet Dam footprint was variable. The first area, which is situated on the west edge of the dam footprint, is sited within a logged forestry coupe. Surface visibility in this area was good (70%). The second area is located on the north edge of the dam footprint, and is sited within a forestry coupe which was not logged. Visibility in this area was restricted to around 30%.
Surface visibility along the 5.5km length of the transfer pipeline corridor was restricted to an estimated average of 20%, due primarily to vegetation cover. Again, the occasional vehicle track and erosion scalds providing discreet locales of improved visibility.
4 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
The constraints in surface visibility undoubtedly has limited to some extent the effectiveness of the survey assessment. The issue of surface visibility is further discussed in Section 4 of this report.
1.4 Project Methodology A three stage project methodology was implemented for this assessment.
Stage 1 (Pre-Fieldwork Background Investigations) Prior to field work being undertaken, the following tasks were completed by CHMA staff.
Consultation with Tasmanian Irrigation (TI) Andy Corbould is the designated TI Project Manager for the SIS project. Prior to field work commencing, Stuart Huys was in contact with Andy Corbould to obtain background information for the project, and to co-ordinate the logistical arrangements for the survey assessment.
The collation of relevant documentation for the Project The following documentation was collated for this project. A review of the relevant heritage registers and the collation of information pertaining to any registered heritage sites located within the general vicinity of the study area. Maps of the study area; Relevant reports documenting the outcomes of previous heritage studies in the vicinity of the study area; Historic literature for the region; References to the land use history of the study area; GIS Information relating to landscape units present in the study area; Geotechnical information for the study area, including soil and geology data.
Stage 2 (Field Work) Stage 2 entailed the field work component of the assessment. The field survey was implemented over a period of three days (20-4-2016 to 22-4-2016) by Stuart Huys (CHMA archaeologist) and Vernon Graham (Aboriginal Heritage Officer).
The field team walked a series of 7.4km of survey transects throughout the proposed borrow pit footprint which encompasses around 100ha. The average width of the transects was 10m. These transects were aligned to provide coverage across the entire extent of the borrow pit footprint.
Within the two small expansion areas of the Camden Rivulet Dam footprint (totalling 8ha), the field team walked a combined total of 1.2km of survey transects, with the average width of each transect being 10m.
The entire length of the 5.5km long transfer pipeline corridor, between the St Patricks Pump Station site and the Headquarters Road Dam, was inspected by the field team.
5 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
As detailed previously, the pipeline corridor width has been expanded from 20 to 30m to accommodate a power line easement. The field team walked a single 5m wide corridor along either side of the expanded corridor.
The field team walked a single 10m wide survey corridor along each of the two proposed access track routes associated with the Camden Rivulet Dam (both of which are around 1.5km in length).
Section 6 of this report provides added details as to the survey methodology adopted for the field survey and the survey coverage achieved by the field team.
Stage 3 (Reporting) Stage three of the project involves the production of a Draft and Final Report that includes an analysis of the data obtained from the field survey, an assessment of archaeological sensitivity and management recommendations. The report has been prepared by Stuart Huys and Dr Sophie Collins.
6 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
2.0 Environmental Setting of the Study Area
2.1 Introduction Prior to undertaking an archaeological survey of the study area, it is necessary to characterise the landscape. This includes considering environmental factors such as topography, geology, climate, vegetation and past and current landscape use. An assessment of the environmental setting helps to develop understanding of the nature of historic occupation and site patterning that might be expected to occur across the study area.
The effects of post-depositional processes of both natural and human agencies must also be taken into consideration. These processes have a dramatic effect on archaeological site visibility and conservation. Geomorphological processes such as soil deposition and erosion can result in the movement of archaeological sites as well as their burial or exposure. Heavily vegetated areas can restrict or prevent the detection of sites, while areas subject to high levels of disturbance may no longer retain artefacts or stratified deposits.
The following sections provide information regarding the landscape context of the study area including topography, geology, soils and vegetation.
2.2 Landscape Setting Vegetation Structure and Land-use The SIS Stage 1 study area is located in North Eastern Tasmania, in the ranges south of the town of Scottsdale. It forms an irregular shape broadly bordered by Bonners Hill to the north, Mt Barrow to the south, Mt Scott to the east and George’s Plains to the west.
The Borrow Pit Area The proposed borrow pit area, which is approximately 100ha in size, encompasses a series of prominent hills which are situated just to the west of the Camden Plains. The summits of these hills are characteristically flat to very gently undulating. The hill side slopes are generally quite steep, with gradients ranging between 3-35⁰ (see Plate 1).
The entire borrow pit area is sited within Forestry coupes, and has been subject to very high levels of land disturbances. These coupes have been recently harvested, with all trees removed. The current vegetation structure consists of introduced and native grass species, interspersed with regrowth of acacias (see Plate 1).
7 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Plate 1: View north across the proposed borrow pit area
The Access Track Routes There are two proposed access roads that are part of the current assessment. Both routes are around 1.5km in length, and are sited around the western and southern margins of the Camden Rivulet Dam. The first track runs in a north direction from the proposed borrow pit area through to Diddleum Road. The route follows an existing graded forestry vehicle track, which runs through Forestry Coupes which have recently been logged (see Plate 2). The terrain traversed by this road is gently undulating, running across a series of broad saddles and gentle hill side slopes.
The second access track route skirts around the southern edge of the Camden Rivulet Dam footprint, and runs through Forestry Coupes interspersed with patches of native vegetation that occur along the riparian margins of small water courses. Sections of this track route follows the alignment of old Forestry tracks (see Plate 3). The terrain traversed by the track alignment is typically gently to moderately undulating.
8 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Plate 2: View north along the alignment of the first access track running through to Diddleum Road
Plate 3: View south-east along a section of the second access track running through Forestry coupes, and following a dis-used vehicle track
Expansions to the Camden Rivulet Dam Footprint There are two small expansion areas to the Camden Rivulet Dam footprint (totalling approximately 8ha). The first area is situated on the western edge of the original dam footprint and encompasses around 1ha. It is sited in gently undulating terrain, within
9 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
a recently logged forestry coupe. The second area is sited along the northern end of the original dam footprint and encompasses around 7ha. It is also sited within Forestry coupes, which were not harvested at the time of the survey. Diddleum Road passes through this area. Both areas have been subject to very high levels of disturbances through forestry activity.
The Transfer Pipeline Corridor The 5.5km long transfer pipeline corridor extends from the St Patricks Pump Station site through to the Headquarters Road Dam. From the pump station site, the pipeline route begins to traverse more moderate to steeply undulating hilly country, associated with the foothills of Bonners Hill and Mt Scott. The northern end of the pipeline route descends down the very steep northern side slopes of a prominent ridge system (slope gradient 20-30⁰), and enters a broad north-south trending valley system, where the Headquarters Road dam is sited. The slope gradient at the head of the valley is quite gentle, ranging between 3-7⁰.
From the St Patricks River at the pump station site, through to the top of the ridge line, just before the descent to the Headquarters Road dam, the pipeline traverses terrain that is entirely encompassed within Eucalypt forestry coupes (see plate 4). The northern section of the pipeline route, across the top of the ridge line and descending down the steep side slopes of the ridge towards the dam, runs through native Eucalypt/rainforest, which has only been subject to occasional selective logging in the past. The final 400m of the pipeline where it joins with the dam, traverses cleared farm land which has been re-planted with introduced grasses.
Plate 4: Forestry coupes traversed by the majority of the proposed pipeline route
10 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Plate 5: Cleared grazing paddocks traversed by the final 400m of the pipeline route through to the Headquarters Road Dam site
2.3 Hydrology The most prominent watercourses within the study area are the Camden Rivulet, St Patricks River and the Brid River. The Camden Rivulet runs north through the centre of the Diddleum Plains and is the major water course within the footprint of the proposed dam site. The Camden Rivulet has its source on the northern side of Mt Barrow, and then flows north to drain into the St Patricks River, just to the north of the proposed dam site. The St Patricks River is the largest watercourse in the study area. St Patrick’s River runs west from the Ben Ridge before turning south near the town of Targa, and is the largest tributary of the North Esk River, which it joins at Strombol. The proposed irrigation pipeline crosses St Patricks River just north of the Camden Plains and then runs north, crossing several smaller creeks including West Arm Creek, before meeting the Brid River. The Brid River runs north east to meet the coast at Bridport. North of the study area is the Great Forester River.
2.4 Geology and Soils The vast majority of the study area falls within a north – south running strip of Devonian period granodiorite (see figure 2). The geology here consists of carboniferous granitoids and related rocks, but is predominantly granodiorite (TheLIST 2016). Soils across the study area reflect this geology, with shallow topsoils over gravelly regolith derived from the granodiorite bedrock. Holocene age alluvium occurs along the river and creek valleys, notably along St Patricks River.
To both the west and east of the study area are sedimentary deposits of sandstone and siltstone (see Figure 2). The Panama group sandstone and siltstone covers a broad region east of the study area (TheLIST 2016). To the west, deposits of Sideling Sandstone are found in the north, while in the south are Lone Star Siltstone
11 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
formations. The Lone Star Siltstone dates to the Siluro-Devonian and is typically dominated by siltstone inter-bedded with quartz rick sandstone (TheLIST 2016). Discrete deposits of Tertiary basalt are located south west of the study area, along with an intrusion of Devonian era diorite (TheLIST 2016). Two small pockets of undifferentiated Tertiary sediments comprising non-marine gravel, silt, clay and regolith are also found in the hills to the west of the study area (TheLIST 2016).
Plate 6: The granodiorite bedrock that occurs throughout the study area
12 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Figure 2: Geology of the study area, derived from (TheLIST 2016)
13 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
3.0 Historic Background
The following comprises an historic overview of the European discovery, settlement and development of the Scottsdale region, and historic registry search results relating to the study area. The history of European settlement of this region is dominated by industry. Tin and gold mining became the focus of the region in the 1860s. This was in addition to significant logging and sawmills that operated throughout the forests of the north east. The region was also at the forefront of the development of hydro-electric power in Tasmania, and indeed nationally. Meanwhile, north of the Ringarooma River lies valuable agricultural land, supporting dairy, beef, sheep and food crops, that have long underpinned the Tasmanian economy.
3.1 Historical Overview The Scottsdale region was opened up by European explorers in the mid nineteenth century. While other parts of the state had been settled over fifty years earlier, the rugged terrain and thick forests of the north east somewhat stalled the European advance. In 1853, James Scott ventured into the north east, seeking land with the potential to support agriculture (Jennings via UTAS 2013).
In 1859, Scott selected the area around the modern town of Scottsdale as ‘Scott’s New Country’. Limited forest clearance and agriculture commenced (Jennings via UTAS 2013). However, it was the discovery of gold at Lyndhurst in 1869 that accelerated development of the region. The settlement at Ellesmere was established to support to hurriedly growing gold workings. Tin was later discovered at Derby, Branxholm and Moorina, providing further impetus for growth in the region (Jennings via UTAS 2013). The railway line was opened in 1889. The railway provided a vital service, linking the industries of the north east to the markets of Launceston and through to Hobart (Cairns 1999: 7).
In 1893, Ellesmere was renamed Scottsdale (Jennings via UTAS 2013).
Settlement Patterns The settlement history of the study area is characterised by initial small land grants, focused on the major water courses. These blocks were gradually taken over by the Tasmanian state in order to establish the extensive state forests that now dominate the region. Figures 3, 4 and 5 below show the ownership of land across the study area c.1940. These maps reveal the pattern of small blocks hugging watercourses such as St Patricks River.
The largest privately owned block within the study area was a land grant to the Scott family and encompasses much of the Camden/Diddleum Plains (Figure 5). This is one of the earlier land grants in the region, and reflects the influence of James Scott who was the first European to record the resources of the Scottsdale region and open it to European settlement.
14 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Figure 3: European settlement across the Northern portion of the study area, Dorset Parish map c. 1940, TheLIST 2016
Figure 4: European settlement across the mid portion of the study area, Dorset Parish map c. 1940, TheLIST 2016
15 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Figure 5: European settlement across the mid portion of the study area, Dorset Parish map c. 1940, TheLIST 2016
Mining The expansion of European settlement in north east Tasmania was shaped to a large degree by mining. In 1928 A.W. Loone (1928: 100) described ‘hundreds of miles of water races’ that had been cut into the hillsides of the north east since the 1860s. Mining was extensive and played a vital role in the economy of nineteenth century Tasmania and the establishment of the townships and industries of the North East.
In the 1860s the discovery of gold in North East Tasmania heralded the start of the mining boom (MacFarlane 2007:35). The Ringarooma itself held deposits of alluvial gold, although Cairns (1999:43) argues that the small percentage didn’t pay the return of labour. By 1882 Walch’s Almanac was reporting an end of gold mining in the district, with tin being the principal industry (MacFarlane 2007:37).
Tin mining became an important industry across Northern Tasmania from the 1870s, on the back of the gold rush (MacFarlane 2007: 36). Tin was mainly alluvial and relied on a supply of water to support the operations. Alluvial tin mining involved a significant amount of preparatory work to set up races, sluice boxes into an efficient system that could in many cases by run by only a few people. John Beswick (2003:23) provides a description of alluvial tin mining. A race was dug connecting the deposit to be mined with the river, and extending below the deposit. Then a sluice
16 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
box, a timber construction up to four metres long with a perforated metal top at the head, was set in the race. A miner stood at the top of the race and sorted the fine material so it was fed through the sluice box, with the remnants being shovelled out as overburden. A miner then stood at the sluice box and collected the tin from the metal pan, while the ‘tailings’ or remnants that had passed through the sluice box were deposited into the river.
The first tin mine in the district was opened at Boobyalla (Ringarooma) by George Bell in 1874, followed quickly by the establishment of the Brothers Home Mine by the Kushka brothers in what is now Derby (MacFarlane 2007: 36). Roy Kushka was one of the early tin miners, building a sluice box in the Ringarooma River which he used to mine alluvial tin (Cairns 1999: 43). Frederick Kushka laid claim to the Brothers Home Mine in October 1876 (Loone 1928: 54). Tin miners also operated just north of Herrick with Cairns recording a race leading from Chinaman’s Dam (1999: 43). Along the Wyniford River, known as the Blue Tier River by the early European settlers, a claim on a tin mine was set by the Watson brothers in 1876, with J. Clune claiming 80 acres to mine on the same day (Loone 1928): 52). In 1882 it was reported in Walch’s Almanac that 1716 pounds of tin had been exported from north east Tasmania (MacFarlane 2007: 37).
Mining is inextricably linked to large scale Chinese immigration to north east Tasmania. The 1880s were the peak decade for Chinese immigration with a population of 874 people of Chinese heritage registered as living in Tasmania in the 1881 census (MacFarlane 2007:140).
The impact of the Chinese migrants can be seen in their contribution to the mining industry and today Chinese cemeteries are dotted across the landscape of the tin mining districts. Although, as MacFarlane (2007:212) notes, the bodies of Chinese immigrants who died in Australia were quite often shipped back to China for burial. A.W. Loone (1928:56) gives a vivid description of the treatment of a body of a Chinese miner who died from leprosy in the 1920s. The ill man was being transported by bullock team into Ringarooma when he died. His body was returned to the mining camp where the miners built a timber coffin and set it in an excavated grave. The grave was not filled in, and over the following fortnight offerings of food were placed on the coffin.
Weldborough, 40km east of the study area, was a centre for the Chinese population in north east Tasmania (MacFarlane 2007:141). The new Chinese workforce rapidly engaged in the tin mining industry, operating mines across the district, including on the Wyniford River (MacFarlane 2007:141).
Forestry Forestry in Tasmania was initially established to support the local shipbuilding industry, and therefore was important to the development of the colony in the early nineteenth century (Felton via UTAS 2013). In 1851, a series of changes to land ownership legislation encouraged people to purchase forested Crown land, and led
17 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
to broader scale land clearance. By the mid nineteenth century, Tasmanian forests were supplying timber to Melbourne, towns in the Victorian goldfields, and even overseas. Further concessions were made in the later nineteenth century and into the twentieth century to encourage operators to establish processing plants, and support a local paper making industry (Felton via UTAS 2013).
The Pioneer Timber Company was one of the main operators, with a large sawmill on the Ok Loop road between the Moorina power station and Garibaldi (Cairns 1999: 24). In his history of Herrick, Peter Cairns describes the horse drawn tramway that built to transport logs from the Pioneer Timber Company into Herrick (Cairns 1999:24). The tramway was closed in 1928, and the bridge across the Ringarooma River was destroyed in the floods of 1929 (Cairns 1999: 25). Originally powered by teams of men and bullocks, by the 1920s the Pioneer Mill had a power driven vertical saw and steam driven log haulers to transport logs into Herrick (Loone 1928: 45).
Hydro Power Tasmania was at the forefront of the introduction of hydro-electric technology in Australia. The opening of the Moorina Power Station in 1909 was only the fourth hydro-electric scheme in Australia, and three of these were in Tasmania. As part of this pioneering technology the Frome Dam was the first rock fill dam to be built in Australia. A water race 2.7km long connected the Frome Dam to the Moorina Power Station. The Frome Dam was built by the Pioneer Tin Mining Company and later run by the Endurance Tin Mining Company (Rivers and Water Supply Commission 1972: 26). The Moorina (also known as Frome) power station could generate 1 100 horsepower at 6 000 volts for six months of each year.
Conclusion Mining and forestry continued to operate as the major industries of the Scottsdale region throughout the later nineteenth and early twentieth century. This was supported by a smaller scale agricultural industry, which was boosted following WWII with the establishment of a vegetable processing factory (Jennings via UTAS 2013). Forestry continues to be a major business in the region, with numerous hardwood eucalypt plantations, including within the present study area.
18 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Plate 7: Undated postcard showing forestry operations at Lebrina near Scottsdale (Tasmanian Library, State Library of Tasmania) http://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/S/Scottsdale.htm
Plate 8: View from the Scottsdale Sidling Sawmill, Spurling 1903-1930, National Library of Australia.
19 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
3.2 Heritage Register Search Results There are several heritage registers that operate in Tasmania and contain records of European heritage sites. Those consulted for the present study were: Tasmanian Historic Places Index (THPI) Register of the National Estate (archival; RNE) Tasmanian Heritage Register (THR) Mineral Resources Tasmania Deposits Database (MDD)
There are no previously registered sites within the bounds of the proposed SIS Stage 1 additional development footprint areas. There are, however, five previously registered sites in the general vicinity of the study area.
The previously recorded sites include a tin mine, two alluvial gold mine workings, a tramline and quarry. This reflects the intensive mining that has historically occurred across the study area (Entura 2012).
The five sites listed on heritage registers are shown on Figures 6 and 7 below, and listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Registered Historic Sites within the vicinity of the study area Site # Site Name Easting Northing Heritage Location Register Description 8315 057 Maurice 540713 5428384 THPI Located on High Plains the western Tin Mine slopes of Mt Scott. 8315 119 Hudsons 537113 5426884 THPI Northern Greeta bank of St Tramline Patricks River, west of the study area. 1770 Unnamed 539593 5426684 MDD Northern alluvial gold bank of St workings Patricks River, east of the study area. 1758 Unnamed 539435 5426109 MDD Northern gold mine bank of St Patricks River, east of the study area. 7129 Unnamed 537365 5424334 MDD West of quarry proposed Camden Rivulet dam.
20 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Figure 6: Location of previously registered historic sites in relation to the proposed SIS Stage 1 Additional Footprint Areas
Figure 7: Location of previously registered historic sites in relation to the proposed SIS Stage 1 Additional Footprint Areas
21 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
4.0 Survey Coverage of the Study Area
4.1 Survey Coverage and Surface Visibility Survey coverage refers to the estimated portion of a study area that has actually been visually inspected during a field survey.
Surface Visibility refers to the extent to which the actual soils of the ground surface are available for inspection. There are a number of factors that can affect surface visibility, including vegetation cover, surface water and the presence introduced gravels or materials (see Figure 8 for guidelines to surface visibility).
The Borrow Pit The field team walked a series of 7.4km of survey transects throughout the proposed borrow pit footprint which encompasses around 100ha. The average width of the transects was 10m. These transects were aligned to provide coverage across the entire extent of the borrow pit footprint. This equates to a survey coverage of 74 000m².
The borrow pit area is sited within forestry coupes, which have recently been harvested. Surface visibility across this area was generally low-medium, constrained to an estimated average of 40%. The main impediment to visibility was vegetation cover. There are a series of forestry vehicle tracks as well as erosion scalds present throughout the area which provided locales of improved visibility.
The Expanded Camden Rivulet Dam Footprint Within the two small expansion areas of the Camden Rivulet Dam footprint (totalling 8ha), the field team walked a combined total of 1.2km of survey transects, with the average width of each transect being 10m. A total of 300m of transects was walked across the smaller western area, and 800m of transects across the larger northern area. This equates to a survey coverage of 12 000m².
Surface visibility within the two minor expansions to the footprint of the Camden Rivulet Dam footprint was variable. The first area, which is situated on the west edge of the dam footprint, is sited within a logged forestry coupe. Surface visibility in this area was good (70%). The second area is located on the north edge of the dam footprint, and is sited within a forestry coupe which was not logged. Visibility in this area was restricted to around 30%.
The Transfer Pipeline Corridor The entire length of the 5.5km long transfer pipeline corridor, between the St Patricks Pump Station site and the Headquarters Road Dam, was inspected by the field team. As detailed previously, the pipeline corridor width has been expanded from 20 to 30m to accommodate a power line easement. The field team walked a single 5m wide corridor along either side of the expanded corridor. This equates to a survey coverage of 55 000m².
22 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Surface visibility along the 5.5km length of the transfer pipeline corridor was restricted to an estimated average of 20%, due primarily to vegetation cover. Again, the occasional vehicle track and erosion scalds providing discreet locales of improved visibility.
The Two Access Track Alignments The field team walked a single 10m wide survey corridor along each of the two proposed access track routes associated with the Camden Rivulet Dam (both of which are around 1.5km in length). This equates to a survey coverage of 30 000m².
Surface visibility along the proposed 1.5km long access road between the borrow pit area and the northern end of the Camden Rivulet Dam was excellent, averaging 80%. The proposed track alignment follows an existing graded vehicle track. Surface visibility along the second proposed access track (also 1.5km in length), which loops around the southern end of the Camden Rivulet Dam footprint, was low, averaging 20%. This track runs through forestry plantations and remnant patches of native forests. Some sections of the alignment follow existing vehicle tracks, however the majority of the route traverses thick vegetation.
The map series showing the survey transects walked by the field team is presented in Appendix 1.
Full (100%) High (75%) Medium (50%) Low (24%) None (0%) Figure 6: Guidelines for the estimation of surface visibility
4.2 Effective coverage Variations in both survey coverage and surface visibility have a direct bearing on the ability of a field team to detect historic heritage sites, particularly site types such as building foundations, which may be buried under vegetation and soils. The combination of survey coverage and surface visibility is referred to as effective survey coverage. Table 2 presents the estimated effective survey coverage achieved within the surveyed areas of the SIS Stage 1 additional footprint areas.
23 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Table 2: Effective Survey Coverage achieved within the SIS Stage 1 study area Development Area Total Area Surveyed Estimated Effective Surface Survey Visibility Coverage Borrow Pit 7 400m x 10m = 74 000m² 40% 29 600m² Expanded Camden 300m x 10m = 3 000m² 70% 2 100m² Rivulet Dam 900m x 10m = 9 000m² 30% 2 700m² Footprint Transfer Pipeline 5 500m x 10m = 55 000m² 20% 11 000m² Corridor Two Access Track 1 500m x 10m = 15 000m² 80% 12 000m² Alignments 1 500m x 10m = 15 000m² 20% 3 000m² TOTAL 171 000 m² 60 400m²
Plate 9: View west across the Borrow Pit area showing typical conditions of surface visibility
24 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Plate 10: View south-east across the small expanded footprint on the west side of the Camden Rivulet Dam area
Plate 11: View north along a section of the transfer pipeline corridor passing through Forestry coupes
25 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Plate 12: View south along the forestry track which is proposed to be used as an access road between the Borrow Pit area and the Camden Rivulet Dam
Plate 13: View south east along the alignment of the proposed access route that runs around the southern perimeter of the Camden Rivulet Dam footprint
26 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
5.0 Survey Results and Statement of Potential Heritage Impacts
No Historic heritage sites or features were identified during the survey assessment of the SIS Stage 1 additional footprint areas. Although surface visibility was constrained across various parts of the study area (see section 4), the negative findings are still assessed as being an accurate reflection of the general absence of historic sites and features in this area.
The previous survey assessment of the original SIS Stage 1 footprint resulted in the identification of two historic sites (HS1 and HS2). Both sites are located within the original SIS stage 1 area, and are just to the east of the expanded Stage 1 footprint. Figure 7 shows the location of these two sites. The two sites are both European logging trees, representative of the historical forestry industry. The sites feature large eucalypt stumps, marked with footholds for the foresters to climb the tree. The heights at which these men worked, working large, double handled saws demonstrates the danger invested in this work. The Camden Plains were for most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, fairly remote, with the nearest settlements over ten kilometres away through rugged country. There is potential for further sites of this type to be present on the margins of the study area. However, such sites will only occur on the edges of the historically cleared areas. The vast majority of that portion of the Camden Plains within the study area consists of modern plantations and cleared land. It is therefore unlikely that other sites will occur within the bounds of the study area.
As described in section 3.2, the search of the heritage registers shows that there are no known historic heritage sites located within the SIS Stage 1 expanded footprint area.
Based on the findings of the current survey assessment, together with the outcomes of the heritage register searches and the previous survey assessment undertaken by CHMA (2013), it is advised that there are no identified historic features located within the bounds of the expanded SIS Stage 1 footprint. It is assessed that there is a very low potential for undetected historic features to be present within the expanded footprint.
27 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Figure 7: The location of historic sites HS1 and HS2 in relation to the SIS Stage 1 Additional footprint Areas and the original sis Stage 1 Study Area
28 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
6.0 Statutory Controls and Legislative Requirements The following provides a summary overview of the various legislative instruments and statutory requirements relating to historic heritage in Tasmania. The review is presented in order to provide the proponent with a basic understanding of the statutory frameworks and procedures relating to heritage in Tasmania.
6.1 National Conventions Council of Australian Governments Agreement 1997 In 1997, COAG reached an agreement on Commonwealth, State and local government roles and responsibilities for heritage management. Local government, through the Australian Local Government Association, and the Tasmanian Government were both signatories to this Agreement. The Agreement resulted in the following outcomes: - Acceptance of a tiered model of heritage management, with the definition of places as being of either, world, national, state or of local heritage significance; - Nominations of Australian places for the World Heritage List and management of Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention would be carried out by the Commonwealth Government; - A new National Heritage System on one was created in January 2004, comprising the Australian Heritage Council (AHC), National Heritage List (NHL) and Commonwealth Heritage List (CHL); - The Commonwealth Government, through the Australian Heritage Council would be responsible for listing, protecting and managing heritage places of national significance; - State and Territory Governments would be responsible for listing, protecting and managing heritage places of state significance; and - Local government would be responsible for listing, protecting and managing heritage places of local significance.
Environment Protection and Heritage Council of the Australian and State/Territory Governments 1998 In 1998, the National Heritage Convention proposed a set of common criteria to be used in order to better assess, understand and manage the heritage values of places.
The Environment Protection and Heritage Council of the Australian and State/Territory Governments adopted this as a national set of desirable common criteria (known as the HERCON criteria). The adoption of these criteria by Heritage Tasmania has not yet been formalised. These criteria are also based upon the Burra Charter values. The Common Criteria (HERCON Criteria) adopted in April 2008 are summarised below: a) Importance to the course or pattern of our cultural or natural history. b) Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of our cultural or natural history.
29 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
c) Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of our cultural or natural history. d) Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or environments. e) Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics f) Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period. g) Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. This includes the significance of a place to Indigenous peoples as part of their continuing and developing cultural traditions. h) Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in our history.
These criteria have been endorsed by the Heritage Chairs and Officials of Australia and New Zealand (HCOANZ) in the Supporting Local Government Project document, “Protecting Local Heritage Places: A National Guide for Local Government and Communities” (March 2009).
Burra Charter 1999 Australia ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) is the peak body of professionals working in heritage conservation in Australia. The Burra Charter was adopted by Australia ICOMOS in 1979 in Burra, South Australia based on other international conventions. Further revisions were adopted in 1981, 1988 and 1999 to ensure the Charter continues to reflect best practice in heritage and conservation management. The current version of the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 1999 is the only version that should be used.
The Burra Charter provides guidance for the conservation and management of places of cultural significance (cultural heritage places), and is based on the knowledge and experience of Australian ICOMOS members. The Charter sets a standard of practice for those who provide advice, make decisions about, or undertake works to places of cultural significance, including owners, managers and custodians.
The Charter recognises the need to involve people in the decision-making process, particularly those that have strong associations with a place. It also advocates a cautious approach to changing heritage places: do as much as necessary to care for the place and to make it useable, but otherwise change it as little as possible so that its cultural significance is retained.
6.2 Commonwealth Legislation Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) provides for the listing of natural, historic or indigenous places that are of outstanding
30 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
national heritage value to the Australian nation as well as heritage places on Commonwealth lands and waters under Australian Government control.
Once a heritage place is listed under the EPBC Act, special requirements come into force to ensure that the values of the place will be protected and conserved for future generations. The following heritage lists are established through the EPBC Act: - National Heritage List - a list of places of natural, historic and indigenous places that are of outstanding national heritage value to the Australian nation - Commonwealth Heritage List - a list of natural, historic and indigenous places of significance owned or controlled by the Australian Government. - List of Overseas Places of Historic Significance to Australia – this list recognises symbolically sites of outstanding historic significance to Australia but not under Australian jurisdiction.
Australian Heritage Council Act 2003 The Australian Heritage Council is a body of heritage experts that has replaced the Australian Heritage Commission as the Australian Government's independent expert advisory body on heritage matters when the new Commonwealth Heritage System was introduced in 2004 under amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity and Conservation Act 1999.
The Council plays a key role in assessment, advice and policy formulation and support of major heritage programs. Its main responsibilities are to assess and nominate places for the National Heritage List and the Commonwealth Heritage List, promote the identification, assessment, conservation and monitoring of heritage; and advise the Minister on various heritage matters.
Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 The PMCH Act regulates the export of cultural heritage objects from Australia. The purpose of the Act is to protect, for the benefit of the nation, objects which if exported would significantly diminish Australia's cultural heritage. Some Australian protected objects of Aboriginal, military heritage and historical significance cannot be granted a permit for export. Other Australian protected objects may be exported provided a permit or certificate has been obtained.
6.3 State Legislation Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 This Act (LUPA) is the cornerstone of the State Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS). It establishes the legitimacy of local planning schemes and regulates land use planning and development across Tasmania. With regard to historic heritage, LUPAA requires that planning authorities will work to conserve those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value‟ [Schedule 1 Part 2(g)].
31 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Resource Planning and Development Commission Act 1997 The Resource Planning and Development Commission (now referred to as the Tasmanian Planning Commission) is responsible for overseeing Tasmania’s planning system, approving planning schemes and amendments to schemes and assessing Projects of State Significance. In terms of heritage management, the TPC will consider the establishment of heritage overlays, precincts or areas as part of the creation of planning schemes.
Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal Act 1993 The Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal determine planning appeals and enforce the Acts within the RMPS. The Tribunal plays an important role in the management of heritage places through its determinations on proposed development on, or near to, places of heritage significance.
Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 The Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 (HCH Act) is the key piece of Tasmanian legislation for the identification, assessment and management of historic cultural heritage places. The stated purpose of the HCH Act is to promote the identification, assessment, protection and conservation of places having historic cultural heritage significance and to establish the Tasmanian Heritage Council‟. The HCH Act also includes the requirements to: - establish and maintain the Tasmanian Heritage Register (THR); - provide for a system for a system of approvals for work on places on the Register; - provide for Heritage Agreements and assistance to property owners; - provide for protection of shipwrecks; - provide for control mechanisms and penalties for breaches of the Act.
Under the HCH Act, “conservation‟ in relation to a place is defined as - the retention of the historic cultural heritage significance of the place; and - any maintenance, preservation, restoration, reconstruction and adaption of the place.
The definition of “place‟ under the HCH Act includes: - a site, precinct or parcel of land; - any building or part of a building; - any shipwreck; - any item in or on, or historically or physically associated or connected with, a site precinct or parcel of land where the primary importance of the item derives in part from its association with that site, precinct or parcel of land; and - any equipment, furniture, fittings, and articles in or on, or historically or physically associated or connected with any building or item.
The Act created the Tasmanian Heritage Council (THC), which came into existence in 1997 and operates within the State RMPS. The THC is a statutory body, separate
32 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
from government, which is responsible for the administration of the HCH Act and the establishment of the Tasmanian Heritage Register (THR), which lists all places assessed as having heritage values of state significance. The THC also assesses works that may affect the heritage significance of places and provides advice to state and local government on heritage matters. The primary task of the THC is as a resource management and planning body, which is focused on heritage conservation issues. Any development on heritage-listed places requires the approval of the THC before works can commence.
Heritage Tasmania (HT), which is part of the Department of Primary Industry, Parks, Water and the Environment, also plays a key role in fulfilling statutory responsibilities under the HCH Act.
HT has three core roles: - coordinating historic heritage strategy and activity for the State Government; - supporting the Tasmanian Heritage Council to implement the HCH Act; and - facilitating the development of the historic heritage register.
The Heritage Council may enter a place in the Heritage Register if it satisfied that the place has historic cultural heritage significance by meeting one or more of eight individual criteria. Aesthetic characteristics of a place now form the eighth criterion against which heritage significance may be assessed.
Works to places included in the THR require approval, either through a Certificate of Exemption for works which will have no or negligible impact, or through a discretionary permit for those works which may impact on the significance of the place.
Discretionary permit applications are lodged with the relevant local planning authority. On receipt, the application is sent to the Heritage Council, which will firstly decide whether they have an interest in determining the application. If the Heritage Council has no interest in the matter, the local planning authority will determine the application.
If the Heritage Council has an interest in determining the application, a number of matters may be relevant to its decision. This includes the likely impact of the works on the significance of the place; any representations; and any regulations and works guidelines issued under the HCH Act. The Heritage Council may also consult with the planning authority when making a decision.
In making a decision, the Heritage Council will exercise one of three options: consent to the discretionary permit being granted; consent to the discretionary permit being granted subject to certain conditions; or advise the planning authority that the discretionary permit should be refused. The Heritage Council’s decision is then forwarded to the planning authority, which will incorporate the decision into any planning permit
33 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Works Guidelines for Historic Heritage Places The Tasmanian Heritage Council and Heritage Tasmania have issued Works Guidelines for Historic Heritage Places. The guidelines provide a general reference for the types of works, which may be exempt, or those where a permit will be required. They also define appropriate outcomes for a range of different works and development scenarios. Although specifically designed for places included in the THR, the guidelines provide useful advice for the management of heritage places generally.
6.4 Local Planning Schemes In accordance with the requirements of the Land Use Planning and Approvals ACT 1993 (LUPAA), Local Planning Schemes have been established throughout Tasmania in accordance with regional divisions of the state.
The current study area falls within the local government area of Dorset with the requirements of use or development of land within the area governed by the Dorset Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (DIPS). The provisions within the DIPS are designed to be read together with the LUPAA and are based on the Regional Model Planning Scheme.
34 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
7.0 Heritage Management Plan The heritage management options and recommendations provided in this report are made on the basis of the following criteria. - The legal and procedural requirements as summarised in section 6.0 of this report, with specific reference to the Work Guidelines for Historic Heritage Places. - The results of the investigation as documented in section 5.0 of the report. - Background research into the extant archaeological and historic record for the study area and its surrounding regions (see section 3).
The recommendations are aimed at minimising the impact of the proposed SIS Stage 1 additional works on historic heritage.
Recommendation 1 No Historic heritage sites or features were identified during the survey assessment of the SIS Stage 1 additional footprint areas. The search of the heritage registers shows that there are no known historic heritage sites located within the SIS Stage 1 expanded footprint area.
Based on these negative findings, it is advised that there are no historic heritage constraints or requirements for the SIS Stage 1 additional footprint.
Recommendation 2 CHMA (2013) identified two historic heritage sites during the heritage assessment of the original SIS Stage 1 development (HS1 and HS2). Both sites are located within the original SIS stage 1 area, and are just to the east of the expanded Stage 1 footprint.
The recommendations for these two sites are presented in the SIS Stage 1 Historic heritage assessment report prepared by CHMA (2013).
Recommendation 3 If suspected historic heritage sites or features are identified during the course of construction works within the SIS Stage 1 additional footprint areas, then the procedures outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan provided in Section 8 should be followed.
Recommendation 4 Copies of this report should be submitted to Heritage Tasmania for their records.
35 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
8.0 Unanticipated Discovery Plan
The following text describes the proposed method for dealing with unanticipated discoveries of heritage features or objects during the proposed construction of the SIS Stage 1 additional works. The plan provides guidance to project personnel so that they may meet their obligations with respect to heritage legislation.
Please Note: There are two different processes presented for the mitigation of these unanticipated discoveries. The first process applies for the discovery of all cultural heritage objects or features, with the exception of skeletal remains (burials). The second process applies exclusively to the discovery of skeletal remains (burials).
Discovery of Heritage Objects or Features Step 1 If any person believes that they have discovered or uncovered a heritage object or feature, the individual should notify any machinery operators that are working in the general vicinity of the area that earth disturbance works should stop immediately.
Step 2 A buffer protection zone of 5m x 5m should be established around the suspected heritage find. No unauthorised entry or earth disturbance will be allowed within this ‘archaeological zone’ until such time as the suspected heritage find has been assessed, and appropriate mitigation measures have been carried out.
Step 3 A qualified heritage practitioner should be engaged to assess the suspected heritage find.
If the heritage find is a movable object, then the find should be recorded, photographed and a decision should be made as to whether the object should be re-located to a designated Keeping Place.
If the find is an unmovable heritage object or feature then the find should be recorded and photographed and a HIA and HMP developed for the feature. This should be then submitted to Heritage Tasmania (HT) for review and advice.
Discovery of Skeletal Material Step 1 Under no circumstances should the suspected skeletal remains be touched or disturbed. If these are human remains, then this area potentially is a crime scene. Tampering with a crime scene is a criminal offence.
36 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Step 2 Any person discovering suspected skeletal remains should notify machinery operators that are working in the general vicinity of the area that earth disturbing works should stop immediately. Remember health and safety requirements when approaching machinery operators.
Step 3 A buffer protection zone of 50m x 50m should be established around the suspected skeletal remains. No unauthorised entry or earth disturbance will be allowed with this buffer zone until such time as the suspected skeletal remains have been assessed.
Step 4 The relevant authorities (police) will be contacted and informed of the discovery.
Step 5 Should the skeletal remains be suspected to be of Aboriginal origin, then Section 23 of the Coroners Act 1995 will apply. This is as follows:
1) The Attorney General may approve an Aboriginal organisation for the purposes of this section. 2) If, at any stage after a death is reported under section 19(1), a coroner suspects that any human remains relating to that death may be Aboriginal remains, the coroner must refer the matter to an Aboriginal organisation approved by the Attorney General (In this instance TALSC). 3) If a coroner refers a matter to an Aboriginal organisation approved by the Attorney-General – (a) The coroner must not carry out any investigations or perform any duties or functions under this Act in respect of the remains; and (b) The Aboriginal organisation must, as soon as practicable after the matter is referred to it, investigate the remains and prepare a report for the coroner. 4) If the Aboriginal organisation in its report to the coroner advises that the remains are Aboriginal remains, the jurisdiction of the coroner under this Act in respect of the remains ceases and this Act does not apply to the remains. In this instance the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 will apply, and relevant Permits will need to be obtained before any further actions can be taken. 5) If the Aboriginal organisation in its report to the coroner advises that the remains are not Aboriginal remains, the coroner may resume the investigation in respect of the remains.
37 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
References Cited
Beswick, J. 2003 Brother’s Home: the Story of Derby, Tasmania. R.J. & D. M. Beswick: Gravely Beach, Tasmania.
Cairns, P. 1999 Nekah: A History of Herrick. T.D. (Peter) Cairns: Herrick.
Dorset Council 2013 Dorset Interim Planning Scheme, Section E13.0 Local Historic Heritage Code. Dorset Council, Dorset Tas. Accessed via http://www.dorset.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Dorset% 20Interim%20Planning%20Scheme%20-%20Zones%20- %2020%20October%202013.pdf
Entura 2012 GFBIS Preliminary historic heritage desktop assessment. Unpublished report to Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd.
The List 2016 TheLIST: Land Information Systems Tasmania website, Department of Primary Industries and Water, Hobart, Tasmania. Accessed April 2016 from
Loone, A.W. 1928 Tasmania’s North East. The Examiner and Weekly Courier: Launceston.
MacFarlane, W.H. 2007 MacFarlane’s History of North East Tasmania. Ed. John Beswick. North-Eastern Advertiser: Scottsdale.
Spurling, S. c.1903-1930 From Scottsdale Sidling [sic]. Photograph. NLAPIC – an21697618-5.
UTAS 2013 Companion to Tasmanian History. University of Tasmania, Hobart. Accessed via http://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_histor y/, 20th November 2013.
Jennings, J. ‘Scottsdale’. http://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_histor y/S/Scottsdale.htm
Felton, K. ‘Forestry’. http://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_histor y/F/Forestry.htm
38 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Appendix 1
Map Series Showing Survey Transects Walked Across Additional SIS Stage 1 Areas
39 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Figure 1: Survey Transects walked within the SIS Stage 1 Additional Footprint Areas
40 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Figure 2: Survey Transects walked within the SIS Stage 1 Additional Footprint Areas
41 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
Figure 3: Survey Transects walked within the SIS Stage 1 Additional Footprint Areas
42 Scottsdale Irrigation Scheme (Stage 1) Additional Areas: Historic Heritage Assessment Addendum Report CHMA 2016
43 GHD
2 Salamanca Square T: 61 3 6210 0600 F: 61 3 6210 0601 E: [email protected]
© GHD 2017 This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited. 3218294- 51373/https://projects.ghd.com/oc/Tasmania/sisbenbullenquarryee/Delivery/Documents/Benbullen Quarry EER.docx Document Status Revision Author Reviewer Approved for Issue Name Signature Name Signature Date Rev A D Elson A Jungalwalla DRAFT A Jungalwalla DRAFT 29/11/2016
0 D.Elson A.Jungalwalla A.Jungalwalla 12/12/2016
1 Various D.Elson D.Elson 23/02/2017 www.ghd.com