Draft Strategic Assessment for the Water Access Program Midlands Water Scheme, Tasmania

Strategic Impact Assessment Report Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

September 2010

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Copyright State of Tasmania 2010 Material contained in the report provided is subject to Australian copyright law. Other than in accordance with t he Copyright Act 1968 of t he Commonwealth Parliament, no par t of t his report may, in any form or by any means, be r eproduced, transmitted or used. T his report cannot be redistributed for any commercial purpose whatsoever, or distributed to a third party for such purpose, without prior written permission being sought from the Department of Primary I ndustries, Parks, Water and E nvironment, on behalf of t he Crown in R ight of t he State of Tasmania.

Disclaimer Whilst the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment has made every attempt to ensure the accuracy and r eliability of the information and data provided, it is the responsibility of the da ta use r to make t heir o wn deci sions about t he accuracy, cu rrency, reliability and co rrectness of i nformation provided. T he D epartment of Primary I ndustries, Parks, Water and Environment, its employees and agents, and the Crown in the Right of the State of Tasmania do n ot accept any liability for any damage caused by, or economic loss arising from, reliance on this information.

Preferred Citation DPIPWE (2010), Draft Strategic Assessment for the Water Access Program, Midlands Water Scheme, Tasmania – Strategic Impact Assessment., Hobart.

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Major Projects Branch GPO Box 44, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001 www.dpipwe.tas.gov.au

Published September 2010

ISBN 978-0-7246-6563-1 The Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) The D epartment o f P rimary I ndustries, P arks, Water and E nvironment provides leadership in the sustainable management and development of Tasmania’s natural resources. The Mission of the Department is to support Tasmania’s development by ensuring effective management of our natural resources.

Document History

Version Date Reason Sections

V0.1 30 September 2010 Approved Draft for All Public Release

Table of Contents PART 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 6 PART 2 INTRODUCTION ...... 16 2.1 OBJECTIVES ...... 16 2.2 WHAT IS A STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT UNDER THE EPBC ACT? ...... 16 PART 3 PROJECT PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION ...... 18 3.1 PROGRAM SUMMARY ...... 18 3.1.1 Location of the Midlands Water Scheme ...... 18 3.1.2 Water Access System ...... 21 3.1.3 Operational Processes – Allocation of Water ...... 25 3.1.4 Construction Processes – MWS Infrastructure Development ...... 26 3.2 LEGAL STANDING ...... 29 3.3 ACTIONS TO BE INCLUDED ...... 29 3.4 TASMANIAN APPROVALS PROCESS ...... 30 3.4.1 Statutory Framework and Implementation ...... 30 3.4.2 Assessment under the Water Management Act 1999 ...... 36 3.4.3 Assessment under the Irrigation Clauses Act 1973 ...... 38 3.4.4 Summary of Responsibilities ...... 40 3.5 STUDY AREA ...... 51 3.5.1 Regional Context ...... 51 3.6 THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ...... 52 PART 4 PROMOTING ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT...... 62 4.1 PROMOTION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ...... 62 4.1.1 Planning and Design process ...... 62 4.1.2 Promotion of the Principles of Ecological Sustainable Development ...... 62 4.2 INTEGRATION OF BOTH LONG-TERM AND SHORT-TERM ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS ...... 64 4.3 PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE ...... 64 4.4 INTER-GENERATIONAL EQUITY ...... 65 4.5 CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY ...... 67 4.6 IMPROVED VALUATION, PRICING AND INCENTIVE MECHANISMS .... 68 PART 5 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ...... 71 5.1 COMPONENTS OF BIODIVERSITY, ECOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES ...... 71 5.2 LISTED AND NOMINATED COMMUNITIES UNDER THE EPBC ACT ..... 71

5.2.1 Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania ...... 72 5.3 LISTED AND NOMINATED THREATENED SPECIES UNDER THE EPBC ACT ...... 75 5.3.1 High Risk Threatened Species that Predominantly Inhabit Lowland Native Grasslands ...... 78 5.3.1.1 Flora ...... 78 5.3.1.2 Fauna ...... 83 5.3.2 High Risk Threatened Species that Predominantly Inhabit Other Areas ...... 84 5.3.2.1 Flora ...... 84 5.3.2.2 Fauna ...... 85 5.4 LISTED MIGRATORY SPECIES ...... 89 5.5 RAMSAR WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE ...... 90 5.6 NATIONAL HERITAGE SITES ...... 90 5.7 WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTIES ...... 90 PART 6 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ...... 93 6.1 STRATEGIC MITIGATION APPROACH ...... 93 6.1.1 Identification of Threats, Avoidance of Key Sites and Populations ...... 93 6.1.2 Sustainable use of Water ...... 95 6.1.3 Dealing with Climate Change ...... 102 6.1.4 Threatening Processes ...... 103 6.1.4.1 Land Clearance ...... 103 6.1.4.2 Loss of Terrestrial Climatic Habitat Caused by Anthropogenic Emissions of Greenhouse Gases ...... 103 6.1.4.3 Infection of Amphibians with Chytrid Fungus resulting in Chytridiomycosis ...... 104 6.1.5 Monitoring Success of Strategic Measures ...... 104 6.2 COMPONENTS OF BIODIVERSITY, ECOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES ...... 105 6.3 IMPACTS ON MNES ...... 108 6.3.1 Impacts on listed and nominated communities under the EPBC Act ...... 111 6.3.2 Impacts on listed and nominated threatened speices under the EPBC Act ...... 112 6.3.3 Impacts on listed migratory species under the EPBC Act ...... 114 6.3.4 Impacts on wetlands of international importance ...... 114 6.3.5 Impacts on listed national heritage places under the EPBC Act . 115 6.3.6 Impacts on listed world heritage places under the EPBC Act ..... 116 6.4 INFORMATION SOURCES AND CONFIDENCE LEVELS ...... 117 6.5 MANAGEMENT COMMITMENTS ...... 118 PART 7 AUDITING, REPORTING AND REVIEW ...... 128 7.1 Monitoring, Reporting and Adaptive Management ...... 128

PART 8 CONCLUSION ...... 131 PART 9 INTERPRETATIONS AND DEFINITIONS ...... 132 PART 10 REFERENCES ...... 135 PART 11 APPENDICES ...... 144

FOREWORD The Midlands Water Scheme is a sustainable irrigatio n infrastructure project that will substantially contribute to irrigation water us e efficiency and provi de benefits to the Tasmanian primary industry sector. It is one of a suite of regionally significant ir rigation projects which are being jointly funded th rough Commonwealth, State an d private arrangements. To ensure protection of the envi ronment, th e Tasmanian Govern ment has signed an agreement with the Australian Minister for Environment Protection, He ritage Protection and the Arts under section 1 46 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to u ndertake a Strategic Impact Assessment on certain matters of national environmental significance. The Strategic Impact Assessment will ensure environmental impacts are properly considered and that en vironmental protection m easures are adequately in pla ce to safeguard nationally protected matters for the long term. Under the Agreement, the Tasma nian Government must demonstrate its commitment to implementing and monitoring strate gies that manage, mitigate and offset environmental impacts throughout the life of the Midlands Water Scheme. Following p ublic consultation, the Tasmania n Government will co nsider the comments received and make a se ries of commitments outlining how matters of n ational environmental significance will be protected in the areas concerning the Midlands Water Scheme. The benefits to the en vironment of this strategic approach are considera ble and support the achievement of sustainable outcomes. Long term and cu mulative impacts of actions can be anticipated from the be ginning rath er than on a case-by base basis. This will pr ovide a streamlined process with greater certainty that environme ntal protect ion and con servation practices will be in place.

Kim Evans Secretary Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

PART 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The impact assessment report presents the find ings of the strategic assessment undertaken for the Program (defined in Section 3.1). The Program encompasses the W ater Access Program for the ‘Midla nds Water Scheme’, Tasmania, including relevant construction and operation aspects. The Program components include: i. The Water Access System – the sy stems and processe s developed to meet legal requir ements and enable su stainable on-farm use of irrigat ion water provided by the Midlands Water Scheme within the Program area (Figure 1). ii. Operation Aspects – pr ocesses tha t determine water avail ability and provide certainty of access to water from the ‘Midlands Water Scheme’ on a sustainable basis. iii. Construction Aspects – the processes th at provide for the plann ing and assessment of infrastru cture developm ent to service the proposed ‘Midlands Water Scheme’. The Program commits to no clear ance and conversion of Lowland Native Gras slands of Tasmania, and no significant impacts on other Matters of N ational Environmental Significance (MNES), unless the Commonwealth Environment Minister approves otherwise. The proposed MWS extends acro ss three local government areas: th e Central Highlands, Northern and Southern Midlands municipalities incorporat ing areas fr om Longford in th e north to Eld erslie in the south. The Midlands region is a biodiversity hotspot and was a priority region for investigation under the National Action Plan for Salinity and Wate r Quality (COAG 2000). The MWS will deliver up to 47,50 0ML of irrigation water annually from two wate r sources: Arthurs Lake in the Central Highlands (38,500ML) and the South Esk River (9000ML) located on the eastern boundary of the northern Midlands. The scheme is intended to deliver water to approximately 491 farms across the region, which the Program has identified as having land suitable for irrigation. Within the assessment area there is an estimated total area of 71,105 ha of land suitable for irrigation1. The delivery of water will occur th rough two ir rigation sch emes with a total en compassed area of approximately 314,000 ha (Appendix B):  Arthurs Pipeline irrigat ion scheme (encompassed area 247,390 ha) – a gravity/pumped supply from Arthurs Lake, and  Lower Sout h Esk irriga tion scheme (encompassed area 65,220 ha) – a pumpe d supply from the South Esk River. Each of the se irrigation schemes will use, i n part, river sections for t he transmission and supply of some of the irrigation water. Pipelines will al so be used for the supply and distribution of irrigation water. The objectives of the strategic assessment are:

1 Land suitable for irrigation has been identified using land which meets the following criteria:  Land classed 3, 4 or 5 under the Tasmanian Land Classification system  Land that is not currently used for roading or other infrastructure on farm  Land that is currently cleared of native vegetation  Land that is topographically suited to irrigation  Soils suited to development 6.

 to undertake a strategic assessment of the Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) in the area to which the Program relates;  to ensure the impacts of the Program on MNES are considered; and  to identify appropriate mitigation measures for any impacts on MNES. The outcomes sought from the strategic assessment are:  to consider MNES as p art of the strategic planning for irrigation development in the Midlands region of Tasmania, to achieve protection of environmental and cultural values as well as social and economic benefits;  to deliver improved biodiversity outcomes through early consideration, a voidance and mitigation of impacts;  to provide a wider information base for decisions around impacts on MNES in the Midlands;  to provide s treamlined assessment processes f or the construction and operation of the Midlands Water Scheme Methodology The impact assessment report provi des an assessment of impacts on EPBC listed matters which may potentially arise as a result of implementation of the Program described in Part 3. The Terms of Reference require the consideration of the following MNES:

 National heritage places  Wetlands of international importance (often called Ramsar sites)  Nationally threatened species and ecological communities  Migratory species1

Subsequent to the signing of the Agreement, two sites within and adjacent to the assessment area which are curre ntly listed as National Heritage Places (Brickendon E state and Woolmers Estate) were added to the World Heritage list. This listing therefore qualifies these sites as World Heritage properties under the EPBCA. The strategic assessm ent has, therefore, included a consideratio n of the p otential impacts arising from the actions associated with the Program on World Heritage properties. This report is written at a strategic level and thus does not address individual sites or species in the same way that a n impact assessment for a particular site would. It uses the best available information relating to MNES, to prov ide a picture as to what t he expected impacts may be from the Program, and how those impacts can be reduced by applying the processes required to be implemented in the Program. The strategic nature of the assessment necessitates the use of the precautionary principle. No impacts have yet be en identified and confirmed as a result of the program, h ence the entire area has been assesse d, and the likelihood of impacts arising from th e various Program components investigated. This has be en done using a risk a ssessment approach

1 As there were no World Heritage Properties, nuclear actions or Commonwealth marine environment aspects relevant to the study area these matters were not included in the Agreement., . Subsequent to the signing of the Agreement, two sites within and adjacent to the assessment area which are currently listed as National Heritage Places (Brickendon Estate and Woolmers Estate) were added to the World Heritage list. This listing therefore qualifies these sites as World Heritage properties under the EPBCA. The strategic assessment has, therefore, included a consideration of the potential impacts arising from the actions associated with the Program on World Heritage properties.

developed specifically for the irrigation industr y, to determin e MNES which are likely to be impacted by the Program should not mitigation measures be put in place. Assessment Summary There is one National Heritage Place within the assessment area, and one adjacent to the area however there are not expect ed to be any impacts o n National Heritage Places a s a result of the implementation of the Program. There are no Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar sites) wit hin the assessment area, nor are there expected to be any impacts on any nearby Ramsar sites as a result of the implementation of the Program. Two ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act ar e known to occur in the Study Area: Lowland Native Temperate Grasslands, and Black Gum – South Esk Pine forest (Table A). Table A: Listed EPBC Communities within the MWS Estimated Area within Estimated Total Tas. National State Community unbuffered Area (ha) Schedule Schedule study area Lowland Native Critically Grasslands of 9,080 21,600 Not listed Endangered Tasmania Black Gum – 250 < 5,000 Vulnerable Endangered South Esk Pine

(* Black Gum – South Esk Pine community uses a modelled extent. The community is a subset of the TASVEG DOV community; see discussion in Results section for explanation of risk assessment outcome. Estimates of Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania extent are based on 2007 mapping.) Of these two communities, the gra ssland community has been identified as pote ntially at high risk if no mitigation measures are put in place by the Program (Table B). A third listed commu nity (Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and associated fens) occurs within relatively close proximity to the strategic a ssessment area. This community was considered in the risk assessment undertaken for MNES (Appendix H) but as t he commun ity occurs outside, an d at higher altitude th an the MWS, the likelihood of the scheme having any indirect or d irect impact s on the co mmunity is considered low. The consequence of any impacts is likely to be minor, and therefore this community was not considered further. A total of 1 4 fauna spe cies and 35 flora species that are listed or currently nomi nated for listing under the EPBC Act have be en identified as potentially occurring within the strategic assessment area (Table B). Of these 49 species, 8 fauna species and 10 flora species have been identified as being potentially at high risk from the Program if no mitigation measures are put in place. Of the 10 flora species identified as being at high risk sho uld no mitigation measures be put in place, 8 are endemic. Five of the 10 are listed as critically endangered under EPBC, 2 as endangered and 3 as vulnerable. Eight of the 10 species have recovery plans, 1 has a draft recovery plan and 1 does not have any form of recovery plan (Appendix H). Seven of the 10 species are predominantly found in grassland habitats. Of the 8 fauna specie s identified as being at high risk should no mitigation measures be put in place, 7 are endemi c. Four of the 8 species are listed under EPBC as endan gered, 3 as vulnerable and 1 is pending listing as vulnerable. Four of the 8 species have recovery plans, 8.

3 have draft recovery pl ans and 1 does not have an y form of recovery plan. Five of the 8 species have been iden tified as be ing associated with grasslands, although only 1 can be described as predominantly inhabiting grasslands.

Table B: Ratings for Potential Risk to EPBC Listed Threatened and Migratory Species within the MWS.

MNES Risk Rating LISTED COMMUNITIES

Lowland native grasslands (Themeda and HIGH Poa) Eucalyptus ovata-Callitris oblonga forest LOW FAUNA Ptunarra brown butterfly HIGH Oreixenica ptunarra Green and gold frog HIGH Litoria raniformis Swan galaxiid HIGH Galaxias fontanus Arthurs galaxias HIGH Paragalaxia mesotes Saddled galaxias HIGH Galaxias tanycephalus Wedge-tailed eagle HIGH Aquila audax fleayi Spotted-tailed quoll HIGH Dasyurus maculatus maculates Tasmanian devil HIGH Sarcophilus harrisii Golden galaxias MODERATE Galaxias auratus Swift parrot MODERATE Lathamus discolour Masked owl MODERATE Tyto novaehollandiae castanops Eastern barred bandicoot MODERATE Perameles gunnii Australian grayling LOW Prototroctes maraena Thylacine Thylacinus cynocephalus UNLIKELY (considered extinct)

FLORA Midlands greenhood HIGH Pterostylis commutata Black-tipped spider-orchid HIGH Caladenia anthracina Clover glycine HIGH Glycine latrobeana Midlands buttercup HIGH Ranunculus prasinus River swamp wallaby-grass HIGH Amphibromus fluitans Golfers leek-orchid HIGH 1 Prasophyllum incorrectum Graveside leek-orchid HIGH Prasophyllum taphanyx Tunbridge leek-orchid HIGH Prasophyllum tunbridgense Fleshy greenhood HIGH Pterostylis ziegeleri Grassy greenhood HIGH Pterostylis wapstrarum Midlands wattle MODERATE Acacia axillaris Coral heath MODERATE Epacris acuminata Spreading stenanthemum MODERATE Stenanthemum pimeleoides Lindleys spider-orchid MODERATE Caladenia lindleyana Rosy spider-orchid MODERATE Caladenia pallida Soft peppercress MODERATE Lepidium hyssopifolium Pungent leek-orchid MODERATE Prasophyllum olidum, Hoary sunray MODERATE Leucochrysum albicans subsp. albicans var. tricolor Swamp fireweed MODERATE Senecio psilocarpus

1 A taxonomic revision in 2003 concluded that the Tasmanian population thought to be P. correctum was in fact taxonomically distinct; it was subsequently described and named as P. incorrectum 10.

MNES Risk Rating FLORA (continued) Swamp everlasting MODERATE Xerochrysum palustre Curtis’ colobanth MODERATE Colobanthus curtisiae Roadside wallaby-grass MODERATE Austrodanthonia popinensis Matted flax-lily MODERATE Dianella amoena Crowded leek-orchid MODERATE Prasophyllum crebiflorum Miena cider gum LOW Eucalyptus gunnii subsp. divaricata Native wintercress LOW Barbarea australis Tasmanian bertya LOW Bertya tasmanica subsp. tasmanica Tailed spider-orchid LOW Caladenia caudata South Esk pine LOW Callitris oblonga Curly sedge LOW Carex tasmanica Seepage heath LOW Epacris moscaliana Liawenee greenhood LOW Pterostylis pratensis Pseudocephalozia paludicola LOW South Esk heath LOW Epacris exserta Clubmoss everlasting LOW Ozothamnus selaginoides

MIGRATORY SPECIES Lathams snipe MODERATE Gallinago hardwickii Swift parrot MODERATE Lathamus discolor Satin Flycatcher MODERATE Myiagra cyanoleuca

11.

MNES Risk Rating MIGRATORY SPECIES (continued) Great egret MODERATE 1 Ardea alba White-bellied sea-eagle MODERATE Haliaeetus leucogaster Cattle egret LOW Ardea ibis

Strategic Mitigation Measures under the Program Avoidance A key mechanism for a chieving the Program commitments will be the avoidance of threats to, and thus impacts on matters of national environmental significance. The Program requires avoidance of values in its approach to assessment and planning. Comprehensive assessment of potential threat s to MNES at each st age of the Pro gram has been developed. The identification of each of these hazards is addressed by the requirement in the Progr am to undertake specific asse ssment of areas of land to b e impacted by the implementation of the Program. Where land is to be i mpacted through construction processes, specif ic surveys t o identify and quantify potential impacts are required through the Program (Appendix E). The potential threats to MNES whic h have bee n identified through the risk asse ssment process will b e investigated for each matter through this C EMP proce ss. The Pr ogram requires the development of CEMPs which ident ify mechanism s to achieve minimisation of impacts for each construction component. Over time if additional p ipelines are required within the MWS as a result of uptake of water from the two irrigation schemes, these will be assesse d using the pro cess outl ined in the Program. Where required, best practices guidelines (where they exist) for mitigation or offset approaches will be used to inform the approach taken. In addition to being addressed in a CEMP, a da m permit un der the Water Management Act 1999 (WMA) will be req uired for ea ch of the 2 dams required for the o peration of t he MWS (one at Floods Creek and one on the Milford property at Glenesk). A dam assessment process administered under the Water Management Act 1999 considers issues relevant to the State includ ing environmental, social and economic issues a ssociated with each dam. En vironmental assessments which identify natural values at the proposed dam site are required under the dam assessment process. These must meet quality standards set by DPIPWE. The Program requires that Farm Water Acce ss Plans (F WAPs) are prepared in order for water to be available for use on far ms. These plans must identify values within th e areas to be directly impacted by the irrigation water. These inclu de areas where infrastr ucture is required in order to ena ble the use and delivery of the wate r on farm (f or example, on-farm pipelines fro m the supply line or dams required to hold irrigation water sourced fr om the

1 Eastern great egret (Ardea modesta) is listed under Australian and international conventions under several names as listings were made prior to the elevation of the southern and eastern Asian and Australasian subspecies of Great egret to full species status as the Eastern great egret. This review has treated all species as A. alba Nomenclature is as follows: National – Listed as Marine under EPBC as Ardea alba, Listed as Migratory under EPBC as Egretta alba (JAMBA) and Egretta alba (CAMBA). 12.

MWS). Spe cific minimu m standards for FWAPs have been articulate d in the Program in order to achieve the Program commitments. The minimum standards for biodiversity assessments require any direct impacts on MNES to be identif ied during th e on-farm assessment . Al so req uired is the consideration of the potential indirect impacts which may result from the activities – this in cludes consideration of how the changes in agricultural enterprise may affect other areas of the property. Avoidance of values is required and alternative approvals p rocesses are required should the farmer not be able to meet the commit ments under the Program. Specific refer ence to an d use of current published information relevant to MNES is required under the standards. Seasonality must be specifica lly considered to ensure that on ground surveys are undertake n at the appropriate time of year for all species likely to occur. Soil and water modules must also be completed in order to fulfil FWAP requireme nts. The completion of these modules requir es extensive consideration of background information. In order to ensure key issu es associated with the MWS are ta ken into a ccount, a data library containing information on all relevant aspects has been setup by DPIPWE in conjunction with NRM regional organisations for use by prequalified consultants. Only prequalified consultants will be able to prepare FWAPs. Monitoring Monitoring during various stages of the Program will ensure that measures in place to protect MNES are appropriately applied, and are deliver ing what is expected throughout the life of the Program. In the pre-construction stages of th e Program, monitoring will be of pr ocesses. During and following construction, monitoring will be extended to on ground impacts. Monitoring during the implementati on of proc esses under the Program will ensure that the architecture for protection of MNES is put in place in accordance with the requirements of the Program. Monitoring of the adequacy of legisla tive permit conditions will be unde rtaken by DPIPWE to ensure that all conditions reflect the commit ments and requirements in the Program. T his monitori ng will occu r through in ternal review within DPIPWE as legislative approvals issued by the Department are completed. Construction and works will involve a larger number of parties in both the impleme ntation of approvals and the actu al constru ction work o n the grou nd. Private contractor s will b e engaged to undertake construction works across the sche mes. Vario us State and Local Government regulators will be invol ved in implementing requirements for this stage of the Program. All contractors will be required to comply with the relevant CEMP. Monitoring of compliance with various statutory approvals will be undertaken through existing legislative mechanisms (Table 3). An excep tion to th is will be the CEMP which will be monitored by DPIPWE in accordance with the Program. Monitoring of compliance with the Program and the effectiveness of prescriptions d eveloped in response to management needs of MNES will be und ertaken at t hree differe nt levels: strategic, ta rgeted and random aud it. Each component of the Progra m will have separate requirements for monit oring and r eporting co mmensurate with the p otential for impacts. These will be required by different parties within the Program. Strategic level monitoring A 5 yearly report on the efficacy of the Program, as indicated by landscape level monitoring will be provided to the State and Commonwelath by the Water Entity. This report will be a requirement of the irrigation district declaration.

13.

Landscape level monitoring within the strategic a ssessment area of biological and ecological factors rele vant to thre ats to MNES and specific to key threatening processes, will be undertaken. This will p rovide an in dication as t o whether the construct ion and operation of the MWS is resulting in: i. a significant impact on MNES; or ii. clearance and conversion of Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania. Criteria relevant to the recovery of species and communities will also be monitored. The outco mes sought from landscape lev el monitoring are set out in A ppendix E. Mechanisms for a chieving these outcomes, including the frequency at which monitoring information will be collected and what will be reported, will be developed to the satisfaction of the Commo nwealth and the State within 6 months of en dorsement of the Program (the ‘approved monitoring protocol’). Biological a nd ecological factors t o be monitored will include water quality and salinity indicators, change in extent and condition of ve getation communities listed under the EPBC as well as change in ext ent and quality of habitat for MNES. Monitoring of changes in extent and condition of vegetation commun ities listed under the EPBC, and habitat for MNES, will be undertaken by a comparison of extent of val ues with t he baseline dataset (used for th e strategic assessment) over ti me. There requirements of th e Program mean that i nformation sourced fro m the FWAP process will be fed back in to d atabases w hich wil l be used in assessing change over time. Strategic monitoring of criteria re levant to the recovery of specie s and commu nities will include assessment of reservation status over time of MNES, as well as the monitoring of habitat con dition and extent as a surrogate. Focal species agreed upon by th e Commonwealth and th e State in the approved monitoring protocol will have specif ic demographic monitoring undertaken , as well as s pecific associated sp ecies monitoring (i.e. pest monitoring). Reporting on landscape level monitoring will incorporate the review and interpretation of the monitoring which has b een undertaken. The int erpretation of data will be related back to the construction and operat ion of the MWS to identify any direct or indire ct impacts f rom the scheme. The comparison of values and an interpretation of this data will be undertaken by a suitably qu alified consultant agre ed upon by both the water entity and the T asmanian Government. Efficacy monitoring to identify how well the FWAPs identify MNES and provide management prescriptions that are appropriate for the species and ensure Program commitments are met, will be measured throu gh a Qualit y Assurance (QA) protocol. Th is QA protocol will be approved by the Commonwealth and State within 6 months of endorsement of the Program (the ‘approved QA protocol’). Components of the QA protocol will include:  Initial training for prequalified consultants on the Program and its commitments;  Quality assurance audits for each pre-qualified consultant aft er the completion of one FWAP;  Feedback t o prequalified consulta nts and changes to plans which are identified as being deficient;  Quality assurance audits for e ach pre-qualifie d consu ltant after the completion of three FWAPs;

14.

 Feedback to prequalified consultants,changes to plans which are ident ified as bein g deficient and retraining where required.

Targeted Property-scale assessment of the impacts (short term and expected medium to long term) of the Scheme on MNES will be und ertaken in accordance with the ge neric appro ved PMS Framework modules. Property-scale monitori ng will be determined by a prequalified consultant as p art of the component planning modules required for the FWAPs (bi odiversity, soil and water). The FWAP will i ndicate how often monit oring should occur, what type of monitoring i s required, and how this relates to regional scale monitoring to be undertaken. It will also outline who is to undertake the monit oring. The monitoring may include species po pulation info rmation, condition an d extent, trend information, monitoring of asso ciated species (e.g. predators), habitat information and so on. Minimum requirements for biodiversity asse ssments for FWAPs outlined in the Program require that all monitoring is to be based around best pract ice, with the requirement to use published literature rela ting to MNES includin g, but not limited to re covery plans, listing statements and EPBC Act Policy S tatements.The water entity must provide an annual report to the Commonwealth Environment Minister and the State Minister for Primary Ind ustries on the administration and operation of t he Irrigation District as a condition of its appro val. The water entity does not de termine the level and nature of monitoring at the property-scale, but will be required to include an analysis of the results of monitoring at this scale in it s annual reporting. In addition, other relevant legislativ e permits and approvals for works required under the Program may include monitoring requirements. It will be incumbent upon the wate r entity to monitor the manage ment of irrigation water supplied un der an irrig ation right t o ensure it is sust ainable and in accordance with the individual FWAPs. Conditions relating to the taking of water prescribed in the required water licence s will be audited by DPIPWE th rough the Water Allocation and Compliance Section of t he Water Management Branch on a 5 yearly basis. The Operational processes for dete rmining water availabilit y on a sust ainable basis will be monitored via the water licensing process. Reporting requirements on water licences will b e as per the conditions placed on the licence by the Minister at the time of approval. Random Audit A random audit of 15% of the prop erty management plans (on a prop erty basis) t hat have been prepared by consultants for the scheme will be conducted annually by suitably qualified persons approved by the Minister. The audit is designed to ensure that:  water is only being supplied where an approved FWAP is in place; and  landowners are operating in accordance with their individual plans; and  water is on ly being sup plied by the Water Entit y to those p arts of a property approved under a FWAP.

15.

PART 2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 OBJECTIVES The impact assessment report presents the find ings of the strategic assessment undertaken for the Program (defined in Section 3.1). The Program encompa sses the W ater Access Pr ogram f or the ‘Midlands Water Scheme’ (MWS), Tas mania, including relevant constr uction and operational asp ects. The Program components include: i. The Water Access System – the s ystems and processes developed to meet legal requirements and enab le sustainable on-farm use of irr igation water provided by the MWS within the Program area (Figure 1). ii. Operational Aspects – processes t hat determine water availability and provide certainty of access to water from the MWS on a sustainable basis. iii. Construction Aspects – the processes that provide for the planning an d assessment of infrastructure development to service the proposed MWS. The objectives of the strategic assessment are:  to undertake a strategic assessment of the Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) in the area to which the Program relates;  to ensure the impacts of the Program on MNES are considered; and  to identify appropriate mitigation measures for any impacts on any MNES considered. The outcomes sought from the strategic assessment are:  to consider MNES as p art of the strategic planning for irrigation development in the Midlands region of Tasmania, to achieve protection of environmental and cultural values as well as social and economic benefits;  to deliver improved biodiversity outcomes through early consideration, a voidance and mitigation of impacts;  to provide a wider information base for decisions around impacts on MNES in the Midlands;  to provide s treamlined assessment processes f or the construction and operation of the MWS The impact assessment must be read in conjunction with the draft Program Report.

2.2 WHAT IS A STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT UNDER THE EPBC ACT?

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is the Commonwealth Government's key piece of environmental legislation.

It focuse s Commonwealth Government interests on th e protection a nd management of nationally a nd internationally important flora, f auna, ecolo gical communities and heritage places. The se are defined in the Act as Matters of National Environmental Significan ce (MNES). There are 8 MNES matters to which the EPBC Act applies:

 World heritage properties  National heritage places  Wetlands of international importance (often called Ramsar sites)

16.

 Listed threatened species and ecological communities  Migratory species  Commonwealth marine areas  Nuclear actions  The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

The EPBC Act defines when and how potential impacts of an action on MNES must b e assessed. Any proposal or ‘actio n’ that is likely to have a significa nt impact on MNES requires the approval of the Commonwealth Environment Minister under the EPBC Act. Under section 146 of the EPBC Act, the Commonwealth Environment Minister can a gree to assess the impacts of actions under a policy, plan or program. The types of policies, plans or programs b est suited t o undergoing a strategic assessme nt are those relating to complex, large-scale actions or r egion-wide development that would otherwise require multiple case- by-case approvals under Part 8 of the EPBC Act. Situations where there are multiple stakeholders or cumulative impacts on MNES are also suited to this type of assessment. Examples include:

 regional-scale development plans and policies  large-scale industrial development and associated infrastructure  fire, vegetation/resource or pest management policies, plans or programs  water extraction/use policies  infrastructure plans and policies. The Commonwealth Environment Minister, on behalf of the Commonwe alth of Australia, has entered into an agreement under s.146 of the EPBC Act with the St ate of Tasmania, to undertake a strategic a ssessment of the Wate r Access Program for the Midlands Water Scheme. The assessment process involves the following stages: 1. The Commonwealth Environment Minister enters into a s.146 agreement with another party to undertake a str ategic assessment of the impacts of actions u nder a policy, plan or program (Appendix A); 2. Terms of Reference are prepared for a re port on the impacts r elating to t he agreement (Appendix A); 3. A draft report is prepared; 4. The draft report is made available for public comment for at least 28 days1; 5. The Minister may recommend modifying the policy, plan or program; 6. The Minister may endorse the policy, plan or program if appropriate; and 7. The Ministe r may approve actions under the policy, plan or program if appropriate (approval may be subject to conditions). The Minister must be satisfied that a strategic impact assessment of the potential impacts on relevant MNES has demonstrated that the Program adequately avoids, remedies or mitigates any impacts. This will re move the n eed for later individual r eferrals and approvals f or those specified actions under the EPBC Act relating to various components of the MWS.

1 When the Program is submitted for endorsement to the Commonwealth Environment Minister a report outlining how public comments have been accounted for by the proponent must also be submitted. 17.

PART 3 PROJECT PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION

3.1 PROGRAM SUMMARY The Agreement under s.146(1) of the EPBC Act between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Tasmania relates to the assessment of impacts of the Water Access System for the MWS. The Program is defined in clause 2.2 of the Agreement as: “the Water Access Program for the Midlands Water Scheme, Tasmania, including relevant construction and operation aspects.” (DEWHA 2010a) A detailed d escription of the Program compone nts is set out in the accompanying Program Report which is being finalised in conjunction with, and forms the basis for, this strategic impact assessment. In summary, those components are i. The Water Access System – the sy stems and processe s developed to meet legal requir ements and enable su stainable on-farm use of irrigat ion water provided by the MWS within the Program area (Figure 1). ii. Operational Aspects – processes that determine water availability and provide certainty of access to water from the MWS on a sustainable basis. iii. Construction Aspects – the processes th at provide for the plann ing and assessment of infrastructure development to service the proposed MWS.

3.1.1 Location of the Midlands Water Scheme The Midlands region refers to the area of relatively flat, predominantly agricultural land to the east and west of the Midland Highway which extends from Hobart in the south to Launceston in the north. The propo sed MWS extends acro ss three local government areas: the Central Highlands, Northern and Southern Midlands municipalities. It extends across parts the Midlands region incorp orating areas from Lon gford in the north to Elderslie in the south (Figure 1). The MWS will deliver up to 47,50 0ML of irrigation water annually from two wate r sources: Arthurs Lake in the Central Highla nds and the South Esk River located on the eastern boundary of the northern Midlands. The scheme is intended to deliver water to u p to 491 farms across the region, which the Program ha s identif ied as having land suitable for irrigatio n. Within the assessment area there is an estimated total area of 71,105 ha of land suitable for irrigation1. The delivery of water will occur through two irrigation schemes (Appendix B) with a to tal area of 316,000 ha (not all of which will be irrigated):  Arthurs Pipeline irrig ation sche me (encompassed area 247,390 ha) – a gravity/pumped supply from Arthurs Lake, and  Lower South Esk irriga tion schem e (encompassed area 65,220 ha) – a pumped supply from the South Esk River. Each of the se irrigation schemes will use, i n part, river sections for t he transmission and supply of some of the irrigation water. Pipelines will al so be used for the supply and

distribution of irrigation water. Map s indicating the locat ions of the pr oposed sch emes are provided in Appendix B.

Figure 1: Strategic Assessment Area for the Midlands Water Scheme

19.

Arthurs Pipeline Irrigation Scheme The Arthurs Pipeline irrigation sche me will source up to 38,500 ML of water annually fro m Arthurs Lake1. An outlet pipe will be i nstalled through the existing Arthurs Lake levee at a height that wil l create a cease-to-take lake level for the scheme of 947.5 m above sea level (AHD). Irrigation water will be supplied from the lake 365 days per year to properties in vicinity of the Blackman, Macquarie, Isis and Jordan Rivers, Kittys Rivulet, the Isis Valley, York Plains, Mt Seymour and Jericho regions, as well as the townships of Ross, Tunbridge and Oatlands. The water will be deli vered throu gh a 33 km long (approximately), 1.2 m diameter high pressure gr avity supply pipeline to a new min i hydroelectric power st ation (approximately 5.5 MW) and storage d am at Floods Creek to the west o f Tunbridge, at the base of the Western Tiers. From the Floods Creek dam, water will be distributed for irrigation through a combination of pipelines and natural rivers. A pumping station at the Midlands Highway will be powered by the Floods Creek hydroelectric station, which will feed p ower to the existin g grid. Transmission lines will be constructed from Floods Creek to the grid (Appendix B). The pipelin e distributio n system, composed of approximately 78 km of mediu m to low pressure 0. 6 m diameter pipes, w ill be in stalled underground (except where terrain or environmental considerations dictate that it be a bove ground) from Floods Creek to the Isis Valley, Tunbridge, Oatlands, Mt Se ymour and Lower Marshes (Jericho). There will be two main pumping station s in the Tunb ridge region to distr ibute irrigation water further south, both of which will be supplied with power fro m Floods Creek, and there will be a small additional pump station at Mt Seymour that will draw its power from the grid. Some of the distribut ion lines will also discharge into rivers f or the furthe r distribution of the water. Irrigation water will theref ore be ava ilable to fa rmers either directly from the distribution pipelines or through augmentation of flows in existing river supply systems. Lower South Esk Irrigation Scheme The South Esk River will supply up to 9,000 ML of water a nnually1 in the northern Midlands along the South Esk River from Milford Dam on Milford property (Esk Main Road) to Longford and through a pipeline to a private dam on the Winton property at Conara . The system consists of a pump station on the South Esk River designed to harvest from the river in accordance with the water management regulations for flood harvesting. The pump station will supply water to a new dam, t he Milford Dam, at the property Milford for later river delivery during the 152 day irrigation season. W ater will also be supplied from the South Esk River to an existing dam, the Wint on Dam, on the propert y Winton, fo r storage and summe r irrigation use. There will be an approximately 1.0 m diameter, 1.5 km long pipeline from the South Esk River to Milford Dam, with an associated 0.45 m diameter 1.5 km long delivery pipeline fr om Milford to Blanchar ds Creek. Water will u ltimately be delivered from Blanchards Creek into Winton Dam. Where these pipelines are outside of waterways, they will be installed underground, with all land rehabilitated back to its original condition.

1 After adjusti ng for transmis sion losses associated with tr ansport through riv er sections , it is estima ted that a volume of 7,650 ML will be delivered for irrigation use in the northern Midlands. The proposed system will have a maximum a bstraction c apacity of 1302 l/s with actu al abstraction rates determi ned b y riv er l evels and water licence pr ovisions. H ydrological a nalysis h as in dicated th at the 9 000 M L abstracti on c an b e ac hieved with th e necessary time frame if operated under the provisions outlined in the draft South Esk Water Management Plan.

20.

Irrigation water will be available for farmers either directly from the irrigation pipe o r through augmentation of flows in existing riv er supply systems. The total length of the river sections used for the Lower South Esk scheme will be 70 km.

3.1.2 Water Access System Access to, and use of water from the Arthurs Pipeline an d the Lower South Esk irrigation schemes will be made available through the Water Access System. The Water Access System contains processes to provide for legal entities that manage access to water, as well as processes around the supply and use of water on f arms. The se standard s include requirements to avoid, where pos sible and practicable, all MNES. The Program also contains commitments as to the level of impac t allowable on MNES. The endorsement of this Program by the Co mmonwealth Environment Minister will allow fo a request to be made to operate the Water Access System in accordance with the Program.

Accessing the Water - Water Entities & Irrigation Districts Water Entities The TIDB was declare d as a wat er entity un der the Water Management Act 1999 by the Minister for Primary Ind ustries on t he 25 th February 2009 to progress a suite of regionally significant irrigation schemes throughout Tasmania. The TIDB will be the Responsible Entity authorised to extract, supply and distribute wat er for irrigation in accor dance with t he Water Access System shown in Figure 2. In time, an alternative Responsible Entity may be approved to replace the TIDB and that entity will then hold the same authorities and obligations as the TIDB does in the first instance. Irrigation Districts In addition to a water entity, two irrigation districts will be required, one district for the Arthurs Pipeline and one for the Lower South Esk scheme. Approval by the Tasmanian Ministe r for Primar y Industries to establish the two ir rigation districts associated with the MW S Strategic Assessment will be in accordance with the provisions of the Water Management Act 1999 and contain the following conditions:

• The Responsible Entity must only supply water supplied by the MWS for use in accordance with a completed and current Farm Water Access Plan (FWAP)1; • All water users must agree to only use water supplied by the MWS in accordance with a completed and current FWAP; • The Responsible Entity will ensure that copies of all FWAPs can be supplied to the Minister on request in a timely fashion; • The Responsible Entity must make by-laws that require users of water to operate in accordance with a FWAP to maintain supply of water supplied by the MWS; • The Responsible Entity must ensure a random annual compliance audit of 15% of prepared FWAPs is undertaken by suitably qualified person(s) approved by the Minister;

1 A Farm Water Access Plan is a plan approving and stating conditions for the use of water on land in the irrigation district, and completed using the property management planning modules for soil, water and biodiversity endorsed by the Minister. The farm Water Access Plan must be prepared by a prequalified consultant who has been approved by the Minister and the Responsible Entity. Relevant and appropriate on farm monitoring to demonstrate the operation of the scheme will not have a direct or indirect impact on relevant matters of national environmental significance will be required for each FWAP as well as a description of how adaptive management will be implemented in response to monitoring outcomes. 21.

• The Responsible Entity must only supply water supplied by the MWS through a meter that meets the relevant standards set out in the National Framework for Non-urban Water Metering1; • The Responsible Entity must undertake the supply of water supplied by the MWS to users of that water consistent with the conditions of any Watercourse Authority issued from time to time pursuant to Part 6A of the Water Management Act 1999 used in the course of that supply; • The Responsible Entity must provide an annual report to the Commonwealth Environment Minister and the Tasmanian Minister for Primary Industries on the administration and operation of the Irrigation District2; • The Responsible Entity must seek the Minister's approval to amend any by-laws required as a condition of the Irrigation District; and • The Responsible Entity must provide a report on the operation of the Irrigation District and the results of landscape scale monitoring of impacts on relevant MNES to the Commonwealth Environment Minister and the Tasmanian Minister for Primary Industries every five years3. By-laws for the relevant irrigation schemes will include terms and conditions u pon which water will be supplied and will require an individual water user to hold a Zoned Flow Delivery Right and a Water Connection Agreement, and specify that any water supplied may only be used in accordance with an approved Farm Water Access Plan.

1 The National Framework for Non-urban Water Metering was approved by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) in December 2009. This agreement has committed Tasmania to operate in accordance with the Australian Technical Specification 4747 for Water Meters. As of June 2010 this Australian Technical Specification will become an Australian Standard. 2 The annual report as required under s.182(1) of the Water Management Act 1999 must be consistent with guidelines produced from time to time by the Department responsible for administration of the Water Management Act 1999 and must contain the following information: a) the details of audit results and any action taken against non-compliant landowners; b) an analysis of annual results from farm scale monitoring required by farm water access plans; c) details of any changes to prequalified consultants d) details of approval status where only a proportion of water requested is being supplied due to outstanding approvals required e) demonstration that the water entity has ensured no water has been supplied without an approved FWAP 3 The landscape scale monitoring report must be consistent with guidelines agreed between and updated from time to time by the Australian and Tasmanian Governments and must contain the following information: a) the details of audit results and any action taken against non-compliant landowners; b) an analysis and interpretation of results from landscape scale monitoring required by the Program.

22.

Water Entity Formed

Water Licence Application by Water District Application by Conditions Applied by Minister Water Entity Water Entity Include –

& Results in: - By-laws Relating to Supply, Commercial Arrangement for - Irrigation District Use and Auditing use of Water - Water Entity with Powers to - Supply of Water Rules Administer and Manage - Constructi on Rules District - Other Conditions Minister

Deems Relevant

Water Entitlement Application by Water User Irrigation Right Farm Water Access Plan Requires: Outlines: Outlines: - Irrigation Rights Purchase - Volume available (ML) - End Use of Water Contract – Includes Irrigation - Conditions of Use Right and Delivery Right - Limitation of Use from Property Management System (PMS) Zoned Flow Delivery Right Requires: Outlines:

- Zone of Use (geographic) - Incorporation of PMS Modules Biodiversity, Water and Soil - Rate of Use (ML/ha) System is: Approval to Apply Water to - Prepared by Pre-approved Farm Water Connection Agreement Consultants

Requires: Outlines: - Accompanied by Detailed Guidelines - Irrigatio n Right - Zone of Use (geographic)

- Deliv ery Right - Rate of Use (ML/ha - Farmer owned - W ater Connection Requires: Agreement (in accord with Farm Water Access Plan) - Farm Water Access Plan

Figure 2: Midlands Water Scheme Water Access System 23.

Supply and Use of Water on Farms - Irrigation Rights and Farm Water Access Plans Irrigation Rights For the MWS, the right to a supply o f water for irrigation will be under the system of irrigation rights governed by the Irrigation Clauses Act 1973. Under t he Irrigation Clauses Act, each individual water user within an irrigation district w ill be granted an Irrigation Right, a statutory right providing for each individual’s share of water in ea ch irrigation season to b e supplied from the entity’s bulk allocation receiv ed under licen ce or purchased by commercial arrangement (see Section 3.1.3). Zoned Flow Delivery Right Whilst an Ir rigation Right provides a statutory right for the supply of water, each individual water user within the MWS will also need to hold a Zone d Flow Delivery Right. A Zoned Flow Delivery Right provides each user with a defined share of the water delivery capacity, and in effect, provides the right to delivery of a designated volume of water to a particular location. A Zoned Flow Delivery Right is a contractual arrangement between the water entity and the individual water user, whi ch will be underpinned by the making of a by-law requiring the water user to hold a Zoned Flow Delive ry Right to access wa ter. The Zoned Flow Delivery Right provides assurance of delivery provided that the water entity has th e water, and all r ights will be re corded in a common, searchable r egister which will be capable of recording charges over the rights1. Water Connection Agreement Each individual water user will be required to hold a Water Connection Agreement with the water entity. Again, the making of a specific by-law will underpin the requirement for a water user to hold a Water Connection Agreement with the water entity. A Water Connection Agreement will specify that a Connection Point will only be installed for, and may only be used by, an individual water user holding a valid FWAP. Farm Water Access Plan A current and complete FWAP (FW AP) is required (under by-laws) for each individu al water user through the MWS. The plan will cover the area of land which will be directly affected by the proposed irrigation. This includes areas which contain infrastructur e required in order to receive and use the irrigation water, for example, dams which are required to hold water supplied through the MWS.

The FWAP will:  identify the core natural assets on the area of the property that will be directly impacted by th e supply and use of irrigation water from b y t he MWS (ie the irrigation and the associated infrastructure footprint);  include a co mprehensive risk management assessment to determine any likely impacts on the nat ural assets on the relevant areas of the propert y that may re sult from activities asso ciated with t he application of irrigation water;  develop and formally require im plementation of farm management options/actions accordi ng to current best practice that will apply to the area directly impacted by the proposed irrigation to achieve zero clearance

1 There will be no conditions applied to irrigation rights or zoned flow delivery rights that relate to the management of MNES – however, they form an integral part of the water access system described by the Program. 24.

and conversion of Lo wland Native Grasslands of Tasmania and no significant impact on ot her relevant MNES unle ss otherwise approved by the Commo nwealth Environment Minister (ie management action s to ensure no direct impacts occur outside the ‘footprint’);  identify an appropriate farm scale monitoring program for MNES to ensure the Program outcomes above are achieved; and  identify any additional legislative or regulatory processes which must be completed prior to the application of irrigation water1. As a minimum, each FWAP will comprise a water comp onent, a soil component and a biodiversity component, each of wh ich will address relevant issues relat ing to the land area directly affe cted by the application of irrigation water as well as ident ifying any farm scale monitoring deemed necessary to avoid off farm or off irrigation area impacts (see below). Information arising out of each co mponent of the FWAP will be docu mented in accordance with generic property planning modules. Ind ividual property planning modules for water an d soil have been developed by the Tasmanian Irrigation Develop ment Board (TIDB) in consultation with DPIPWE and TFGA, in a ccord with the Property Management Systems Framework for Tasmania (TFGA 20 09). A biod iversity prop erty planning module h as also been developed by TFGA in consultation with the DPIPWE and NRM regions. The biodiversity module will be the primary tool for the identification and management of MNES that have the potential to be impacted b y the application of irr igation water at the property level. A set of minimu m standards which must be met by the FWAP in relation to MNES have been identified (Appendix D).

3.1.3 Operational Processes – Allocation of Water The MWS will use water for which access ha s been secured throug h existing l egislative processes. Licences It is a requ irement of the Water Management Act 1999 that a water entity must hold a water licence to give them the authority to take water from a watercourse for use in a scheme. Water Licence Lower South Esk The entity responsible f or the relevant irrigation schemes (the TIDB in t he first instance) will be issued with a licen ce which will provide the authority to take water (under the Water Management Act 1999) from the South Esk River (flood flows) into storage at Milford Dam in accordance with the Draft South Esk River Catc hment Water Management Plan. The water licence will be endorsed with a water allocation for 9000 ML for taking at during winter at a specified location. The licence will provide seasonal and daily limits on extraction. The licence will be endorsed with a “bulk allo cation(s)”. Specific conditions will be pl aced on the water licence for t he extractio n of water from the South Esk River requiring the maintenance of environmental flows and relating to the taking of water (quantity, timing, rate, location etc). Special Water Licence Arthurs Lake

1 F or exam ple, where a F WAP identifie s that signific ant impacts o n a matter of nation al e nvironmental significance cannot be avoi ded it will be nec essary for the water user to consider their requirements for furthe r approvals under the EPBC. 25.

Hydro Tasmania hold s a Specia l Water L icence for A rthurs Lake . Under th e Water Management Act 1999 a special wat er licence confers a very high level of surety for access to water except under limited circu mstances – one of which is for th e essential needs of ecosystems dependent on the relevant water source. Section 54(3) of the Water Management Act 1999 provides that the prohibition on the taking of water from a water resource wit hout a licen ce does not apply to a person taking water directly from a dam or other works if the water in the dam or works has previously been taken in accordance with the Act. Hence, the TIDB will therefore not require a water licence to take water from Arthurs Lake as the water has already been taken into storage by Hydro Tasmania in accordance with the Act. Watercourse Authorities A watercourse authority under Part 6A of the Water Management Act 1999 will be provided to the water entity to enable the use of natural watercourses for the tr ansmission of water throughout the Lower South Esk and the Arthurs Pipeline irrigation districts. For the Arth urs Pipeline irrigation district the watercourse a uthority will allow for the release of water from pipelines into the Macquarie, Blackman, Elizabeth, Isis an d Jordan Rivers and Kittys and Currajong Rivulets and co nvey it downstream to supply holders of irrigatio n rights. This will be subject to conditions a s required t o reflect the terms on which water is t o be released and taken und er the watercourse auth orities or any other authorisation ( including accounting for transmission losse s). Conditions will also ensure that the release and conveyance of water d oes not have a signific ant adverse impact on other water users or cause material or serious environmental harm. For the Lower South Esk irrigation district the watercourse authority will allow for the release of water fro m Milford Dam into the South Esk River with similar conditions. Approvals by the Tasmanian Minister for Primary Industries to e stablish a watercourse authority for the schemes will include conditions which:  reflect that water demand under the watercourse authority does not exceed the availability of water in the relevant water resource; and  reflect expected losses to the relevant water resource from evaporation or other causes as water is conveyed under the watercourse authority; and  reflect the terms on which water is to be released and taken under the watercourse authority or any other authorisation; and  ensure that the watercourse authority does not have a significant adverse impact on other water users; and  ensure that the watercourse authority does not cause material or serious environmental harm; and  provide for the variation of the watercourse authority (including the circumstances in which it may occur and the procedures for effecting it).

3.1.4 Construction Processes – MWS Infrastructure Development The construction processes for the MWS encompass the supply and distribution lin es for the two irrigation districts, as well as associated infr astructure (e.g. Floods Creek Dam, Milford Dam, Floods Creek Power Station, transm ission line s, pump stations, acces s tracks). Associated infrastruct ure include s future su pply and distribution lines and a ssociated construction requirements should they be identified into the future. The indicative routes and locations of all current infrastructure can be seen in Appendix B.

26.

Assessment Process A systematic consideration of environmental, social and economic issues associated with the construction of infrastru cture for th e purpos es of deliverin g water to farmers through the MWS will be underta ken. Thi s consideration will include specifi c ident ification an d quantification of impacts on relevant MNES. Detailed descriptions of survey req uirements for the MWS can be se en in Append ix E. The stages of assessment are outlined below. Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment & Impact Studies The preliminary identification of the need for water and the social and economic benefits has been undertaken at the business case level for the MWS. Preliminary EIA studies for natural and cultural values have occurred which encompass the review of existing information in relation to proposed infrastruct ure sites and river transmission routes to be used in associat ion with infrastructure are outlined in Appendix B. These preliminary in vestigations have invol ved literature and specialist review of potentia l impacts fro m proposed construct ion resulting in a compilation of kn own values for sites where impacts are likely. Based on the outcome of this preliminary work, a range of options for infrastructure siting were identified as warranting further investigation. Field surveys will be undertaken to verify the mappe d native ve getation co mmunities identified in the desktop and to identify terrestrial and aqua tic flora and f auna values values listed migra tory species and Ramsar sites w hich could be impacted upon by proposed pipelines alignments and associate d river tran smission se ctions, at pr oposed site s for the power station, transmission lines, storage dams, and at pro posed pump station sites. These surveys will be used to recommen d any miti gation or management options, such as rout e realignment, to avoid threatened species and threatened native vegetation communities or to prepare plans to limit any on-ground impacts if route realignment is not possible. The surveys will also support the development application s for the proposed schemes required under the Land Use and Planning Approvals Act 1993. The surveys will  document the existing vegetation communities and thre atened flora species and Ramsar sites within a designated corridor, which inclu des the footprint of the elements of the proposed development, and identify which of these are MNES;  document the existing fauna habit at and liste d threatene d fauna spe cies and list ed migratory species that occur within a designated corridor which include s the footprint of the elements of the proposed development, plus in the wi der vicinity of elements of the proposed development that may be impacted by the construction and operation of the proposed development and identify which of these are MNES;  assess the impacts of the construction and operation of the elements of the proposed development on identified values. Field surveys are a lso to be undert aken to ide ntify potential for the construction of MWS infrastructure to impact on historic and cultural heritage1. Further assessment of available records and publications will be undertaken to determine the need for field assessm ent of identified values, to determi ne the potential impacts of the MWS, and to identify opportunities to avoid or minimize the assessed impacts.

1 Historic heritage sites covered by this assessment include recently declared World Heritage sites. 27.

Where significant value s (natural o r other) are identified w ithin initial construction corridors that cannot be avoided or, have impacts mitigated to an acceptable level or off set, then alternative corridors may be identified. Further survey work consistent with this assessmen t process will be undertaken. The survey corridor as it stands is considered to be more than sufficient for the core irrigation infrastructure based on the concep tual design and it is un likely that a ny additional area is required. It is conceivable, however, that detailed design may find that s ome additional area for temporary supporting infrastructu re, such as construction access roads and tracks, could be required where access is not possible alo ng the con struction corr idor or from existing roads. If t his proves t o be necessary, and those acce ss routes ar e outside th e existin g survey corridor, the sur vey corridor will be exp anded acco rdingly and the finding s of that additional survey will be incorporated into the CEMP. The results of this a ssessment will be used as supporting documentation for the development applications for the proposed development.

Mitigation and Environmental Management Plans Practical op portunities t o avoid or minimise assesse d impacts on all values ( including MNES), or to offset re sidual impa cts will be identified a nd recommended in th e above surveys. Th ese recommendations will then be us ed as the basis for the develo pment of planning applications as required under the Land Use and Planning Approvals Act 1993. The planning ap plications w ill in clude a n environmental management plan for the individual scheme components outlining how impacts on natural values will be impacted upon. Environmental approvals required under various state legislation: Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, Nature Conservation Act 2002, may also include an environmental management plan outlining how impacts are to be managed. All CEMPs will encompass MNES, and b e consisten t with the obligations, principles, agreements, advice and plans out lined in Cha pter 4, Part 10, Divisio n 1, Section 146 F-M (EPBCA).

Approvals and Monitoring Existing legislative approvals that are already required for the construct ion of infrastructure associated with the Program will be used to provide the necessary permission to construct the scheme at the Stat e level. Assessment processes wit hin State a nd Local governmen t exist for each of these legislative approvals. They extend to considerations such as social and economic benefit, environmental impacts and offset provisions. These existi ng assessment processes will be u sed as th e basis for th e productio n of an environmental management plan f or each irrigation sche me within t he MWS which will outline the impacts like ly, and avoidance, mi tigation and offset measures that may b e required as a result of the final construction sit es chosen. This plan will include pr oposed approaches to the monitoring of the success of mitigation measures to be put in place and may include staged construction of the schemes. The plans will be provided to the Commonwe alth Environment Minister in a draft format, agreed upo n by the Parties, an d then fina lised for a pproval by both the State and Commonwealth once comments have been received. Current approvals required at the State level are: Water Management Act 1999: dam construction permit

28.

Land Use and Planning Approvals Act 1993: planning permit which relates to construction of infrastructure and associated clearance of native vegetation communities Crown Lands Act 1976: approval t o use of public reserves for infrast ructure (e.g. stream crossings for supply lines) Electricity Supply Industry Act 1995: Licence to generate electricity Pending the outcome of impact assessments further approvals may be required under these additional Acts: Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1985: impact on listed heritage sites Aboriginal Relics Act 1975: impacts on aboriginal sites Threatened Species Protection Act 1995: threatened species Nature Conservation Act 2002: impact on reserves and listed species National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002: impact on reserves Forest Practices Act 1985: clearance of vegetation

Maintenance and Refurbishment Where maintenance and/or refurbishment of the two supply lines and associated infrastructure required under the MWS is needed, then the same assessment, management and approval processes will apply, with the following exception:  where no significant impact on MNES, and no clearance and conversion of Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania will occur, a CEMP will not be required by the State or Commonwealth1.

3.2 LEGAL STANDING The development of a suite of regionally significant irrigation proposals around the State is in response to the Council of Australia n Governments water reforms, and the Nation al Water Initiative (NWI) (COAG 2004). Tasmania is instituting reform according to a Commonwealth accredited NWI Implementation Plan, and is framed aga inst the current COAG initiative to accelerate and deepen the reform agenda. A National Partnership Agreeme nt with the Common wealth Government , Implementation Plan for Supporting More Efficient Irrigation in Tasmania (DEWHA 2009a), underpins the funding arrangements for irrigation infrastructure. The Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS) (RPDC 2003) establishe s principles for sustaina ble development in t he State. The planning, alloca tion and management of water r esources in Tasmania is governed, principally, by the provisions of the Water Management Act 1999 and the Irrigation Clauses Act 1973.

3.3 ACTIONS TO BE INCLUDED The relevan t actions un der the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 that are to be impl emented on the basis of the Progra m are described more fu lly in the Program Report, the companion document to this assessment.

1 This will not preclude other legislative approvals from being required. 29.

3.4 TASMANIAN APPROVALS PROCESS The Tasmanian Government has a range of statutory responsibilities relating to the approval, implementation and management of the Program. This section outlines: - The relevant statutory frameworks and how they might be used to implement the Program and provide for the sustainable management of MNES - A summary of the overall assessment processes; and - A summary of the relevant decision-makers and their responsibilities. The Program provides multiple levels of accountability in regulating access to irrigation water and involves both the water entity and the individual water user.

3.4.1 Statutory Framework and Implementation The Statutory Frame work for t he Water Access Pro gram sits within the Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS). The Water Management Act 1999 is the primary piece of State legislation that regulates the Program. It provides for the ap plication of conditions for the supply and us e of water within the MWS area which trigger policies and approval processes. The releva nt planning and policy mechanisms are de scribed in the implementation framework provided in the partner Program Re port. Tables 1 and 2 b elow indicat e which pieces of legislation are relevant to the Program at each stage of implementation. It should be noted that any commitments mad e in the Program must be met thro ughout all stages of the Program – hence Table 2 indicates EPBCA as being relevant across all stages. The implementation framework des cribed in th e Program Report indicates the overarching nature of the EPBCA endorsement.

30.

Table 1: Legislation and Policy Relevant to the Program

Table 1: the relevant legislation, policy, strategies and plans that will inform processes and decision-making as the Program is implemented. Category Legislation Policy & Strategy Guidelines & Plans Water Resources Water Management Act 1999 National Partnership Agreement on Water Draft South Esk River Water Management for the Future (COAG 2009) Plan (DPIPWE 2009a) Irrigation Clauses Act 1973 Intergovernmental Agreement on a Water Facts – Water Districts (DPIW 2009b) National Water Initiative (NWI) (COAG 2004) Environment Protection and National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Annual Report Guidelines for Water Entities Biodiversity Conservation Act Quality (COAG 2000) administering Irrigation Districts (DPIW 1999 (C’Wealth) 2009c) National Water Quality Management Standard Operating Procedures for the Strategy (DEWHA 1992) Development of Statutory Water Management Plans in Tasmania (DPIPWE 2010a) State Policy on Water Quality Generic Principles for Water Management Management (RPDC 1997) Planning (DPIWE 2005) Tasmanian Surface Water Quality Water Infrastructure Fund Protocol (DoTaF Monitoring Strategy (DPIW 2003) 2008) National Water Initiative Implementation Plan (Tasmania) (DPIW 2006(a)) Tasmanian Water for Ecosystems Policy (DPIWE 2001) Guide to Assess Applications for New Water Allocations from Water Courses During Winter – Water Resources Policy

31.

Table 1: the relevant legislation, policy, strategies and plans that will inform processes and decision-making as the Program is implemented. 2004/1 (DPIWE 2004(a)) Enforcement Policy – Water Management Act 1999 (DPIWE 2004(b)) Water Infrastructure Fund Tasmania (WIF) Land Use Land Use and Planning Crown Land Services Instruction Sheet No. 1 Planning Approvals Act 1993 (Tas) – Major Project Assessment Guideline (DPIWE 2004) Crown Lands Act 1976 (Tas) Guide to the Resource Management and Planning System (RPDC 2003) Land Acquisition Act 1993 (Tas)

Ecologically Environment Protection and National Strategy for Ecologically Guide to the Resource Management and Sustainable Biodiversity Conservation Act Sustainable Development (COAG 1992) Planning System (RPDC 2003) Development 1999 Threatened Species Protection National Framework for the Management Tasmania’s Nature Conservation Strategy Act 1995 (Tas) and Monitoring of Australia’s Native (2002) Vegetation (DEH 2001(a)) Land Use and Planning National Objectives and Targets for Dam works code (DPIW 2007a) Approvals Act 1993 (Tas) Biodiversity Conservation 2001 – 2005 (DEH 2001(b)) Nature Conservation Act 2002 Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement Draft Guidelines for the Preparation of a Dam (Tas) (1997) Development Effect and Management Statement (DPIW 2007(b)) Forest Practices Act 1985 Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement Guidelines for Establishing Offsets for 2005 Impacts on Natural Values within the Dam Assessment Framework (DPIW 2007c)

32.

Table 1: the relevant legislation, policy, strategies and plans that will inform processes and decision-making as the Program is implemented. National Parks and Reserves Tasmanian Government Policy for Management Act 2002 Maintaining a Permanent Native Forest Estate (DIER 2009(b)) Environmental Threatened Species Protection Draft Policy Statement: Use of Guidelines for Natural Values Assessments Impact Act 1995 Environmental Offsets under the EPBC (DPIPWE 2009(b)) Assessment (DEWR 2007) Land Use and Planning Tasmanian Property Management Planning Approvals Act 1993 Framework (TFGA 2010) Environmental Management Matters of National Environmental and Pollution Control Act 1994 Significance, Significant Impact Guidelines (DEWHA 2009(b)) Forest Practices Act 1985 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002 Conservation of Environment Protection and National Strategy for the Conservation of Information Sheet for Permits, Authorities Biodiversity Biodiversity Conservation Act Australia’s Biological Diversity and Other Licences Required to ‘Take’ 1999 (COAG 1996) Native Flora in Tasmania (DPIW 2003(a)) Threatened Species Protection Tasmanian Wetlands Strategy Guidelines for Permit Applications for the Act 1995 ‘Taking’ of Native Flora (DPIW 2003(b)) Nature Conservation Act 2002

Water Management Act 1999 Protection of Historic Cultural Heritage Act Works to Heritage Places (DPIPWE

33.

Table 1: the relevant legislation, policy, strategies and plans that will inform processes and decision-making as the Program is implemented. Cultural Heritage 1985 2010(a)) Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 Aboriginal Heritage Guidelines and Standards (DEPHA 2009a-d) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (C’Wealth) Energy Efficiency Electricity Supply Industry Act Energy Policy Statement (DIER 2009a) 1995

34.

Table 2: Primary Legislation for Each Stage of Program Implementation

LEGISLATION THAT WILL APPLY AT EACH STAGE OF PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STAGE 1 Approval Program STAGE 2 Process Implementation STAGE 3 and Construction Works STAGE 4 Operational

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation     Act 1999 Water Management Act 1999    Irrigation Clauses Act 1973    Land Use and Planning Approvals Act 1993    Crown Lands Act 1976  Threatened Species Protection Act 1995   Nature Conservation Act 2002   National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002   Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1985   Aboriginal Relics Act 1975   Electricity Supply Industry Act 1995  

The RMPS, which was established in 1994, aims to achieve sustainable outcomes from the use and development of the State’s natural and physical resources. Its objectives are to:

 promote the sustain able development of natural and ph ysical resou rces and th e maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity;  provide for the fair, ord erly and sustainable u se and development of air, land an d water;  encourage public involvement in resource management and planning; and  facilitate economic development in accordance with the objectives set out above; a nd promote the sharing of responsibility for resource management and planning between the different spheres of Government, the community and industry in the State.

In the objectives, “susta inable development” means managing the use, developme nt and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being and for t heir health and safety while:

35.

 sustaining t he potential of natural and physical resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations;  safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems; and  avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effect s of activities on th e environment. The fundamental, underlying principles for decision-making in the RMPS include:

a. Inter-generational equit y – resource use decisions need t o take into account th e needs of future generations; b. Conservation of biodiversity – the need to maintain species and genetic diversity; c. Precautionary approach – decisions should err on the side of caution w here there is uncertainty surrounding the potential impact upon the environment; d. Social equity – pri vate use or deve lopment of resources must consider wider socia l costs; e. Efficiency – resources must be used efficiently; and f. Community participat ion – the co mmunity should be inv olved in establishing t he parameters for the use and development of resources.

3.4.2 Assessment under the Water Management Act 1999 The Water Management Act 1999 governs planning, allocation and management of water resources in Tasmania and it is from this Act that the Water Access Program draws many of its regulatory powers. Establishment and administration of water districts – on the application of eit her a water entity or a group of landowners (trust), the Mini ster may ap point, name and define a water supply district, an irrigation district, a riverworks district or a drainage district – thereby giving the applicant administrative control of, and respons ibility for the district (Part 9,section167). The approval of an app lication may be subject t o conditions imposed by the Minister (Part 9 section 176). At start-up the water entity for the MWS will be the Tasmanian Irrigation Development Board (TIDB), a registered company established by the Tasmanian Gove rnment in 2008 to progress a suite of reg ionally significant irrigation schemes t hroughout Tasmania. The TIDB was declared by the Minister to be a water entity under the Water Management Act 1999 on the 25th February 2009. The Minister’s power to make the approval of a water district subject to conditions is one of the key regulatory mechanisms of the Water Access Program. To ensure security f or MNES values those condition s will require the water entity to undertake a range of tasks a s described in Section 3.1.2. The Minister responsible for the Water Management Act 1999 may, after receiving an application from a water entity or a group of lan dholders, name and define: a wate r supply district; an irrigation district; a riverworks distr ict; or a drainage district a nd then give a water entity administrative control of, and responsibility for, that water district. Once an irrigation district is declar ed, the water entity is given powers to administer an d manage the irrigation d istrict. The p rovisions of the Irrigation Clauses Act 1973 relate to the construction of water works, sup ply of water, making of by-laws and othe r matters concerning the administration of an irrigation district. The approval by the Mi nister of an application to establish an irrigation district is subject to conditions. Conditions relating to requirements that the Min ister may wish to place on the water entity will genera lly be place d in the ap proval for the irrigation district. Thi s is an

36.

important power and o ne of the key regulatory mechanisms of the Water Acce ss System component of the Program. Failure of administration of a water district – the Minister can revoke an ap proval to administer a water (irrigation) distr ict should a water entity or trust fail to comply with a Ministerial requirement to provide any informati on relating t o any activity arising fro m, or for the purpose of, the administration of a water district, or materially contravene any condition to which its administration of the district is subject (Part 9,sub section 184 & 186). Licence to take water – water mu st not be ta ken from a water resource without a licence (Part 5 of the Act does provide for some exceptions for “stock and domestic” use by riparian landholders). A water licence is generally endorsed with a water allocation(s). Water licences are issue d by the Minister and he/she may d etermine that a water a llocation of a lice nce may be taken from, or used on, on ly a specifie d area of la nd; or used only in accordance with conditions for the avoidance, minimisation or manage ment of associated environmental risks, for example the maintenance of environmental flows. The Minister has a rang e of powers in relat ion to enforcing compliance with the lice nce and any conditions attached to it (P.6) including the cancellation of a licence and conviction of an offence for serious bre aches. Th e licence must be consistent wit h the relevant water management plan and the process for issuing licences ( Appendix F ) conforms to policy guidelines that take into consideration environmental impacts from the taking o f water at a range of scales (DPIWE, 2004). The TIDB requires a licence to ta ke water from the South Esk River for the MWS. The Minister must ensure t hat the lice nce is con sistent with t he object ives of the Resource Management and Planning System including the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997, the Water Management Act 1999 and the draft South Esk River Catchment Water Management Plan made under Part 4 of the Act. Section 54(3) of the Water Management Act 1999 provides that the prohibition on the taking of water from a water resource wit hout a licen se does not apply to a person taking water directly from a dam or other works if the water in the dam or works has previously been taken in accordance with the Act. Hence , the TIDB will not requ ire a water l icense to take water from Arthurs Lake a s the water has already been taken into storage by Hydro T asmania in accordance with the Act. Hydro Tasmania hold s a Specia l Water L icence for A rthurs Lake . Under th e Water Management Act 1999 a special water licen ce confers a high level o f surety for access to water except under limited circu mstances – one of which is for t he essent ial needs of ecosystems dependent on the relevant water source. Watercourse Authorities - A watercourse authority under Part 6A of the Water Management Act 1999 will be provided to the water entity to enable the use of natural watercourses for the tra nsmission of water throughout the Lower South Esk and t he Arthurs Pipeline irrigation districts. For the Arthurs Pipeline irrigation district the watercourse authority will allow the release of water from pipelines into the Macquarie, Blackman, Elizabeth, Isis an d Jordan Rivers and convey it do wnstream to supply holders of irri gation rights. This will be subject to co nditions as required to reflect t he terms on which water is to be released a nd taken u nder the watercourse Authorities or any other authorisa tion (inclu ding accounting for transmission losses). Conditions will also ensure that the release and conveyance of water does not have a significant adverse impact on other water users or cause material or s erious environmental harm. For the Lower South Esk irrigation distri ct the watercourse aut hority will allow the release of water from Milford Dam into the South Esk River with similar conditions.

37.

Approvals by the Tasmanian Minister for Primary Industries to e stablish a watercourse authority for the schemes will include conditions which:  reflect that water demand under t he waterco urse authority does not exceed th e availability of water in the relevant water resource; and  reflect expected losse s to the relevant water resource fr om evapora tion or other causes as water is conveyed under the watercourse authority; and  reflect the t erms on wh ich water is to be released and take n under the watercourse authority or any other authorisation; and  ensure that the watercourse authority does not have a significant adverse impact on other water users; and  ensure tha t the watercourse au thority does not cau se material or seriou s environmental harm; and  provide for t he variation of the wate rcourse authority (including the circumstances in which it may occur and the procedures for effecting it). Water Management Planning – is a component of Tasmania’s Resource Management and Planning S ystem which establish es principle s for sustainable development in t he State. Water Management Plans, which ar e established under Part 4, present a clear statement of the commu nity’s environmental, social and e conomic ob jectives for the relevant water resources a nd describe the water management regime th at best give s effect to these by guiding how freshwater resources a re to be ma naged and allocated an d how the needs of the freshwater ecosyste ms are to be protected objectives (DPIWE, 2005). Appendix G sets out a generic model for water management planning. Construction of dams – the Water Management Act 1999 also provides a regulatory framework for an integrated assessment and a pproval process for the construction of dams and related infrastructure. Part 8 of t he Act provides for the establishment of an A ssessment Committee for Dam Construction (ACDC): its constitution, mem bership, functions and procedures. The ACDC’s main functions are to: consider applications to undertake dam works; grant or refuse permits; and determine any con ditions that should attach to the per mits. The Act sets out issues to be consider ed by the committee in their delibe rations as well as how permits to construct dams are to be granted. Under the Program, the asse ssment requirement s for on- farm dams which are r equired to hold MWS water are described in the FWAP process. Wh ere dams are part of th e scheme infrastructure, the construction processes describe assessment requirements.

3.4.3 Assessment under the Irrigation Clauses Act 1973 The provisions of the Irrigation Clauses Act 1973 relate to t he construction of water works, supply of water, making of by-laws and other matters concerning th e administration of an irrigation district. The Irrigation Clauses Act 1973 is incorporated with the Water Management Act 1999, f or the purp oses of the applica tion of the Water Management Act to irrigation districts. The making of by-laws for the proper administration of irrigation districts – once an irrigation district is named and defined by the Minister, and a water e ntity appointed, the entity is aff orded the p owers to administer and manage the relevant irrigation district in accordance with the Irrigation Clauses Act 1973 . Water entities may regulate char ges and the terms a nd conditions upon which water will be supplied, including measures to prevent waste, pollution, or misuse of water, through the making of by-laws (s.46).

38.

Irrigation Rights – under the system of irrigation rights (s.23) the water entity grants to each individual water user a statutory right to be supplied with a certain quan tity of water from the entity’s bulk allocation in each irr igation season. The gran ting of those rights will b e subject to any by-laws and provisions for how, when, and in what circumstances water may be taken (for exampl e, the timin g, rate and/ or quantity of water taken would b e covered b y the by- laws). As f ar as possible, these conditions will be relate d to the ind ividual water user’s FWAP such that the amount of water taken, the rate at which it is taken and the time it is taken are consistent with the spe cified irrigat ion management require ments outlin ed in the that plan. The Water Entity will ensure that the management of irrigation water supplied under an irrigation right is sustainable and consistent with the individual FWAP. It is incumbent on the water entity to ensure that the management of irrigation water supplied under an irrigation right is sustainable and consistent with individual FWAPs. Prior to the commissioning of a new irrigation sc heme, water entitlements are offered by the water entity by tender or direct sal es. Initial ly, the user and water entity will enter into an irrigation rig hts purchase contract (IRPC) whi ch will give the user a right to a water entitlement on commissioning of the scheme. At the poi nt of commission ing, th e wate r entitlement will contain two compon ents – an Irrigation Right and a Zoned Flow Delivery Right. After commissioning of the scheme, irri gators may trade (temporarily or permanently) the component rights individually or jointly.1 Zoned Flow Delivery Rights – As noted above, the Minister will req uire certain actions to be taken by t he water entity as a condition o f approving the Midlands Irrigation Districts, in cluding th e making of by-laws relating to the supply and use of water. The new by-laws are to include a requirement that all water users to hold a Zoned Flow Delivery Right to access water, and record all rights in a common, s earchable register will be capable of recording charges over the rig hts (See Section 3.1.2). Water Connection Agreement – individual users will nee d to acce ss water supplied an d delivered u nder an Irrigation Right and Zoned Flow Delivery Right through infrastructure provided by the water entity. A Water Connection Agreement is the contractual arrangement by which th e individual water user and the en tity agree t he basis for the installa tion and continued use of a Connection (or access) Point. This Agreement is a contractual a rrangement between the water entity and the individual water user, which sets out the basis for the installation and continued use of a Co nnection Point. A Connection Point is simply the infrast ructure provided by the water entity through which the individual water user will access wat er supplied and delivered under an Irrigation Right and Zoned Flow Delivery Right. The Water Access Program for the MWS will require the making of specific by-laws, established under the Irrigation Clauses Act 1973, to under pin the requ irement for a water user to hold a Water Co nnection Agreement specifying that a Connection Point is only to be installed for, and may only be used by, an individual water user holding a valid FWAP. As a condition of the Minister’s appr oval of the Irrigation District, the TIDB must requ ire that all water is metered at the Connection Point. Farm Water Access Plans – The plan will cover the area of land which will b e directly affected by the propose d irrigation. This includes areas which contain infrastructure required

39.

in order to receive and use the irrigation water. The content and requirements of FWAPS are outlined in Section 3.1.2. A FWAP is developed and validated by a p requalified consultant who is appointed in accordance with a pre qualification process. T his process is underpinned by th e by-law requiring FWAPs for t he access and use of water throu gh the scheme. Each F WAP will comprise at a minimum, a water component, a soil component and a biodiversity component, each of which will address relevant issues relat ing to the land area directly affected by th e application of irrigation water as well as identifying any farm scale monitoring deeme d necessary to avoid off irrigation area impacts (see below). Water user s and their consultant s will be gui ded in the development of water, soil and biodiversity components of Water Access Pl ans by generic property planning modules. Individual property planning modules for water and soil have bee n developed by th e Tasmanian Irrigation Development Board (TIDB) in consultation with DPIPWE and TFGA, in accord with the Proper ty Manage ment Syste ms framework for Tasmania. A biodiversity property planning module has also been developed by TFGA in consultation with the DPIPWE and NRM regions (TFGA, 2010). The biodiversity module will be the primary tool for the identification and management of MNES that have the potential to be impacted b y the application of irr igation water at the property level. The module was developed by the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association (TFGA) in consult ation with the DPIPWE a nd NRM re gions (TFGA, 2010). Features of biodiversity and ecolog ical sensitivity will need t o be ident ified as wil l the risks and impacts on MNES. The plan will be expected to set out strategies for sustainable activity including appropriate management actions and recommendations for monitoring to manage identified risks. A set of minimu m standards which must be met by the FWAP in rel ation to MNES have been identified in the Program report. The water and soil modules have been developed by the TI DB in consultation with DPIPWE and the TFGA, in accordance with Tasmania’s Property Management Systems framework. The water property planning module requires an inventory of current water assets and resources; identifies ad ditional irrig ation water requireme nts includin g information on the suitability of such water for use in susta inable irrigat ion; identifie s r isks (e.g. e rosion, sediment transport) associated with irri gation activities and incorp orates management actions and monitoring recommendations to appropriately manage these risks. The soil pr operty planning module describ es t he so il characteristics. It de scribes and assesses the land-use potential and capability of each soil type including the potential for use as irrigated farmland and identif ies the risks (e.g. w ater-logging, salin ity, sodicity, acidification, soil carbon decline) associated with current land use a nd potential changes in land use. The mo dule also incorporat es management actions and monitoring recommendations to appropriately manage these risks. As part of the water access planning process each land manager will need to complete a risk assessment of existing property management p ractices in r espect of biodiversity, soil and water, as a minimum. This will b e the basis for developing management actions and monitoring programs, specific to the property, aimed at minimising potential and known risks associated with the application of irrigation water to the land in question.

3.4.4 Summary of Responsibilities Table 3 illustrates the various legislative approvals (and who is responsible for issuing them), required for the implementation of t he Program. These ap provals form part of the overall implementation framework for the Program – this framework is fully described in the Program Report. The legislative approvals form one of the mechanisms used t o implement, regulate

40.

and enforce the commitments made under the Program. It also detai ls the responsibilities of the various approving parties during the construction phase. Table 4 outlines what the Program aspects are that will require ongoing management, who is responsible for them and how they will be achieved.

41.

Table 3: Legislative Approval Mechanisms for the Implementation of the Program

Program Stage Act or Funding Purpose Mechanism Responsibility Timing Program Stage 2: Process Implementation 2.1 Funding Water for the Future To enable the delivery of NWI Implementation Commonwealth Minister Short Term sustainable water Plan for Water management planning - Due Diligence DEWHA/COAG through water reform Process and support for sustainable irrigation projects within Tasmania 2.2 Funding Water Infrastructure To enable realisation of WIF Protocol State Government Short Term Fund sustainable water management and irrigation development 2.3 Water Access Water Management Act To create a Water Entity Declaration by State Minister for Water Complete 1999 which has administrative Minister of water entity DPIPWE control of and responsibility for an irrigation district. 2.4 Water Access Water Management Act To create Irrigation Declaration of State Minister for Water Short Term 1999 Districts within the irrigation districts with DPIPWE strategic assessment conditions by Minister area including: -By-laws -Audit requirements -Metering requirements -FWAP

42.

Program Stage Act or Funding Purpose Mechanism Responsibility Timing Program Stage 2: Process Implementation -annual & 5 yearly reporting requirements 2.5 Water Access Irrigation Clauses Act Creation of by-laws Allows for rules Water Entity Short Term 1973 around operation of irrigation district. 2.6 Taking of Water Water Management Act To allow for a bulk Issuing of water State Minister for Water Ongoing 1999 allocation of water to the licence to entity with DPIPWE water entity for use conditions by Minister. within the Lower South Esk irrigation scheme 2.7 Use of Water Water Management Act To enable river sections Issuing of watercourse State Minister for Water Short Term 1999 to be used to deliver authorities with DPIPWE water to irrigators. conditions by Minister 2.8 Use of Water Irrigation Clauses Act To provide a right to use Issuing of irrigation Water Entity Ongoing 1973 and provide water for right to irrigators with irrigation within the conditions by the irrigation districts Water Entity associated with the strategic assessment. 2.9 Use of Water Irrigation Clauses Act To define share of the Zoned Flow Delivery Water entity Ongoing 1973 water delivery capacity Right Contract & provide the right to between water entity delivery of a designated and irrigator volume of water to a particular location. 2.10 Use of Water Irrigation Clauses Act To define the volume of FWAP approved by Prequalified Consultant Ongoing 1973 water which can be prequalified consultant sustainably applied to a in accordance with

43.

Program Stage Act or Funding Purpose Mechanism Responsibility Timing Program Stage 2: Process Implementation given property. FWAPs Program outline the application commitments. method and, management and monitoring requirements at a property level. 2.11 Use of Water EPBC To provide approvals for EPBC Referral Commonwealth Ongoing actions which are Environment Minister outside the program DEWHA (where significant impacts are likely) 2.12 Use of Water Irrigation Clauses Act To define the basis for Water Connection Water entity Ongoing 1973 the installation and Agreement Contract continued use of a between water entity Connection Point. and irrigator 2.13 Planning for EPBC To specify commitments Environmental Commonwealth Short Term construction for protection and Management Plan Environment Minister management of MNES DEWHA during construction of infrastructure associated with the development of the irrigation schemes to enable the delivery of water to farms. 2.14 Planning for Water Management Act To specify any Dam permit DPIPWE Medium Term Construction 1999 conditions associated with the construction of Milford and Floods Creek Dams.

44.

Program Stage Act or Funding Purpose Mechanism Responsibility Timing Program Stage 2: Process Implementation 2.15 Planning for Forest Practices Act To specify the way in Forest Practices Plan Forest Practices Medium Term Construction 1985 which clearance of Authority forest in association with the construction of the schemes is to occur. 2.16 Planning for Land Use and Planning To provide legal LUPAA permit issued Local Government Short Term Construction Approvals Act 1993 permissions for (Councils) clearance and construction of infrastructure related to Midlands Water Scheme (MWS) 2.17 Planning for Crown Lands Act 1976 To provide legal Issuing of Approval to DPIPWE Short Term Construction permission for use of Use Crown Lands by Crown Land for MWS Minister 2.18 Planning for Threatened Species To specify any Issuing of permit to DPIPWE Medium Term Construction Protection Act 1995 conditions associated take with the taking of threatened species in conjunction with the construction or operation of the MWS 2.19 Planning for Nature Conservation Act To specify any Issuing of permit to DPIPWE Medium Term Construction 2002 conditions associated take with the taking of listed species and use of reserves associated with construction of MWS 2.20 Planning for National Parks and To specify any Approval and Tasmanian Minister for Medium Term 45.

Program Stage Act or Funding Purpose Mechanism Responsibility Timing Program Stage 2: Process Implementation Construction 2.19 Reserves Management conditions associated Authority to Undertake Environment Act 2002 with works within formal Works dedicated reserves 2.21 Planning for Historic Cultural Heritage To specify any Approval to carry out Heritage Council Medium Term Construction Act 1985 conditions for protection works or management of listed historic cultural heritage sites associated with construction of the MWS 2.22 Planning for Aboriginal Relics Act Approval to destroy, Aboriginal Heritage Tasmanian Minister for Medium Term Construction 1975 damage, interfere with Permit Environment or endanger a protected Director of National object Parks and Wildlife 2.23 Monitoring and EPBC To create guidelines for Approved monitoring Commonwealth Short Term Auditing landscape scale guidelines for MWS Environment Minister monitoring of MNES Strategic Assessment. DEWHA 2.24 Monitoring and EPBC To ensure all planning Regulatory permit DPIPWE Medium Term Auditing mechanisms created in conditions Stage 2 are in accord with the Program

46.

Program Stage Act or Funding Purpose Mechanism Responsibility Timing1 Program Stage 3: Construction and Works 3.1 EPBC To ensure works are Approved CEMP DPIPWE Medium Term carried out in DEWHA accordance with CEMP for construction 3.2 Land Use and Planning To ensure works are LUPAA permit Local Government Medium Term Approvals Act 1993 carried out in (Councils) Approved CEMP accordance with permit and CEMP. 3.3 Water Management Act To ensure the Dam permit DPIPWE Medium Term 1999 construction of Milford Approved CEMP ACDC and Floods Creek Dams is undertaken in accordance with permit and CEMP. 3.4 Crown Lands Act 1976 To ensure the use of Approval to Use DPIPWE Medium Term Crown Land is in Crown Lands by accordance with the Minister approval issued. 3.5 Threatened Species To ensure works are Permit to take DPIPWE Medium Term Protection Act 1995 carried out in CEMP accordance with permit and CEMP. 3.6 Nature Conservation Act To ensure works are Permit to take DPIPWE Medium Term 2002 carried out in EMP accordance with permit and CEMP.

1 Short Term = 2010-2012, Medium Term = 2010 – 2015, Ongoing = for the duration of the Program 47.

Program Stage Act or Funding Purpose Mechanism Responsibility Timing1 Program Stage 3: Construction and Works 3.7 National Parks and To ensure works are Approval and Tasmanian Minister for Medium Term Reserves Management carried out in Authority to Undertake Environment Act 2002 accordance with permit Works 3.8 Historic Cultural Heritage To ensure works are Approval to carry out Heritage Council Medium Term Act 1985 carried out in works accordance with approval 3.9 Aboriginal Relics Act To ensure works are Aboriginal Heritage Tasmanian Minister for Medium Term 1975 carried out in Permit Environment accordance with Director of National approval Parks and Wildlife

48.

Table 4: Legislative Approval Mechanism for the Ongoing Management of the Program

Program Stage Act or Funding Purpose Mechanism Responsibility Timing1 Program Stage 4: Ongoing Operation 4.1 Reporting and EPBC Reporting and Auditing Approved Monitoring Water Entity Short Term/ Auditing of short, medium and Program and QA Ongoing long term impacts and Protocol compliance with Annual irrigation district strategic assessment report from Water Entity to Tasmanian Minister 15% random annual audit of FWAPs 5 yearly landscape monitoring report to Tasmanian Minister and Commonwealth Environment Minister 4.2 Reporting and EPBC Reporting short, medium Monitoring Report Prequalified consultant Ongoing Auditing and long term impacts (Property Based) and compliance with strategic assessment 4.3 Reporting and EPBC Ongoing monitoring of Approved CEMP DPIPWE Ongoing Auditing approval conditions for construction 4.4 Reporting and Land Use and Planning Ongoing monitoring of LUPAA permit Local Government Ongoing Auditing Approvals Act 1993 approval conditions for (Councils) Approved CEMP

1 Short Term = 2010-2012, Medium Term = 2010 – 2015, Ongoing = for the duration of the Program 49.

construction 4.5 Reporting and Water Management Act Ongoing monitoring of Dam permit DPIPWE Ongoi ng Auditing 1999 approval conditions for Approved CEMP construction 4.6 Reporting and Crown Lands Act 1976 Ongoing monitoring of Approval to Use Crown DPIPWE Ongoi ng Auditing approval conditions for Lands by Minister construction 4.7 Reporting and Threatened Species Ongoing monitoring of Permit to take DPIPWE Ongoi ng Auditing Protection Act 1995 approval conditions for CEMP construction 4.8 Reporting and Nature Conservation Act Ongoing monitoring of Permit to take DPIPWE Ongoi ng Auditing 2002 approval conditions for CEMP construction 4.9 Reporting and National Parks and Ongoing monitoring of Approval and Authority Tasmanian Minister for Ongoing Auditing Reserves Management approval conditions for to Undertake Works Environment Act 2002 construction 4.10 Reporting and Historic Cultural Ongoing monitoring of Approval to carry out Heritage Council Ongoing Auditing Heritage Act 1985 approval conditions for works construction 4.11 Reporting and Aboriginal Relics Act Ongoing monitoring of Aboriginal Heritage Tasmanian Minister for Ongoing Auditing 1975 approval conditions for Permit Environment construction Director of National Parks and Wildlife

50.

3.5 STUDY AREA The Study Area for this Strategic Assessment is the area identified o n the map in Figure 1 . It forms part of the Midlands Region of Tasmania and extends across three local council areas: the Central Highlands, Northern Midlands and the Southern Midlands councils.

3.5.1 Regional Context The entire Midlands Region of Ta smania stretches from Hobart to Launceston, encompassing relatively flat, pre dominantly agric ultural la nd to the ea st and west o f the Midland Highway (DPIW 2002). In 2003 th e Co mmonwealth Go vernment an nounced 15 biod iversity hotspo ts a round the country – t he Tasmania n Midlands was one o f those. The re gion con tains high numbers of endemic plants and a nimals. There are a lso large numbers of nationally and state listed plant and an imal species a nd vege tation communities. It conta ins a large number of we tlands of national an d state s ignificance and fo rms key habitats for a range of m igratory b ird spec ies listed under international agreements. The reg ion was one of the firs t areas of Australia cleared for agric ulture and still su pports extensive agriculture and plantation fo restry. Widespread land clearing has re sulted in severe habitat frag mentation with only s mall an d sc attered remna nts of na tive v egetation re maining. Vegetation loss and degradation, soil erosion, dryland salinity and invasion by we eds such as willows and gorse, are seriously threateni ng endemic invertebrates, native orchids an d nationally threatened plant species and communities. A challenge to achieving conservation outcomes for natural values within the region includes the high levels of private ownership of land within the area. Alienation of the region from the Crown began occurring in the early 1820s with re turns for wool a nd agricultural production being th e primary drivers for settlement (DPIW, 2002). Bioregions Interim Bio geographic Reg ions o f Aus tralia (IBR A regions - referred to as bioreg ions) are boundaries which represent different types of landscapes in the environment. The b oundaries are bas ed around the fact that physical proces ses within the landscape dr ive ec ological processes. It is t hese ec ological processes t hat de termine what types of b iodiversity occur where (Thack way and Cresswell, 1995). The IBRA b oundaries were developed by spe cialists and are ref erred to a s interim bec ause it is ac cepted that as more detailed inform ation ab out bioregions is gathered over time, the boundaries may be revised to more accurately reflect what is present within the areas. The original purpose for which the boundaries were developed was to p rovide a basis a round which prioritie s for Commonwealth funding for reserves was determined. Most states and territories have since adopted IBRA bioregions as a pivotal tool for biodiversity and conservation planning. The Pro gram area falls within thr ee IBRA reg ions o f Austra lia (IBRA Vers ion 6.1) – the Tasmanian Central Highlands, Tasmanian Northern Midlands and Tasmanian South East. The Tasmanian Central Highlands bioregion has a pe rhumid cool to c old climate in the higher areas, and humid cool to cold climate on the lower plateau surfaces. Topography varies from mountainous J urassic dolerite and Tertiary b asalt ran ges in the west to lower plat eaus which are underlain by J urassic dolerite, Permo-Triassic sediments and Tertiary Basa lts. Soils in the bioregion are highly variable ranging from skeletal through sandy and clayey loams to alluvium. Vegetation varies a cross the region from dry fores t and wo odland to wet forest and alpine

51.

vegetation complexes and native pine forests where fire history and soil fertility allo w. A variety of land uses occur across the region, inc luding conservation, forestry, agriculture (grazing) and water catchment. The Tasmanian Northern Midlands is a cha racterized by a dry subhumid cool climate. It is an inland l owland p lain, with Tertiary ba salt, J urassic doleri te an d Pe rmo-Triassic san dstone geologies. The Tamar region includes recent alluvium. Vegetation ranges from gra sslands and grassy woo dlands to dry fo rest and wo odlands. Key land uses include agricultur e (g razing, although increas ingly intensive agric ulture) with s ome fores try – there has been exten sive clearance in the region. The Tas manian So uth East bioreg ion contains subhumid cool to wa rm coastal plains which have low mountain ranges o n the wester n side (J urassic dolerite and Pe rmo-Triassic sediments) and coastline to the east. The soils are mostly clay to sandy loams, with vegetation dominated by dry forest, patches of wet forest, relict rainfo rest, coastal heath and native pine forest. L and u ses inc lude agriculture (graz ing) and forestry, with larg e a reas c onverted for pasture and cropping.

Vegetation Extent A la rge proportion of n ative vegeta tion has been c leared from within the ara ble area s of the strategic asses sment a rea. Re mnant nativ e v egetation within the Midlands is d iverse and reflects the diversity of soils, aspect, rainfall and elevation throughout the region. The strategic assessment area contains an estimated 42 % of the Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania (9080 ha) and approximately 13% of the remaining Black Gum –Sout h Esk forest community (640 ha).1

3.6 THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY The impact ass essment report provides an as sessment of im pacts on EPB C lis ted matters which may potentially arise as a result of implementation of the Program described in Part 3. The Terms of Reference require the consideration of the following MNES:

 National heritage places  Wetlands of international importance (often called Ramsar sites)  Listed threatened species and ecological communities  Migratory species2 This impact assessment has been undertaken to satisfy the requirements of the EPBC, not for the purposes of Tasmanian legislation. This report is written at a strategic level and thus does not address individual sites or species in the same way that an impact assessment for a pa rticular site wo uld. It uses the best available information relating to MNES, to provide a picture as to what the expected impacts may be from the Program, and how those impacts can be reduced by applying the processes required to be implemented in the Program.

1 The buffered strategic assessment area contains an estimated 59% of the Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania (12,800 ha) and approximately 13% of the remaining Black Gum –South Esk forest community (640 ha) – see section 3.6 for analysis methods. 2 As there are no World Heritage Properties, nuclear actions or Commonwealth marine environment aspects relevant to the study area these matters were not included in the assessment.

52.

There are a spects of the Program such as the developme nt of environ mental ma nagement plans as sociated with c onstruction aspects and FWAPs associated with on farm d elivery and use of water which will p rovide further specific information to g uide the implementation of the Program. The strategic nature of t he assessment necessitates the use of the pre cautionary principle. No impacts have yet been identified an d c onfirmed as a res ult of th e prog ram, he nce the en tire area has b een as sessed, and the lik elihood of impacts arising from th e v arious Progra m components investigated. A brief description of how this has been done is set out below with the entire approach outlined in Appendix H.

Risk Assessment Framework for EPBC Matters The ris k as sessment for the M WS is bas ed on the framework contained in Ecological Risk Management Framework for the Irrigation Industry (DPIPWE 2010b). This framework involves a number of key steps, outlined in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Key steps in the Risk Assessment Framework for Irrigation (Hart et al, 2005)

The Agreemen t between the Co mmonwealth and the State – a nd the assoc iated Te rms of Reference (DEWHA, 2010a) – requires a risk assessment to be undertaken for the MWS. In this instance th e bas is of the pro blem formulation ph ase is de termined by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, which sets out the require ments of a risk assessment where a significant impact upon a MNES may occur. That is, this assessment used the EPBC to define the matters and criteria for assessment.

53.

Experts from within the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment were involved in providing input to the risk assessment process. They were briefed on the scope and methodology to be used which significantly improves the validity of the process by ensuring that input is based on an understood and agreed set of processes and assumptions. Problem Formulation Problem formulation for ecological assessment follows the steps outlined in Figure 4:

Figure 4: Flow chart of problem formulation steps, (after Hart et al, 2005)

(a) Study Objectives (including scoping of the risk assessment process) The matters for consideration through the risk assessment process are established in the MWS Terms of Reference (DEWHA, 2010a). (b) Conceptual Model Building and Identification of Ecosystem Values The process required to develop the appropriate system-level conceptual model begins with the identification of MNES that are known to exist or are likely to exist within the MWS footprint and an appropriate buffer zone. A complete list of data sources used to o btain a comprehensive list o f MNES within the MWS area is contained in Appendix H. The sources include the following for each of the categories of MNES: National heritage:  places within the MWS and buffer were identified using data held by the Commonwealth Government Listed threatened ecological communities:

54.

 Commonwealth Government’s on-line Environmental Reporting Tool http://www.environment.gov.au/erin/ert/epbc/index.html)  Tasmanian Government’s Natural Values Atlas (NVA) (www.naturalvaluesatlas.dpiw.tas.gov.au)  Mapping of the extent of lowland grasslands was derived from data supplied to the Commonwealth for the preparation of the Lowland Native Grasslands policy statement (DEWHA, 2010b) Listed threatened species1:  Commonwealth Government’s on-line Environmental Reporting Tool http://www.environment.gov.au/erin/ert/epbc/index.html)  Tasmanian Government’s NVA (www.naturalvaluesatlas.dpiw.tas.gov.au)  Conservation and Listing Advice  Commonwealth Government’s Species Profile and Threats Database (SPRAT)  Recovery Plans (Commonwealth and State)  Threatened Species Modelled Extents developed by the Tasmanian Forest Practices Authority (FPA, 2008) for swift parrot, ptunarra brown butterfly and Swan galaxiid  Threatened Fauna Handbook (Bryant and Jackson, 1999)  Forest Practices Authority on-line fauna information (http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/index.php?id=82) Wetlands of International Importance:  Commonwealth Government’s search tool (http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/wetlands/search.pl?smode=DOIW) Listed migratory species:  Commonwealth Government’s on-line Environmental Reporting Tool http://www.environment.gov.au/erin/ert/epbc/index.html)  the Tasmanian Government’s NVA (www.naturalvaluesatlas.dpiw.tas.gov.au) (c) Hazard-Effect Relationships Identification of k ey ecological effec ts that c ould result from the MW S (including b oth construction and operation phases) was undertaken by analysis of rele vant literature (e.g. Ha rt et al, 200 5; Kellett et al, 2005, listing statements, c onservation advice and recovery plans) and seeking expert opinion. The result is a hazard-effect table, which sets out all the major hazards that may c ause ad verse e ffects on the MNES identified thro ugh (b). This matrix inc ludes hazards that may ha ve both d irect and indirect impacts on the value in the s hort, medium an d long-term. The Hazard-Effect Table is provided in Appendix H. (e) Issue-specific conceptual models The development of issue-specific models was applied following the model proposed in Hart et al 200 5 in whic h m odels were on ly develo ped for high rink iss ues, in th is case MNE S

1 To ensure c omprehensiveness, species currently under consideration by the Commo nwealth for listing under the EPBC (i.e. Ptunarra brown butterfly, Tasmanian masked owl, seepage heath), were included in this analysis.

55.

considered at high ris k following the und ertaking of a ris k analysis . This step in the proce ss therefore comes later than indicated in Figure 4.

Risk assessment Risk analysis requires information to be gathered on: • the likelihood of the hazard(s) identified having an effect on MNES; and • the size or magnitude of the effect if it does occur. The absence of c omprehensive survey data for t he M WS area , the inherent complexity of ecological risk analy sis in volving m ultiple values and h azards, and the limited available resources are all significant constraints on the use of quantitative risk analysis approaches. A semi-qualitative risk analysis approach is therefore preferred in these circumstances in order to determine those matters that may require a quantitative risk analysis (Hart et al, 2005). This process is illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Risk analysis flow chart (Hart et al, 2005)

Initial qualitative and semi-quantitative risk analysis. Five categories o f MNES were iden tified as present in the MWS area . The Listed Threatened Communities, Listed Threatened Species, Wetlands of In ternational Importance and Migratory Species MNES identifie d within the MWS a rea were subjected to a qualitative and se mi- quantitative a nalysis to d etermine the po tential impac t of the MWS on thes e MNES. The resources described in the Conceptual Model Bu ilding and Identification of Ec osystem Values process were used for this analysis (i.e. a combination of published data and expert opinion).

56.

A precautionary approach was taken where gaps in relevant knowledge were identified. That is, if the distribution of a s pecies was considered to be poorly understood it was assumed that the potential impact may b e significant and there fore more detailed risk analysis was required. In this way the preliminary analysis inc luded an es timation of co nfidence, and any matter where the confidence was not considered good was referred for further risk analysis. This approach is consistent with that outlined in Hart et al, 2005. The criteria (i.e. definiti ons of “ significant impact”) applie d in this an alysis were tak en fro m Matters of National Environmental Significance: Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (Commonwealth of Australia, 200 9). This a nalysis require d the Lis ted Thre atened Spe cies category to be further divided into “vulnerable s pecies” and “critically e ndangered and endangered species” categories (as the as sessment of significant impact differs for the se two categories). A key as sumption when undertaking this analysis is that the hazard(s) include both direct and indirect impacts and that they will singly or in combination result in a significant impact on the assessed value in th e projec t area , i.e. a “worst case” scenario . The definitio n of sig nificant impact in this scenario is provided by Commonwealth of Australia, 2009, and varies depending on the status of the MNES. Howe ver, it sh ould be noted that a local impact for a MNES within the MWS area may not equate to a significant impact for the MNES overall. Adopting this approach at the preliminary analysis stage improves the certainty that only values which face v ery low or ne gligible ris ks are eliminated, and any value for which the re is uncertainty is further evaluated. Preliminary assessments considered both d irect and indirect impacts, over short, medium an d long time frames, and were undertaken using the following methods: 1) National heritage places All identified National heritage places were referred for more detailed risk analysis. 2) Critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable ecological communities All commun ities listed as critica lly endangered, endang ered or vulnerable which had been recorded from within the project area were referred for more detailed risk analysis. The significant impact criteria for these MNES mean that any listed community within the MWS should be further assessed as the likelihood of a significant impact in a worst case scenario is in herently greater than “rare”. This is a further example o f the application of the preca utionary principle in this analysis to reduce the risk of underes timating the potential for significant impact. 3) Critically endangered and endangered ecological species The same approach was u ndertaken as for critically en dangered a nd endangered ecological communities – and for the same reasons. 4) Vulne rable species Determining if the MW S area c ontains “an important p opulation of the species”, as defined in Commonwealth of Au stralia, 2009 , was bas ed on a combina tion of desk top analysis of a ll species records, a rev iew of published liter ature (e.g. recovery pl ans, conservation advice, listing statements etc), and obtaining expert opinion to determine if the MWS area contains:

57.

• key source populations either for breeding or dispersal, and/or • populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity, and/or • populations that are near the limit of the species range.

5) Wetlands of International Importance Not applicable as no such wetlands occur within the MWS area. 6) Listed migratory species Determining if either: i. The MWS are a c ontains important habitat for a listed migrato ry species (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009), or ii. An ecologically s ignificant proportion of the population of a migra tory species undertakes a n importan t pa rt of its life cycle (breeding , feed ing, m igration or resting behaviour) within the MWS area. The results of this pre liminary analysis for spec ies listed as “v ulnerable” and for Migratory Species are contained in Appendix H. The justification for this conclusion is recorded with each value to ensure transparency and allow the assessment to be reviewed. More detailed semi-quantitative risk assessment All values not excluded by the initial ris k analysis were then subjected to a semi-qualitative risk assessment us ing the matrix re commended b y Hart et al 2 005, and ba sed on Environmental Risk Management: Principles and Practice, (Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand, 2006) – Figure 6.

Figure 6: Categories of risk for qualitative assessment. Likelihood and consequence are scored subjectively. Risk rating s a re sc ored and c ategorized as High (dark sh ading), Moderate (light shading) and Low (no shading) (after Hart et al, 2005). The semi-qualitative rather than a quantitative risk analysis method has been adopted because the purpose of the analysis is to determine risk to MNES based on EPBC Act principles. That is, it is designed to determine whether the reaching of a risk threshold (with the consequence of a

58.

“significant impa ct”) is likely to occ ur. It is not nece ssary to cons truct qua ntitative risk assessment models (that seek to show the na ture and extent of all impacts) in order to assess this risk. In addition, the constraints of limited timeframe, resources to undertake the necessary analysis and mode lling, and limited understandi ng of ha zard-value interac tions mak e th e creation of complex analytical tools (e.g. Bayesian networks) impractical. Application of the matrix involves answering the following questions: 1. How likely is it that the hazard(s) identified from the hazard-effect relationship analysis undertaken as part of the problem formul ation (scoping ) phase will impact on the identified value? [likelihood or probability] 2. How significant will this impact be? [consequence] It s hould be noted tha t “significance” in this c ontext is determ ined by the c riteria id entified in Commonwealth of A ustralia, 2009; it does not relate simply to whether the hazar d/impact will result in the elimination of the value from the area. A significant factor in determining risk to MNES within the MWS area is the reservation status of the land in which the MNES occ urs. This not onl y a ffects the p robability o f a h azard actuall y having an impac t o n the MNES but also c ontributes significantly to the development of appropriate measures to mitigate the risk. An analysis of the reservation status of MNES within the MWS was undertaken to determine the relative security of those MNES. This was done by:

 identifying sp atial c oordinates for all re cords of threatene d sp ecies and threatened ecological communities MNES within the MWS;

 overlaying the Tasmanian Reserve Estate Layer;

 evaluating tenure for e ach of th ese records. For the pu rposes of this analysis, “t enure” was div ided on the ba sis of o wnership (private and public ), and reservation sta tus (informal, formal and unreserved); and

 further analysis wa s th en undertaken to determ ine the duration of r eserve status for those records occurring in reserved land (e.g. in perpetuity or for a fixed period of time). The results of this analysis were used a s a guide to further ana lysis. Expert consultation was subsequently used to assess the validity of the analysis, and to determine the degree of security from hazards the reservation status of populations and communities might actually confer. The outcomes of this further consideration were then applied to risk assessment matrix, where it informed the assessment of lik elihood. For ex ample, if a listed s pecies occurs primarily within areas that are securely reserved, the likelihood of a significant impact was considered less (but not necessarily rare) than for species whose populations are not reserved. While this proc ess provides a sc ore by whic h valu es an d threats may be ran ked, it relies on expert opinion, and is therefore subject to a number of assumptions and constraints. The first significant assumption is that the expertise available to apply the matrix is sufficient to provide a valid result. Lack of available expertis e is a s ignificant constraint; however, in the c ase of the MWS analysis there was recognised (peer-supported) expertise available for each of the values being analysed, with population and other data available to support each individual assessment.

59.

Nevertheless, ex pertise is still at risk of su bjective bias , particularly in re lation to proba bility assessment. There are many ways in which bias can influence probability assessment, and only a limited number of ways in which this can be managed. The most effective method (Hillson and Hulett, 2 004) requires t hat con tributors to ris k an alysis are made a ware of the wa ys in which bias m ay be introduc ed, and that they are prov ided with a mean s o f reducing t his ris k. Th e assessment of probability for an ecological risk assessment with multiple hazards can best be managed by adopting a “state of nature approach” (Hillson and Hulett, 2004). This inv olves developing a number of scenarios and asking the contributor to assess the probability of risk for each of those in relation to other scenarios. For example, a contributor may be asked to estimate the probability of a significant impact on a value occurring as a result of increased salinity. They are then asked to estimate the probability of a significant impact occurring as a result of land clearance. They are then asked to compare the two probability outcomes and assess whether they think one outcom e is more or less like ly than the oth er. In this way probabilit y “reference points” ca n be established and, although the process st ill relies on s ubjective judgements, it provides a s pectrum of probability outcomes. Furthermore, the “state of nature” app roach allows for cumulative impacts to b e assessed and incorporated in th e ana lyses. This helps overcome the perc eptual bia s of prox imity, in which immediate and direct im pacts are perceived as inherently more serious (Hillson and Hulett, 2004). It is th erefore es sential in the r isk assessment process to encourage expert co ntributors to compare and rank each of their probability assessments. This technique was applied to the risk assessment for the MWS. Experts for each of the MNES were brough t together and briefed on ov erall process. They we re then provided with th e Hazard-Effect Table in order to familiarise the mselves with the potential impacts. They were then giv en th e assessment criteria and as ked to apply these c riteria when using the Risk Assessment Matrix (Figure 6 ). Si gnificant fa ctors that contributed to the ou tcome were documented. In each assessment the experts were asked to consider short, medium and long- term impacts, direct and indirect consequences, and the cumulative effect of hazards. The risk to MNE S of salinity was c onsidered by und ertaking a preliminary analys is of MNES known to occur in areas with salinity hazard ratings of “High” and “Medium”. While the risk of salinity was considered for all MNES during t he assessment, the preliminary process identified those sp ecies which required extra c onsideration during th e more d etailed semi-qualitative analysis phase of the assessment. A statistical analysis of the number of records of MNES from land classified as Capability Class 3 and Class 4 was also provided to assist in ident ifying MNES potentially at risk from land use change. The T asmanian Land Capability Handbook classifies land capability based on biophysical factors and physical limitations (DPIWE 1999). Class 3 an d Class 4 lan d are the most suitable land type s for agric ultural produ ction within the MWS, a nd the most lik ely to undergo land use change as a result of the MWS. Data for these analyses were drawn from the NVA.

60.

The outcome of the semi-quantitative risk assessment for each MNES is contained in Appendix H. MNES that were identified as being at “High” risk are discussed in greater detail in Part 5 of the Strategic Impact Assessment report. It should be noted that this assessment is of risk prior to the application of any risk mitigation strategies developed for the MWS. The assessed level of risk does not, therefore, reflect the influence of mitigation strategies on overall risk.

61.

PART 4 PROMOTING ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

4.1 PROMOTION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

4.1.1 Planning and Design process

The Tasmanian Irrigation Development Board (TIDB) wa s establish ed as a re gistered company in September 2008 to progress a suite of regionally significant irrigation projects as identified th rough the T asmanian Water Deve lopment Pla n developed by the T asmanian State Government in 20 01. The Water Development Plan developed strategic initiatives to manage an d develop t he State’s valuable freshwater resource. These initiatives include d improved e nvironmental outcomes and streamli ned administrative requirements for water management. One of t he regionally significant projects ide ntified for irrigation development was the Midlands region of Tasmania. In 2008 the Tasmanian State Gove rnment established the $80 million Water Infrastructure Fund (WIF) to enable major investment in Tasmania’s water infrastructure and to meet its National Water Initiative (NWI) obligations. Under the National Pa rtnership A greement on Water for the Future (COAG 20 09), the Commonwealth Government agreed to provide up to $140 million of fu nding for Tasmania to undertake o ne or more susta inable irrigation i nfrastructure project s t hat will substantially contribute to irrigation water use efficiency. The MWS i s one of the major irrigation infra structure pr ojects to be developed under the National Partnership Agreement. Development of irriga tion in th e midlands re gion of Ta smania has been designed to efficiently deliver reliable water sup plies to approximately 491 irrigators in the Midla nds, thus enabling the Midlands region to extend its agricultural potential. Large tracts of cleare d agricultural land are currently available and u sed predominantly for grazing and dryland cr opping. Du e to low rainfall and grazing pressure these a reas are vulnerable to degradation. The addition of highly reliable irrigation water will allow for income development to be more concentrated on the ma nageable areas of the properties, su ch that the remaining vegetated areas will have redu ced econo mic pressures, and thus greater scope for better environmental management. There is an e stimated 71,105 hectares of land suitable for irrigation with in the MWS area (Section 3.1.1 ). It is unlikely that clearance and conversion of non-agricultural land will be ne cessary to allo w for the ful l utilisation of water available through the MWS. Only land assessed under the Program will be used for irrigation development in the MWS.

4.1.2 Promotion of the Principles of Ecological Sustainable Development One of the key objects o f the EPBC Act is “to promote ecologically sustainable development through the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources”. Although the Program, and the sp ecified act ions that may occur und er the Program, are being developed with an underlying commercial stru cture, the regulatory and funding frameworks can, and will, achieve ecologically sustainable development. The Program pro vides more fle xibility to ma nage for both environmental and production aspects on farms, through the use of FWAPs. Through th ese plans, irrigators will increase 62.

their knowledge of on-farm natural assets a nd as a result, can a pply appropriate best practice management t o maintain t hese values. Irrigators with water e ntitlements seeking a Water Connection Agreement via the MWS will be required to have in pl ace FWAPs prior to delivery of water from t he MWS. FWAPs are a practical way to address land, water and biodiversity sustainability issues within the farming landsca pe. These are property-specif ic plans which demonstrate that the intended application of irrigation water will be sustainable. The minimu m requirement will be to develop a FWAP to cover the area of lan d directly affected by the propose d irrigation using soil, water and biodiversity planning tools provided. These plan s will a lso identify monitoring dee med necessary to avoid off irr igation area impacts. The objectiv e is to have each irrig ator identify the core n atural asset s of the lan d directly affected by the proposed irrigation , develop and confirm farm manag ement options and actions according to cu rrent best p ractice, identify the legislative and regulatory processe s that are relevant to the application of the irrigation water and carry out a comprehensive risk management process to determine impacts on natural assets and appr opriate management actions and monitoring. The market mechanisms such as the pricin g of water, and the mandating of property management planning will raise knowledge, awareness and engen der cultural change: thereby discouraging wasteful practices, and fostering operations that improve environmental health and productivity through strategic on-farm planning. The issues that are generally seen as failings of irrigation development and that lead to a perception that irrigation development is not sustainable are primarily:  salinity and drainage problems and associated ground water issues fr om increased on-farm runoff;  reductions in vegetated areas and corresponding loss of biodiversity, and  soil degradation through loss of so il carbon and organic matter with changed farming practices, i.e. increased cropping. The Strategic Assessment examines all risks to MNES that can be reasonably anticipated from the MWS, and describes how each risk will be assessed, eliminated or managed under the Program. Aspects of the Program, such as t he FWAP, will allow impacts identified to be avoided or mitigated through the applicat ion of management practices. It is through mechanisms such as this that the process of risk ma nagement will provide sufficient confidence that degrad ation of the environme nt, where there are th reats of se rious or irreversible environmental damage, will not be like ly as a result of t he constru ction and operation of the scheme. In undertaking this Strat egic Assessment care has been taken to examine all a spects of the Program in light of the principles of ecologically sustainable development as set down in Part 1, 3A of the EPBC which states: a) Decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations; b) If there are threats of serious or irre versible environmental damage, lack of full scientific ce rtainty should not be u sed as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation; c) The present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations; d) The conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity s hould be a fundamental consideration in decision-making; and

63.

e) Improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be promoted. The respon se of the Program to each of th ese five principles is o utlined belo w in the following sections.

4.2 INTEGRATION OF BOTH LONG-TERM AND SHORT-TERM ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS The MWS was designed to provide high surety irrigation water to a region of Tasmania that has been struggling with low and decreasing rainfall for many years. Rainfall in the midlands region of Tasmania averages 500 mm, with the majority of rainfall occur ring in short periods of high intensity rainfall. Currently, irrigators on major ri ver systems h arvest this rainfall in winter/spring for summer irrigation, while those not on major rivers do not irrigate due to lack of methods to capture water. This irrigation scheme will provide the opportunit y for the majority of l andholders in the Midlands to purchase high surety water for irrigatio n on a planned sustainable basis. The development of the scheme follows the examination of environmental, social, economic, cultural and hydrological issues associated with the delivery of water to the region to provide the greatest flexibility to manage the current water demand needs an d provide the potential for future irrigation expansion on a sustainable on-going basis. The proposal to extend irrigation d evelopment in the Midla nds is premised, in part, on the belief that l eaving the region with no options t o improve farm profitability will li kely lead to environmental decline as the pre dominant agricultural practices, g razing and dryland cropping, are financially unsustainable. Historically, those farmers with relia ble water supplies h ave been those most like ly to have introduced irrigation regimes and also to have the financial and structural capabilities to improve the ir property managemen t through stra tegic irr igation development that takes account of environmental imperatives. Decline s in profitab ility and cl imatic uncertainty are likely to result in pressures to extend farming operations into previously unconverted portions of rural holdings. The TIDB has been ch arged with t he responsibility to pro gress irrigation schemes that are socially acceptable, e conomically viable, technical fea sible and ensure the ongoing environmental sustainability of Tasmania’s water and land resources. This is further outlined in the Fea sibility Assessment reports and Envir onmental Investigations reports 1. T his long term (>100 years engineering life) progressive expansion of irrigation into current cropping areas will ensure a vibrant economic and environmentally sustainable community is achieved in the short, medium and long term.

4.3 PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE The impact assessment report outlines the pot ential impacts on MNES as iden tified through an extensive risk assessment process. The Program outlines key commitments in re lation to MNES which are to be met throug h key commitments, identified pro cess and monitoring. These key commitments have been designed in order to ensure all p otential imp acts on MNES will be addressed within th e rules set by the Program, throughout the life of th e Program. The determination of a ll potent ial impacts on MNES could not b e achieved without a significant baseline survey over many years. In the absence of scientific certainty as the th e

1 TIDB, Jan 2009, Midlands Water Scheme – Feasibility Assessment of Arthurs Lake & South Esk Supply Lines: Part A, Demand, Hydrology & Engineering Assessment. 64.

threats to MNES whic h ma y be realised as a result of the MWS, a risk assessment an d management methodology (derived from Hart et al, 2005), which identif ied all key ecological effects that could result from the MWS through both direct and indirect impacts in the short, medium and long-term has been used. Inherent in the methods used for this risk assessment is a precaut ionary approach to est imating the likelihood of impacts occurring as a result of the MWS. All values known to occur, plus all values that could pote ntially occur within a n area larger than the strategic assessment area were considered in order to ensure all possible permutations for impacts were covered. The risk assessment identified that the MWS occurs in:  A biodiversity hotspot (identified by the Common wealth Government), with potentially 8 fauna sp ecies and 10 flora sp ecies ident ified as bein g potentially at risk if no mitigation measures are put in place and;  The stronghold for EPBC listed co mmunity Lo wland Native Grasslands containin g 9080 ha of a total estimated extent of 21,600 ha in the State of Tasmania. The Program has made a commitment to enact a range of planning process that will deliver positive outcomes for MNES in response to th e identified threats. The key outcomes of this response are:  The identification and management of MNES d uring the construction a nd operation phases through an impact assessment process result ing in a CEMP for the actio ns associated with the construction o f the MWS and through FWAPs for the on-farm management of irrigation water.  The use of water from t he MWS in an approved and sustainable fashio n through the water management and planning framework in Tasmania and FWAPs.  The ongoing monitoring of the ef fectiveness of the Pro gram measures and the compliance with them through landscape scale monitoring, FWAPs and auditing.

4.4 INTER-GENERATIONAL EQUITY The Program is specifically design ed to ensur e that the e xpansion of intensive a griculture expected to occur a s a result of the MWS, occurs in a sustainable fashion. Short, medium and long term monitoring teamed with reporting on the success of the m easures put in place to retain and enhance MNES are a fundamen tal components of the Program. Co mpliance with the Program will also be checked to ensure ongoing commitment at both the property and scheme levels. The successful implementation of t he Program will result in the persistence of natural values, eco system functions and cultural and historic herita ge within the strategic assessment area for the benefit of all (future) generations to enjoy. The regional developme nt and soci al benefits of this project proceedin g will be significant. Townships in the Midlands region will benefit from the a vailability of newly reliable water due to the economic flow-on effects from the expansion of agriculture. Currently, t he Midlands region is charac terised by low population density and limite d population growth, with around 35-50% of the jo bs attributed to agriculture. The po pulation of the rural midlands region has in creased by only 2% bet ween the last two ABS census periods, as outlined in Table 5 below1:

1 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006, Census of Population and Housing 65.

Table 5: Australian Bureau of Statistics Census Figures for Midland’s Towns 2001-2006

ABS Kempton Oatlands Ross Campbell Total Census Town date 2001 323 569 264 754 1910 2006 360 541 271 777 1949

It is li kely t hat the add itional water supplie d b y the MWS will fa cilitate the expa nsion of cropping by around 16,000 ha (47,500ML @ 3ML/ha). Irrigators not e that, broadly, one additional F TE is requir ed for each 250 ha of irrigated cro ps, includin g an allowa nce for contractors. This impli es that there will be a total increase in direct farm employment of around 64 FTEs. Indirect FTEs are estimated at 32 (assuming an empl oyment multiplier for the loca l co mmunity of 1.5 1). Thu s, the proje ct is expecte d to genera te 96 FTEs in th e Midlands re gion. The se est imates do not a ccount for an increa se in employment by processors. Hence, the total employment impact from the project could exceed 96 FTEs. It has been estimated by Marsden Jacob and Associates that the MWS will deliver:  much great er regional water supply security t han could be achieved without the Scheme;  adaptation t o climate change – the MWS would help f acilitate a geogr aphic shift in food production which may be important for Australia given uncertainty about the future yields from the Murray Darling Basin;  reliable drinking water for the townships of Tunbridge, Oatlands and Parattah;  water supply security (or continge ncy supplies) for the townships of Ross and Campbell Town; and  capacity to fill Lake Dulverton, thus replenishing the aquatic environment of the Lake, which would facilitate environmental, recreatio n and enha nce amenit y value from visitation to the Lake. Agribusiness in the region is limited by av ailable water supplies and contracted d uring the recent 2006-2008 drought (ABS statistics 2). If t he irrigation scheme do es not proceed the following can be expected:  limited popu lation growt h of Midlan ds towns, w ith risks of f urther contr action of th e Midlands population;  continued exposure of farmers in the Midlands region to cli mate risks – both climate change and rainfall variability – wh ich impact on the viabi lity of both grazing an d irrigation;  limited scop e for expansion of irrig ation, dryland cropping and grazin g given that these components of agriculture are at full development;  financial vulnerability of some operators during extreme drought, due to the extreme difficulty in maintaining stock and cropping rates during periods of low rainfall;

1 Davey & Maynard, 2003 “Rural Land use Trends in Tasmania”, Report Prepared for the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources. 2 2 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006, Census of Population and Housing 66.

 limited potential for exp ansion of agribusiness in the region, due to dire ct reliance on business from the farming and irrigation sectors;  limited potential for expansion of fa rm contracting, again due to direct reliance on business from the farming and irrigation sector; and  failure to ta ke advantage of very positive outlo oks for pop pies, dairy ( due to stron g forecasts for the milk price) and vegetable crops. Marsden Jacob and Associates ha ve developed financial and economic models of the MWS which demonstrate th at the economic returns of the MWS are expected to be high, generating a net econ omic benefit to the region and th e Tasmanian economy. A key strength of the MWS will be the social and econ omic benefits and improvements to t he local community as a result of this stimulus to the regional economy. Extensive consultation within the Midlands has occurred in the development of the proposal. Key stakeholders including irrigators, community groups, environmental groups and all levels of government have been engaged throughout the process.

4.5 CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY Prior to the development of this Program, ongoing de velopment of on-farm planning mechanisms for biodiversity, as well as water reforms consistent wit h COAG re quirements have been occurring. T he Midlands region of Tasmania has been the focus of extensive private land conservation planning and implementation programs, many of which ha ve been undertaken in partnership with the Common wealth Government. The Program has benefited from the de velopment o f a property manage ment planning framework, as well as from the legislative structures provided by the State’s RMPS. The Midlands region o f Tasmania has been a focus for private land conservation efforts within the state for some time due t o high levels of private ownership, teamed with low levels of reservation of priority species, vegetation communities and habitat types. There have been a variety of programs which have identifie d the Midlands as being a priority area for St ate and C ommonwealth funding. These pr ograms have applied extensive strategic le vel reserve design an d landscap e scale con servation pr inciples in identifying priority areas for targeting for conservation. Exa mples include the Regional Forest Agreements’ Private Forest Reserves Program and market based pro grams such as the Community Forest Agreements’ Forest Conservation Fund. The identification of sho rtfalls in reservation targets for non-forest vegetation sa w the Non-Forest Vegetation Program, run by the Tasmanian Government target areas of under reserved vegetation types in the Midlands Region. A range of projects specific to the Midlands region has been funded through Commonwealth Government initiatives such as L andcare, th e Natural Heritage Trust’s Bushcare and Rivercare programs as well as the Biodiversity Hotspots Program. So me of these projects have approached conservation issues in the region fro m a landscape perspe ctive; for example: th e Midlands Bushweb Project, the Greening Australia-fund ed Midlands Habitat Corridor and Corridors of Green projects. Several pro jects with t he specific aim of incorporating landscape- scale plann ing with conservation outcomes for the region have been funded in more recent times. These include the Protected Areas on Private Land’s (PAPL) Midlands Landscape Project and the Caring For our Country funded “Using L andscape Ecology to Prioritise Property Management Actions in Tasmania” project.

67.

Opportunistic funding continues through the Caring for our Country grant s currently available as well as from philanthropic sources. The conser vation mec hanisms used in the landscape within the Midlands region have undergone some significant change s over the p ast decade, in part due to the low levels of uptake of t he tradition ally used approaches (perpetual covenants and voluntary land purchases). Revolving funds, ma rket based instruments such as tenders, stewardship agreements (involving p ayments) between landholders and Govern ment or landholders and NGOs, vegetation management agreements, and fi xed-term coven ants are n ow firmly established in the conservation landscape within the Midlan ds. These mechanisms are now used in conjunction wit h legislative approvals in order to a chieve sust ainable development objectives of RMPS related approvals. As new planning tools have been developed they have been incor porated into reserve design scenarios by t he Tasmanian Govern ment and partner orga nisations (e .g. CFEV, Focal Landscapes, CARSAG Strategic Reserve Design scenarios) The downstream impac ts that water extraction and diversion will have on rivers ha ve been considered through the risk asse ssment process applied to the Program. The impa cts and issues can be defined as follows:  The Milford dam will only e xtract water in accordance with the final approved South Esk Water Management Plan. The Milford Dam will extract up to 9,000ML per annum from the South Esk River which h as an annual catchment yield of approximate ly 807,787 ML. The impa ct of the extraction on t his average yield is around 1.1%. Of this total amount available the draft South Esk Water Management Plan has allocated a total volume of 134,816 ML (17%) that will be available for consumptive use in th e catchment.  The Arthurs Pipeline will buy water from Hydro Tasmania at the cost of the equivalent foregone electricity that would have been generated if it wa s put through Poatina a nd Trevallyn generation facilities. The total amount of water taken from this scheme will not change. The pipeli ne will extract 38,500 ML per year or 105 ML/day that ma y otherwise have been pumped across into Great Lake and entered Brumbies Creek. The average amount of water discharged from Poatina over the last 14 years is 484,000 ML per year or approximat ely 1300 ML/day. The impact of the Arthurs Lake pipeline on this is a potential maximum reduction of 10%.  Historically the South Esk Catchment has a total mean an nual stream flow of abo ut 2,614,000 ML per year with extract ion of 158 ,000 ML/year or 6% of t he total surface water in the South Esk catchment (CSIRO, 2009a, b, c & d)

4.6 IMPROVED VALUATION, PRICING AND INCENTIVE MECHANISMS The development of the MWS is reliant on th e selling of irrigation water prior to the start of construction. The econ omic assessment for the MWS and other TIDB projects has been developed on current irr igation enterprises and returns being grown in t he regions. These are conside red to have the most potential for expansion in the short to medium term. However, th is does not account for additional a nd perhaps higher-value enterprises being introduced in the future with the supply of reliable irrigatio n water. Large tracts o f cleared agricultural land are currently avail able and used predominant for grazing and dryland cropping. Due to low rainfall an d grazing pre ssure the se areas are vulnerable t o degradation. The addition of highly reliable irrigation water will allow for income devel opment to be more concentrated on the manageable ar eas of the properties, such that the remaining vegetated

68.

areas will h ave less re sulting e conomic pr essure and thus scope for better environmental management. There is no need to convert non-agricultural land for use of irrigatio n water supplied by the MWS as there currently exists considerably more cleared land that what ca n be irrigated by the quantum of wate r the MWS will supply. Within the r egion there is a wide range of potential enterprise mixes that can be grown and so market for ces will dictate on a year to year basis what is grown and where. The net margins for each enterprise have been determined as follows:  Net Margin = Gross margin (gross income – variable co sts) – dryland margin foregone – cost of irrig ation infrast ructure (e.g. centre pivot irrigators) – cost of additional on -farm storage (where applicable) – increment in farm overheads.  Gross margins are base d on a serie s of gross margins for Tasmanian low rainfall a reas developed for DPIPWE in mid-20 08 (DPIPW E Tasmania 2008, C ash Crop Gross margins, Low Rainfall Districts). The crop enterprise mix assumed to be grown in the MWS area is:  Poppies  Cereals/Seeds  Dairy  Pasture  Potatoes  Lucerne  Garlic  Onions  Peas - processing. All economic assessment were conducted on current market prices1: future commodity prices are hard to predict and were not use in the socio-economic assessment s. Irrigation not only achieves substantially better economic returns but it also allows for a greater range of enterprises to be grown and therefore results in a more diversified and sustainable farm over the long term. Due to competitive market force s those farms without irrigation therefore will achieve lower gross margins from non-irrigated enterprises and find it increasingly difficult to compete against irrigated farms in a similar area. The below Gross marg ins per hectare from F arm-point - demonstrate that margins per hectare for irrigated enterprises are substantially higher tha n those produced where there is limited irrigation water available. Table 6: Gross Margins per Hectare for Various Enterprises (source: FarmPoint)

Enterprise Dryland Gross Irrigated Gross Margin ($/ha) Margin ($/ha) Barley 280 520

1 Farm Point – DPIPWE website: www.farmpoint.tas.gov.au

69.

Canola 320 1,160 Wheat 560 1,660 Potatoes NA 7,440 Poppies NA 1,690 Peas NA 1,920 Wool Sheep 172 NA

The MWS will not proceed to construction unless all environmental, cultural and development approvals are received and funding approved. Funding consists of around 50% from private water entitlement sales and 50% public subsidy (one third o f this from t he State of Tasmania and two thir ds from the Commonwealth of Australia). The sale of water entitlements will be at a level to ensure that this water is use d to return th e highest a vailable margin. This creates a mechanism to ensure wat er is not wasted, therefore reducing potential environmental harm that could other wise occur through the applicat ion of too much water in the one location. Funding for the MWS is also dependant on approval of Due Dili gence Assessment Guidelines as o utlined in th e National Partnership on Water For the Future (Impleme ntation Plan: Schedule D)(COAG 2009) and the assessment criteria as outlined in the Tasmanian State Water Infrastructu re Fund. These assessment criteria consist of the following:  Economic and social criteria  Environmen tal criteria  Value for money criteria  Water reform criteria, and  Other due diligence criteria. These finan cial mechan isms used t o fund the MWS Proje ct along wit h the Program will ensure that there are no impacts on MNES a nd that the Project will result in significant regional economic and social benefits.

70.

PART 5 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT The broad environmental and heritage values existing within the MWS strategic assessment that could potentially be impacted by the pr oposed irrigation development are outlined in this section. The section also outlines important ecological pro cesses including relevant aspects of biodiversity and landscape conser vation issues which can contribute to the persistence of MNES, and could be impacted upon by the MW S. The MNES that could be impacted by the MWS are outlined. Spe cific MNES which hav e been ide ntified a s b eing at h igh risk are discussed in detail. Measures to reduce pot ential impacts to an acceptable level as de termined by the program are outlined in Section 6, and map s of the distribution of all MNES within the MWS are located in Appendix O.

5.1 COMPONENTS OF BIODIVERSITY, ECOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES The strategic assessment area inclu des parts of the Central Highlands which are unaffected by clearance activities, as well as large trac ts of the Midlands which are pred ominantly cleared for agricultural purposes. Historical clearance ha s resulted in major ch anges to th e condition and extent of native vegetation and hence habitat for native species within the region. This in part has lead to a large number of rare a nd threaten ed specie s and commu nities be ing identified within the area and hence, it has been determined to be a biodiversity hotspot. As a biodiversity hotspot, the Midlands region contains significant number os MNES. A list of all MNES associate d with the MWS and the ir conservation status can be seen in Appendix H. Tasmania has an est imated 53000 Ha affe cted by dryland salinity which occurs in agricultural land across the state. The greatest threats to biodiversity from dryland salinity in Tasmania o ccur in two bioregion s - the Tasmanian Northern Midla nds Bioregion and Tasmanian Flinders Bio region. The extent and potential fo r impacts re sulting from dryland salinity in T asmania were quantifie d for the National Lan d and Wate r Resources Audit in 2000 (Bastick and Walker, 2000a & 2000b). These reports identify particular land systems at higher risk from salinity. The National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) (COAG 2 000) (an intergovernmental agreement which identif ied high priority , immediate action s to address salinity, particularly dryland salinity, and deterio rating water quality in key regions) identified the Northern Midlands Bioregion as one of 21 priority regions across the country. This region has had extensive investigation s u ndertaken into the pote ntial for sa linity to be expressed should additional water be added to the system.

5.2 LISTED AND NOMINATED COMMUNITIES UNDER THE EPBC ACT Two ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act are known to occur in the study area: Lowland Na tive Temperate Grasslands, and Black Gum – South Esk Pine forest (Table 7 and Appendix H, Appendix O).

71.

Table 7: Listed EPBC Communities within the MWS

Estimated Area within Estimated Total Tas. National State Community unbuffered Area (ha) Schedule Schedule study area Lowland Native Critically Grasslands of 9,080 21,600 Not listed Endangered Tasmania Black Gum – South Esk 250 < 5,000 Vulnerable Endangered Pine*

5.2.1 Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania The Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania ecological communit y is comprised of two grassland sub-types:  Lowland Poa labillardierei (silver tussock grass) Grassland ; and  Lowland Themeda triandra (kangaroo grass) Grassland (DEWHA 2010b). The grasslands are part of a lowland temperate grassland vegetation group that occurs in fragmented areas across south-eastern Australia. As the name suggests, the Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania community only occurs in Tasma nia – it is e ndemic to t he state. The strongh old for the community i s Tasmania n Northern Midlands an d Tasmania n South East bioregions (IBRA) primarily i n the region referred t o as the Midlands of the state. However, it is also found in small patches elsewhere in the State. The estimated total extent of Lowland Native Grasslands in Tasmania is 21,600 Ha. Nin e thousand a nd eighty Ha (or 42 %) occurs within the MWS. Of t he 9080 Ha within the assessment area, 805 Ha occurs within reserves (Table 8). Of these grasslands in r eserves, 72.

785 Ha (98 %) occur on private lan d, with the majority in perpetual re serves (see DPIPWE 2009 for reserve classifications). Those areas in reserves of variable term on private land are protected for periods ranging from 5 to 20 years. Table 8: Reserve Cat egories con taining Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania in the MWS

Area (ha) of Lowland Native Reserve Category* Grasslands of Tasmania Public lan d - Formal 10 Reserves Public lan d - Informal 10 Reserves Private land - Perpetual 530 Area (ha) of Lowland Native Term Length Grasslands of Tasmania Private land - Variable Term 255 5 years 80 10 years 150 12 years 20 years 15 *Reserve Category based on Business Rules for the Creation of the TRE spatial layer. v.3.0

It is estima ted that more than 83 % of this community has been lost since E uropean settlement (DEWHA, 2009). The majority of the ecological community is on private property with some small remnants on ro adsides, in local reser ves and so me cemeteries. The community is highly fragmented throughout the landscape that it occurs in. Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania forms key habita t for a number of MNES species also covered by this assessment. In additio n, a numb er of MNES not dependant on grasslands f or survival occur within close pr oximity to grasslands, and may use t hem for foraging, shelter or habitat at various times throughout their life cycles. Those species relevant to the MW S are listed below, with o ne flora species ( Prasophyllum taphanyx) and one fauna species ( Oreixenica ptunarra) additions to the list post-p ublication by DEWHA. Table 9: Grassland Associated MNES which occur within the MWS (after DEWHA, 2009)

Species Name Common Name EPBC Status Birds Aquila audax fleayi wedge-tailed eagle (Tasmanian) Endangered Mammals

73.

Dasyurus maculatus maculatus spotted-tail quoll, tiger quoll Vulnerable (Tasmanian population) Perameles gunnii gunnii eastern-barred bandicoot Vulnerable Sarcophilus harrisii Tasmanian devil Endangered Invertebrates Oreixenica ptunarra Ptunarra brown butterfly Under consideration Plants Austrodanthonia popinensis roadside wallaby grass Endangered Caladenia anthracina black-tipped spider-orchid Critically Endangered Carex tasmanica curly sedge Vulnerable Colobanthus curtisiae Curtis’s colobanth Vulnerable Dianella amoena matted flax-lily Endangered Glycine latrobeana clover soybean Vulnerable Lepidium hyssopifolium basalt peppercress Endangered Leucochrysum albicans var. grassland paper daisy / hoary Endangered tricolor sunray Prasophyllum tunbridgense Tunbridge leek-orchid Endangered Prasophyllum incorrectum golfers leek-orchid Endangered Prasophyllum olidum pungent leek-orchid Critically Endangered Prasophyllum taphanyx grave side leek-orchid Critically Endangered Pterostylis commutata Midland greenhood Critically Endangered Pterostylis wapstrarum fleshy greenhood Critically Endangered Pterostylis ziegeleri grassland greenhood Vulnerable Ranunculus prasinus Tunbridge buttercup Endangered

Key threats to Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania include:  Clearance and conversion resulting in direct loss  Recruitment prevention/disturbance, includin g changes to pollin ation dynamics  Land use change and f ragmentation of existin g grasslands, increasing edge effects  Changes to browsing pressure  Changes to fire regimes  Soil nutrient changes  Pesticide use (including drift and effect of residual herbicides)  Weed invasion and management actions  Changes in surface and sub-surface hydrology  Increased salinity  Soil compaction.

74.

5.3 LISTED AND NOMINATED THREATENED SPECIES UNDER THE EPBC ACT A total of 1 4 fauna spe cies and 35 flora species that are listed or currently nomi nated for listing under the EPBC Act have be en identified as potentially occurring within the strategic assessment area (Table 10). Of these 49 species, 8 fauna species and 10 flora species have been identified as being potentially at high risk from the Program if no mitigation measures are put in place (Appendix H, Appe ndix O). Th ose species with a high risk rating are listed below and a description of their status within the strategic assessment area is provided in the following sections. Of the 10 flora species identified as being at high risk sho uld no mitigation measures be put in place, 8 are endemic. Five of the 10 are listed as critically endangered under EPBC, 2 as endangered and 3 as vulnerable. Eight of the 10 species have recovery plans, 1 has a draft recovery plan and 1 does not have any form of recovery plan (Appendix H). Seven of the 10 species are predominantly found in grassland habitats. Of the 8 fauna specie s identified as being at high risk should no mitigation measures be put in place, 7 are endemi c. Four of the 8 species are listed under EPBC as endan gered, 3 as vulnerable and 1 is pending listing as vulnerable. Four of the 8 species have recovery plans, 3 have draft recovery pl ans and 1 d oes not have any form of recovery plan (Appendix H). Five of the 8 species h ave been id entified a s being associated with g rasslands ( Table 9) although only 1 can be described as predominantly inhabiting grasslands. Table 10: Ratings for Potential Risk to EPBC Listed Threatened and Migratory Species within the MWS

MNES Risk Rating LISTED COMMUNITIES Lowland Native Grasslands (Themeda and HIGH Poa) Eucalyptus ovata-Callitris oblonga forest LOW FAUNA Ptunarra brown butterfly HIGH Oreixenica ptunarra Green and gold frog HIGH Litoria raniformis Swan galaxiid HIGH Galaxias fontanus Arthurs galaxias HIGH Paragalaxia mesotes Saddled galaxias HIGH Galaxias tanycephalus Wedge-tailed eagle HIGH Aquila audax fleayi Spotted-tailed quoll HIGH

75.

Dasyurus maculatus maculatus Tasmanian devil HIGH Sarcophilus harrisii Golden galaxias MODERATE Galaxias auratus Swift parrot MODERATE Lathamus discolor Masked owl MODERATE Tyto novaehollandiae castanops Eastern barred bandicoot MODERATE Perameles gunnii Australian grayling LOW Prototroctes maraena Thylacine Thylacinus cynocephalus UNLIKELY (considered extinct) FLORA Midlands greenhood HIGH Pterostylis commutata Black-tipped spider-orchid HIGH Caladenia anthracina Clover glycine HIGH Glycine latrobeana Midlands buttercup HIGH Ranunculus prasinus River swamp wallaby-grass HIGH Amphibromus fluitans Golfers leek-orchid HIGH 1 Prasophyllum incorrectum Graveside leek-orchid HIGH Prasophyllum taphanyx Tunbridge leek-orchid HIGH Prasophyllum tunbridgense Fleshy greenhood HIGH Pterostylis ziegeleri Grassy greenhood HIGH Pterostylis wapstrarum Midlands wattle MODERATE Acacia axillaris Coral heath MODERATE Epacris acuminata

1 A taxonomic revision in 2003 concluded that the Tasmanian population thought to be P. correctum was in fact taxonomically distinct; it was subsequently described and named as P. incorrectum 76.

Spreading stenanthemum MODERATE Stenanthemum pimeleoides Lindleys spider-orchid MODERATE Caladenia lindleyana Rosy spider-orchid MODERATE Caladenia pallida Soft peppercress MODERATE Lepidium hyssopifolium Pungent leek-orchid MODERATE Prasophyllum olidum Hoary sunray MODERATE Leucochrysum albicans subsp. albicans var. tricolor Swamp fireweed MODERATE Senecio psilocarpus Swamp everlasting MODERATE Xerochrysum palustre Curtis’ colobanth MODERATE Colobanthus curtisiae Roadside wallaby-grass MODERATE Austrodanthonia popinensis Matted flax-lily MODERATE Dianella amoena Crowded leek-orchid MODERATE Prasophyllum crebiflorum Miena cider gum LOW Eucalyptus gunnii subsp. divaricata Native wintercress LOW Barbarea australis Tasmanian bertya LOW Bertya tasmanica subsp. tasmanica Tailed spider-orchid LOW Caladenia caudata South Esk pine LOW Callitris oblonga Curly sedge LOW Carex tasmanica Seepage heath LOW Epacris moscaliana Liawenee greenhood LOW Pterostylis pratensis Pseudocephalozia paludicola LOW South Esk heath LOW Epacris exserta Clubmoss everlasting LOW Ozothamnus selaginoides

77.

MIGRATORY SPECIES Lathams snipe MODERATE Gallinago hardwickii Swift parrot MODERATE Lathamus discolor Satin flycatcher MODERATE Myiagra cyanoleuca

Great egret MODERATE

1 Ardea alba

White-bellied sea-eagle MODERATE

Haliaeetus leucogaster

Cattle egret LOW

Ardea ibis

5.3.1 High Risk Threatened Species that Predominantly Inhabit Lowland Native Grasslands 5.3.1.1 Flora There are 7 high risk threatened flora species which are known to, or have the po tential to, occur within the MWS, that preferentially occupy grassland habitats. Within the MWS region these species occur in the EPBC listed commun ity: Lowland Native Grasslands as well as in other grassland vegetation types that do not make up part of the EPBC listed communit y. The species are not necessarily only found in grassland communities. All 7 species are orchids which are endemic to Tasmania (only found in Tasmania). All have very small population sizes within the MWS and the majority are poorly reserved. Most occur predominantly on unreserved privat e land (Tabl e 11). All are under threat from hazards common to those identif ied for grassland communities. Five of the 7 species are listed as critically en dangered u nder the E PBC, 1 as endangered and 1 as vulnerable. All have important populations within the MWS area which are severely fragmented from one another. Some have very little information available with respect to habitat requirements, distribution and current status of po pulations. The accuracy of orchid records, and the reliability of data associated with key po pulations is outlined in the threatened Tasmanian orchids recovery plan (DPIW 2006b) and various listing statements for the species.

Table 11: Records of and Reservation Levels1 for High Risk Species within the MWS Species Name Total Total Records Records Records in Records in Records Records Records Records in Public in Public Private Private in other in other in Tas2 in Study land - land - land - land - Public Private Area Formal Informal Perpetual Variable land land Reserves Reserves Flora River swamp wallaby-grass 2 1 1 Amphibromus fluitans Black-tipped spider-orchid 33 29 9 20 Caladenia anthracina Clover glycine 167 95 4 17 18 3 53 Glycine latrobeana Golfers leek-orchid 11 11 8 2 1 Prasophyllum incorrectum Graveside leek-orchid 3 3 3 Prasophyllum taphanyx Tunbridge leek-orchid 22 22 14 1 1 6 Prasophyllum tunbridgense Midlands greenhood 14 14 1 13 Pterostylis commutata Grassy greenhood 22 6 6 Pterostylis wapstrarum

1 Reservation classes as per DPIWE 2009. 2 Species records from the Natural Values Atlas March 2009 79.

Fleshy greenhood 92 23 3 1 19 Pterostylis ziegeleri Midlands buttercup 19 19 19 Ranunculus prasinus Fauna Wedge-tailed eagle 2712 267 14 16 11 2 21 203 Aquila audax subsp. fleayi Spotted-tailed quoll 1028 59 1 1 5 52 Dasyurus maculatus subsp. Maculates Swan galaxiid 88 18 18 Galaxias fontanus Saddled galaxiid 29 29 2 21 6 Galaxias tanycephalus Green and gold frog 161 11 1 1 4 5 Litoria raniformis Ptunarra brown butterfly 60 5 1 4 Oreixenica ptunarra Arthurs galaxias 3 3 3 Paragalaxias mesotes Tasmanian devil 1553 274 7 9 2 29 227 Sarcophilus harrisii

80.

Pterostylis commutata (Midlands Greenhood) Pterostylis commutata is an endemic orchid restricted to the Tunbridge and Ross areas within the MWS. The species extends over an area of 75 km2 occupying approximately 1 Ha within that area and is listed as critically endangered under the EPBC. The ra nge of the species is thought to have contracted largely due to habitat loss. All records f or the species are locat ed within the MWS are a. This means that all important locations for this spe cies are contained within t he MWS assessment ar ea. There are a total of 14 recor ds for the species with only 1 of th ose record s from a reserve – the Township Lagoon Nature Reserve , which is a formal reserve. The species is con sidered to b e poorly reserved. The 14 records for the species are separated amongst 5 populations. Management issues for the species include their sensitivity to chemicals such as fer tilizers and sprays, overgrazing, weed infestations a nd the threatened nature of their grassland habitats. These orchids occur in r emnant patches of grassland which themselves are under enormous pressure fro m grazing and clearan ce for agricultural purp oses. Drought is also likely to have played a role in their decline.

Caladenia anthracina (Black Tipped Spider Orchid) Caladenia anthracina is an endemic orchid now restricted t o the Midlands region within the MWS. Liste d as critically endanger ed under the EPBC, th e species r ange has contracted significantly due to loss of habitat, with two po pulations in the south east of the state now presumed extinct. The species extends across an area of 2 7 km2 – it o ccupies around 2 Ha within that area. All extant locations for t he species are located within the MWS assessment area. There are an estimated 4 populations with 33 separate re cords currently known - 29 of the 33 records occur within the MW S area (several sites are now considered extin ct). Of the 29 records within the MWS, 9 are in private perpetual rese rves; the remaining 20 occur on un reserved private land. Whilst some population s for the species are no w reserved, it is still con sidered to be poorly reserved. Extensive s urveys in 1 999 for the species fa iled to locate any new populations. Threats to the species include agricultura l development, overgrazing, trampling, and inappropriate fire regimes. Due to the extremely small number of plants, the species is at real risk as a result of stochastic events (events that are unpredictable and occur by chance).

Prasophyllum incorrectum (Golfer’s Leek Orchid) Prasophyllum incorrectum is endemic to the Midlands region. It is listed a s critica lly endangered under the EPBC, and all populations occu r within the MWS area. The species occurs across an area of 60km 2 (a linear rang e of 27 km) and occupies about 3 Ha within that area. The species range has contracted significantly d ue largely t o loss of grassland habitats. There are 3 distinct subpopulatio ns of the species, which are mad e up of 11 separate records (all contained within the M WS area). Despite all records bein g on private land, the species is well reserved with 10 of the 11 records under some kind of pro tection. Eight of the 11 records are within perpetual reserves, 2 records are in variable lengt h reserves on private land (one for 10 years and one for 20 years) and 1 record remains unreserved. The key threats to the species in clude agricult ural development and the resultan t loss of habitat, impact from fertilisers, chan ges in fire and grazing regimes and risks from st ochastic events as a result of the extremely small numbers of plants. 81.

Prasophyllum taphanyx (Graveside Leek Orchid) Prasophyllum taphanyx is endemic to the Midlands. The species is critically en dangered under the EPBC, with an area of extent and area of occupancy of less than 1 Ha. Clearance of grassland communities within the region is tho ught to have substantially contributed to the demise of the species. The species is now known from only 1 site (St Johns Cemetery in Campbell Town within the MWS area) despite ex tensive sur vey of nearby suitable grassland habitats. Th is single population has 3 re cords on DPIPWE databases. The site, and th erefore the species, is unreserved, occurring on private freehold land. Threats to t he specie s revolve aro und inappro priate management of the graveside site – mowing reg imes, herbiciding practices, weeds and construction on new graves could all contribute to the loss of the species. Due to the extremely small population size, the species is also at risk from stochastic events.

Prasophyllum tunbridgense (Tunbridge Leek Orchid) Prasophyllum tunbridgense is listed as endangered under the EPBC. It is endemic to the Midlands region, with all known pop ulations occurring in Tunbridge and Campbell Town. The species occurs over a 30km stretch of the regio n, and occu pies less than 3 Ha in t otal. It is assumed to have had a much larger distribut ion prior to clearance of grasslan d habitats within the region. There are estimated to be less tha n 5 population of this species in existence. Th ese ar e made up of 22 individually identifie d records or sites all wit hin the MW S area. Of t hese 22 records, 14 are found in the Township Lagoon formal reserve at Tunbridge (public la nd), 1 is privately reserved in perpetuity, and 1 is privatel y reserved i n a variable term reserve for 10 years. Six of the 22 records remain unreserved. Threats to the species are predominantly the large scale clearance of grassland communities within the region – and hence loss of habitat. Potential threats also include the inappropriate use of fertilizers.

Pterostylis ziegeleri (Grassland Greenhood) Pterostylis ziegeleri is a Tasmanian endemic listed as vulnerable under the EPBC. The species occurs in coastal grassland areas ranging from the northwest, north, south east and east of the state as well as in grassy habitats the Midlands region of the state. Due to the large spread of populat ions, this species extends across 4 3,000 km2 of the state, but within that area, only actually occupies around 20-25 Ha. The specie s occurs in at least 30 populations around the state: of tho se, as man y as 11 occur within the Midlan ds. The 30 populations are represented by 92 i ndividual records for the species: of these, 23 occur within the MWS area. Pterostylis ziegeleri is moderately to well rese rved across its entire r ange. However, the species is poorly reserved in that part of its distribution which falls within the Midlands region. Of the 23 records within the MWS area, 3 are re served in private reserves in perp etuity, 1 is privately secured for a period of 10 years, and 19 other records occur on private unreserved land. Threats to the species within the MWS area are continued loss of habitat through clearance of grasslands, overgrazing, ploughing and fertilizing.

82.

Pterostylis wapstrarum (Fleshy Greenhood) Pterostylis wapstrarum, is listed a s critically endangered under the EPBC. The s pecies is historically known from a number of sites in the south east of the state and in the Midlands region. All except one site in the south eas t at Pontville have been determined to be extinct. This reduct ion in range is thought to be largely due to loss of grassland habitat for the species thr ough agriculture and housing expansion. Most recently the species has been confirmed from a site in the Midlan ds. The ext ent over which the spe cies o ccurs, and the areas that it occupies, are unknown. There are 2 populations confirmed for the species with 22 records for the species. One of the 2 populations is confirm ed to occur within the MWS area. This population has 6 in dividual records attributed to it, none of which are reserved. The species is at high risk from stochastic ev ents given th e small nu mber of po pulations. Other key risks include loss of grasslands through clearance and conversion, as well as over grazing, ploughing and fertilizing of sites.

5.3.1.2 Fauna There is 1 high risk fauna species known to occur within the MWS that preferentially occupies gr assland ha bitats – the Ptunarra brown butterfly. Within t he MWS re gion this species occurs in the EPBC listed community Lowland Na tive Grasslands of Tasmania as well as in other grassland vegetation types that do not make up part of the EPBC listed community. The MWS a rea contains important p opulations of the species. Data ac curacy and reliabilit y for the s pecies, as well as knowledge of individual sit es is high, with the Ptunarra brown butterfly recovery plan and listing state ment pro viding further detail on population sizes and extents.

Ptunarra brown butterfly (Oreixenica ptunarra) The Ptunarra brown but terfly is currently under consideration for listing on the EPBC as a vulnerable species. It is an endemic species w hich occurs in a number of distin ct ‘regions’ across the state – Midlands, East ern Highlands, Northwest Plains, Central Plateau an d Steppes (Bell, P 1999). I ts distribution is largely dictated by temperature, rainfall (an d hence food source s) and site history. The specie s occupies an a rea of appr oximately 1 3,900Ha. The species has been noted to be in decline largely due to the signif icant contra ction of suitable gra ssland habit at within the regions that it occurs. The species is considered to occur across its full niche however, it is not f ully occupying all sites which app ear to be potential ha bitat. Past practices at many sites with suitable habitat a re thought to have resulted in the loss of the species from these areas. The butterfly is depend ent upon gr asses from the Poa fa mily during the larva a nd pupa stages of their lifecycle. Eggs are laid in Poa a nd once hatched, the larvae feed at night on the tips of the leaves of the grass. The larva then pupates deep in the grass tusso cks and once fully matured, butterflies emerge in February/March. The Ptunarra brown butterfly is represented by 60 records across its entire distribution. At the state level the species occurs in a number of formally protected r eserves. Within the Midlands there are 5 records for the species which represent 2 key population s of the species. Of these 5 records, 1 occurs on unreserved public land, and 4 occur on unreserved private land making the species poorly reserved within the region.

83.

The further loss of suitable grassland habitat through clearance, as well as the fragmentation of habitat is a cont inuing threat t o the species. Habita t fragmentation is o f p articular relevance as Ptunarra brown butterflies are no t strong flier s, and require corridors linking suitable habitat areas in order to move across the landscape. Grazing at high intensities also destroys suitable habitat for the species, as do fire regimes that fail to maintain appropriate tussock coverage for th e specie s (i.e. fires eit her too frequ ently or too infrequently). Pests such as European wasps are also a key threat to the species.

5.3.2 High Risk Threatened Species that Predominantly Inhabit Other Areas

5.3.2.1 Flora There are 3 high risk threatened flora species which are known to, or have the po tential to, occur within the MWS, that do not only occupy grassland habitats, or do not pref erentially occupy them. Within the MWS re gion these species occur in habitat types often surrounded by grasslands (wetlands, grassy woodlands) as well as in aquatic areas. One of the 3 species is well reserve d, 2 are un reserved. Records for 2 species a re predomin antly on private land. All are thre atened by agricultural a ctivities including clearance and ch anges to hydrology a nd water quality. One of the 3 species is listed as en dangered and 2 as vulnerable. Of the 3 s pecies only 1 (Midland s buttercup) is endemic to Tasman ia. This species has a recovery plan, and th ere is a national recovery plan in pr eparation for Glycine latrobeana. Data reliability is low for Amphibromus fluitans (with only 2 records for the species kn ow from Tasmania) a nd high f or the other 2 spe cies. However, habitat requirements are understood well for all 3 species.

Ranunculus prasinus (Midlands buttercup) Ranunculus prasinus is endemic to Tasmania and listed as endanger ed under the EPBC. The species occurs over an area of 220km 2 but of that area it only actually occupies about 5 Ha. The entire range of the species is restrict ed to an area extending from Tun bridge to Campbell Town in the central Midlands. It is commonly f ound on th e edges of wetlands surrounded by native grasslands. The species is threatened by the same factors t hat these communities are threatened by. There are 19 records for this spe cies - these make up 6 populations which occur at 5 separate locations. All populations (and hence important populations) for this species occur within the MWS area. The spe cies is not re served in an y form. Of t he 19 recor ds for the species, all occur on private unreserved land. Population sizes vary with most in the thousands. However, the number of sites the species occurs at is a better indicator of status than population counts for this species. Threats to the species include cont inued declin e and loss of habitat through agricultural expansion and operatio ns. Soil co mpaction, competition from weeds, changes in hydrology which impa ct on adjacent wetlands, and stochastic risk are also threats to the species’ survival.

Glycine latrobeana (Clover glycine) Glycine latrobeana is listed under t he EPBC a s vulnerable. This species occur s in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. Within Tasmania it is widespread, being found across much of the state in the nort h, north we st, east co ast and mi dlands regions. It occurs in dry woodlands and grassy habitats. This species is usually sparsely distributed within its habitat.

84.

There are around 167 records for this species, which makes up an unknown (but presumably large) number of distinct populations for the species. The sp ecies is well reserved a cross its range. Of th e 167 records, 95 are located within the MWS. Of these 95, 4 are in informal reserves on public land, 17 are in private land reserves which are protected in perpe tuity, 18 are in variable term reserves on private land (2 are protected for 10 ye ars, 12 are protected for 12 years and the term of 4 is un known). The remainder of the 95 records are located on unreserved public and p rivate land (3 and 53 re spectively). Within the MWS there is at least 1 populatio n recorded as being important for t he species (private land north of Campbell Town). However, others within the assessment area are likely to contribute significantly to the overall population size and genetic diversity of the species. The species is highly palatable to both native and domestic animals and occurs in areas likely to be developed for agriculture.

Amphibromus fluitans (River swamp wallaby grass) Amphibromus fluitans is found in both Australia and New Zealand. The aquatic/semi aquatic species is listed as vulnerable on the EPBC. Within Australia, Amphibromus is wide spread throughout NSW and Victoria, but is known only from 2 sites in Tasmania. Very little is known abo ut the extent and size of the popula tion of this species in Tasmania. Of the 2 Tasmanian records for this species, 1 occurs outside the strategic assessment area at Lake Crescent and is unlikely to be impacted by the MWS. The validity of this record as a natural occurrence is unclear. Th e second r ecord occur s within the strategic a ssessment area on unreserved private land. The population size at this site is unknown. The key threats which have been identified for the species include grazing and trampling by livestock (e specially as swampy areas dry out ), hydrological chang es (which can result in changes in water qual ity and qua ntity as wel l as periodicity of inundation), invasion of remnants by exotic species, dra inage and conversion of lowland swamp habitats and conversion of habitat to deep, permanent dams.

5.3.2.2 Fauna There are 7 high risk th reatened fauna species which are known to, or have the potential to occur within the MWS, that are not r eliant upon grassland habitats (Appendix O). Of these 7 species, 4 o ccur within aquatic environments, 3 occur in a range of habitat types, and are likely to use grassland s (thus these 3 have been identified as being associa ted with grassland in Table 9). One of the species is a frog, 3 are fish, 1 is a bird and 2 are mammals. Four species are listed under the EPBC as endangered and 3 as vulnerable. Only 1 of the 7 species is not endemic (the frog). All species are covered by either a comp leted (4) or a draft (3) recovery plan. The level of presence on private ve rsus public land varies across the species, as do their levels of reservation within the MWS area. The fish spe cies are most restricte d in their distributions. The accuracy of information about the species includin g population locations and sizes is variable, and is discussed further in the relevant recovery plans.

Wedge-tailed eagle (Aquila audax fleayi) The Tasmanian subspe cies Aquila audax fleayi is listed as endangered under the EPBC. The subspecies is ende mic and occurs in all ha bitats throughout Tasmania, excepting King

85.

Island (vagrant) and the smaller islands of Bass Strait. It is a single populatio n and is believed not to mo ve between Tasmania and mainland states. The species breeds in solitary and monogamo us pairs an d is long-lived, surviving up t o 20-25 years in t he wild (Gaffney & Moone y 1992). Dist ribution is nat urally fragmented because t he eagles occupy very large home ranges and have territories that are very widely dispersed, from 20-30 km² for a breeding pair in open habitat in the lowlands of eastern and northern Tasmania to 1200 km² in the highlands of western and south-western Tasmania (Bell & Mooney 1998). The recovery plan for t he species estimates the population to be betw een 1000 a nd 1500 individuals in 2006 (DPIW 2006c). The extent of its o ccurrence is e stimated to be 70 000 km² and the area of occupancy at 220 km². Both appear to be stable, with little or no change having occu rred since t he time of European settlement. There are 267 records for the species within the MWS – this is ar ound 10% of the total records for the species. Of these 267, 43 (16%) are in a reserve. There are 14 re cords in formal reserves on public land, 16 in informal reserves on public la nd, 11 in perpetua l reserves o n private la nd and 2 in variable length reserves on private land (1 for 20 years and 1 of an unknown length). The habitat requirements for the species in clude old-growth trees, preferably domi nated by Eucalyptus species for nesting ha bitat. All h abitats provide foraging opportunities. Th e density of the sub-can opy and gro und vegetation do influence prey availability, hence prey availability is understood to be higher in areas where forests tend to be lower and scrubbier. The species is known to breed in the MWS area. Threatening processes such as loss of habitat and specifically nestin g habitat, and nes t disturbance impact on population re cruitment and contribut e to increased mortality. These and other threats such as unnatural mortality and a decline in the mean age of the population are spread, more or less, acro ss the species’ entire range with no specific geographic areas being at higher risk.

Spotted-tailed quoll (Tasmanian population) (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) Dasyurus maculatus maculatus is one of Australia's largest extant marsupial carnivores and one of two sub-species found only in Tasmania. The species is listed as vulnerable under the EBPC and is supported by a draft recovery plan. The species is distributed across the whole of Tasmania, except on King and Flinders Islands where it is locally extinct. The Tasmanian population is a f orest dependent species, is solitary, and occupies a variety of habit ats characterized by high a nnual rainf all and predict able rain patt erns. Individuals have ext ensive home ranges, f rom several hundred t o severa l t housand ha and occu r naturally in low population densities. Roughly 5% of the reco rds held for this species in Tasmani a are recorded within the MWS region (59 0 f 1028). Of t hese only 6 records are on public land, with the majority on private land. There are 2 records within th e MWS from reserved areas – 1 formal reserve on public land and 1 private lan d reserve in perpetuity. Within the MWS study area a ‘st ronghold population’ exists in th e Eastern Tiers/Northern Midlands (including Nugent and Ross regions). Threats include the clearance and conversion of core habitat (much of which is attributed to logging and agricultural clearance). Habitat fra gmentation when comb ined with n aturally occurring lo w densities has led to isolated pop ulations wit h the attendant problems of low genetic diversity, breeding difficulties and susceptibility to stochastic events such as bush fire and flood.

86.

Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) Sarcophilus harrisii is the world's largest extant marsupial carnivore and is endemic to Tasmania. It is listed on the EPBC as endangered and is found throughout the st ate apart from the offshore island s. There are known to be two genetically distin ct populations of this species: one in the nor th-west of T asmania and one in the remainder. Whilst the MWS is known habitat for the T asmanian devil the pre cise role this area plays in allowin g for the dispersal of the species is not well understood. It is thought that the area provides important habitat (resting, foragin g, breeding ) justifying a precautio nary approach to the potential impacts on this species. Open forests and woodlands are preferred habitat with t he highest population densities occurring in mixed patc hes of grazing land and forest or woodland. Dens are typically underground burrows (such as old wombat burrows), dense riparian vegetation, thick grass tussocks an d caves. Adults are t hought to r emain faithf ul to their dens for lif e so den disturbance is destabilising to populations (Owen & Pemberton 2005). The best estimate of total population size, based on current evidence, lies in the range of 20– 50, 000 mature individuals. The ge neral population trend for the entire species is a decline. Distribution is effe ctively continu ous across mainland Tasmania, so that the area of occupancy is the same as the ext ent of occu rrence, that is 64, 030 km². There is no evidence to indicate significant recent changes in the area of occupancy. However, the area of occupancy could contract to 40, 000 km² or le ss by 2016 due to the p redicted impacts of Devil Facial Tumour Di sease (DFTD). No single wild population can b e identified as more necessary than another for the long-term survival of the species, especially since the Devil population is not clearly delineated into different populations. Within the MWS there are 274 records for the species with 7 in formal reserves, 9 in private perpetual reserves and 2 in variable length reserves on private land. The majority of th e remaining records are on private land. The key threats are DVTD, unn atural mortality (e.g. r oadkill, per secution), p redation / competition by foxes, and low genetic diversity.

Green and Gold Frog (Litoria raniformis) Litoria raniformis is a f rog species which is listed as vulnerable und er the EPBC. The species occurs in South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania. In Ta smania it inhabits lowland mainly coastal area s (including Bass Strait islands), with some exceptions, and it is thought to have been wi despread in the Midlands historica lly. The sp ecies is thought to be in decline. The frog is dependent upon permanent fresh water lagoons for breeding. Ideal breeding habitat is th e shallow part of lagoons (to approximately 1. 5m) where there are complex vegetation communities dominated by emergent plants although other plant communities can form equally suitable habitat. In addition, th e species basks on r ocks, log s and grassy vegetation in warmer weather. The state-wide population was estimated in 2001 to be in the region of 5,000 - 10,000 adults. The frog extends over an estimated area of 42,000 km 2 within the state. Within the MWS the population size is difficu lt to est imate. Howeve r, there are 11 known sites, 2 of wh ich are within reser ves (1 formal reserve on public la nd and 1 p rivate perpetual reserve). The remaining 9 records are found on public and private land which is not in reserves. Throughout its ent ire r ange the species is known from a number of formally protected reserves.

87.

Drainage of wetlands and conversion to agriculture, housin g, and other purposes poses the major threat to Litoria raniformis. Related threats include degradation of wetlands and water quality through stock da mage, and application of agricultural chemicals, including fertilisers and trampling. Modification of river system s, fragmentation of habitat and drought are also threatening processes. Increased ultraviolet light because of ozone layer thinning is also thought to pose a threat to basking frogs such as Litoria raniformis. Disease is also a major threat. Chytrid fungus, which has had a serio us impact o n mainland frog populations, is present in Tasmania and is known to infect the Green and gold frog.

Saddled Galaxias (Galaxias tanycephalus) Galaxias tanycephalus is a native freshwater fish, ende mic to the Central Highlands of Tasmania and found on ly in Arthurs Lake, Woods Lake an d in nearby sections of the Lake River. The species is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC. The adult s are generally bottom- dwelling alt hough they can be f ound on sho relines in a reas where rocks and aquatic vegetation provide shelter. The specie s has an a cutely restricted distrib ution which is discussed further in the multi species fresh water fish recovery pl an. It is moderately abundant in Arthurs Lake and very abundant in Woods Lake, while apparently absent from two small lakes connected to Arthurs Lake. The higher abundance in Woods Lake is thought to be related to higher turbidity and thus lower r ates of predation. All 29 records for the specie s are con tained within the MWS strategic assessment area, and of these only 2 are reserved informally – the remainder occur in areas tha t are publicly owned bu t have no special reser vation status. All populations of this species are important for its survival long term. Predation by introduced species poses the most significant ongoin g threat to survival. Introduced brown trout ( Salmo trutta) have been present since the turn of last century. Although not present in either Arthurs or Woods lakes catchments, European carp (Cyprinus carpio) and redfin perch (Perca fluviatilis) are both present in waterways within a 10 kilometre radius. Deterioration in water quality is also a risk factor for the Saddled galaxias. The water in Arthurs an d Woods Lake are under the jurisdiction of the Hydro Tasmania and both are maintained at artificially high levels by impoundment. Arthurs Lake is also subject to a minimum lake level agreement between Hydro Tasmania and the Inland Fisheries Service (IFS) to maintain ang ling amenity (Hydro Tasmania 1999). The agr eement reduces the potential for extensive habitat dewatering.

Arthurs paragalaxias (Paragalaxias mesotes) Paragalaxias mesotes is an ende mic lake d welling fish species whi ch is li sted under the EPBC as endangered. The entire genus Paragalaxias is endemic to Tasmania. The species is one of 11 fish species covered b y the Threatened Tasmanian Galaxiidae recove ry plan. The specie s occurs o nly in Arthu rs Lake and Woods Lake, a distr ibution it sh ares with Saddled galaxias. The extent of occurren ce for this species has suffered a severe de cline in the past few decades. It is currently 87 km2, but has reduced from approximately 180km2 with the demise of the Woods Lake population. Th e species h as not been detected in Woods Lake after several yea rs of intensive sampling . It has been recorded from the a rtificial cana l which carries wate r from Arthurs Lake to Great Lake. It ha s also been co llected in fyke nets a t depths of 4- 5 m in Arthurs Lake indicating that it probably occurs throughout the lake. The area the species occupies has also reduced from around 75km2 to 62km2.

88.

The species is unreserved as a wh ole - there are 3 records for the species which occur on unreserved public land. Threats to Arthurs paragalaxias ar e the same as those th at also po se a threat t o Saddled galaxias. Fluctuation of habitat quality due to changing lake levels is noted as a key threat to the species. Water extraction occur s for hydro electricity generation as well as for irrigation . Pest species also pose a serious threat.

Swan galaxias (Galaxias fontanus) Galaxias fontanus is a small to medium-sized (max imum length approximately 135 mm) native freshwater fish endemic to Tasmania. It is listed as endangered under the EPBC and only occurs naturally in tributaries of the Macq uarie River (within the study area) and the headwaters of the Swan River above Hardings Falls in eastern Tasmania. The distribution of the Swan galaxias is e xtremely fragmented with all populat ions isolated by the presence of introduced fish. Its original distribution within the Midlands is unknown but is thought to have been more widespread than is currently the case. Galaxias fontanus is the only Ta smanian ga laxias that lives exclusively in fre shwater streams. All habitat s occupied by h ealthy populations are free of other fish species, except eels, and are protect ed from trout invasion or establishment by some sort of barrier (waterfall, marsh, variable flow). Streams are in f orested country, of low gradient an d range in size from extremely small, spring-fed streams to larger r ivers. Many of the stream s do not flow all year but all contain permanent water. None of the population s of this species are wit hin formally designated reserves, p ublic or private. There are 88 kn own records for the spe cies, 18 of which occur within the MWS. All 18 records are from unreserved private land. All known populations of the fish are crucial for its survival. The major t hreat to the Swan gala xias is predation and/or competition from introd uced fish species, in particular brown trout (Salmo trutta), redfin perch ( Perca fluviatilis) and also from the native Galaxias maculatus (jollytail). The Swan galaxi as is relativ ely secure from land management impacts due to its inclu sion in Forest Practices threatene d specie s management systems. However, potential hydrological effects from vegetation clearing (such as more fre quent drying, higher or more frequent flood flows) remain a concern due to th e lack of data to determine likely water yield responses. The longer term effect of climate ch ange may also be a threat if conditio ns become drier, as the small he adwater streams are at risk of drying out. Co nstruction of water stora ges in or near Swan galaxias populations is likely to th reaten them through in undation of habitat, introduction of introduced fish to storages, d estruction o f existing barriers that prevent introduced fish invading Swan galaxias habitat, and alteration of flow regimes. All the natu ral populations are in small head water streams which are vulnerable to th e extreme flu ctuations in stream flow character istic o f the area (Hughes 1987): t he fish no longer have downstream refuge from floods or droughts affecting the headwaters, and temporary declines in numbers due to drought have been observed at some sites.

5.4 LISTED MIGRATORY SPECIES Eleven listed migratory species have been identified as occurring throughout the study area or as having the potential to be impacted by the MWS (Appendix F). Of those 11 species, 6 have been identified which require d further consideration to ascertain the level o f threat posed by the scheme: Lathams snipe ( Gallinago hardwickii), Swif t Parrot ( Lathamus

89.

discolour), Satin flycatcher (Myiagra cyanoleuca), Great Egret (Ardea alba1), Whit e-bellied sea-eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster), Cattle egret (Ardea ibis). These spe cies u se wetland habitats as well as for ested area s and ther efore the consideration of hazards associa ted with the Program inc orporated an assessme nt of the threats posed by a ra nge of potential stresso rs including of relevan ce to these species: hydrological changes, waterway c onnectivity and habitat loss (Appen dix F). None of these birds have been identified as being at a high risk from the implementation of the MWS. These species are listed in Appendix H.

5.5 RAMSAR WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE There are no Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance identified within the study area. The Ramsa r listed wet land Interla ken (Lake Crescent) lies outside the MWS s trategic assessment area and associated buffer. As the MWS will not result in t he loss of water from this site, or the construction of infra structure or other related activities t hat could impact on the site, there are no pr edicted direct impacts a s a resu lt of the MWS. Indirect impa cts are likely to be insignificant. It is possible that increased irrigation may result in an increase in the number of water bird species, including migratory species.

5.6 NATIONAL HERITAGE SITES There is one historic heritage site listed as a National Heritage Site identified within the study area (Woolmers Estate) and one historic he ritage site listed as N ational Heritage Site immediately adjacent to the bounda ry of the strategic asse ssment area: Brickendon Estate. For a description of the values at these sites, see Section 5.7 – World Heritage Properties. No impacts on these sites are anticipated from the implementation of the MWS. In considering the strategic assessment the Commonwealth Environment Minister would also consider impacts on sites listed on the Register of the National Estate. A list of sites on th e Register of the National Estate that occur within the strategic assessment area can be seen in Appendix I. These sites have be en classified according to the type of site they represent (i.e. natural values, indigenous values, historic).

5.7 WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTIES Subsequent to the signing of the A greement to which the strategic a ssessment relates, two sites listed as National Heritage Places (Brickendon Estate and Woolmers Estate) were added to the World Heritage list, a nd have th erefore become World Heritage properties under the EPBCA.The strategic assessment has included a consider ation of the potential impacts arising from the actions associated with the Program on World Heritage properties. Brickendon Estate World Heritage property The Brickendon Estate World Heritage property (Lot 1 Title Reference 27652) is located in Longford in the northern extent of the MWS. The site is on the western banks of the Macquarie River, and has cultural World Heritage values. These values include:

 Representative of the use of penal transportation to expand Britain’s geo-political spheres of influence and to rehabilitate criminals and integrate them into a distant penal colony  Associated with global developments in the punishment of crime in the 19th century  The site ha s been managed and worked by descendants o f a single fa mily for o ver six generations  Significant f or its association with t he c onvict assignment system (provision of co nvict labour to settlers, called Masters, in exchange for food and clothing)  Significant for its association with the continuity of mixed farming practice at the estate (specialising in grains, wool and animal husbandry)  Rare and diverse example of or iginal colon ial f eatures with in the boun dary of a single property.  Uncommon as a designed cultural landscape where the range of buildings demonstrates early colonial agricultur al and past oral farmi ng practices based on British practice and techniques imported by the owners of Brickendon into n orthern Tasmania: Bricke ndon Homestead is a two-s torey painte d brick Old Colonial Georgian country house in a garden setting with stables and cottages for the coachman and gardener. An extensive set of pre-1850s convict built farm structures lies one kilo metre fro m the Homest ead, these struct ures includ e: the Pillar Granary; two Suffol k Barns; Cart Shed; Smoke House; Poultry Shed; Brick Granary; Woolshed; Stables; Blacksmith’s Shop; and Coo k House and archaeolog ical remains of the Convict Single Men’s Quarters, Carpentry Shop, Stables, Hay Shed and the Overseer’s Cottage. Other farming structures include a Farm Cotta ge/Dairy, th e Original Homestead, Outhouse and underground drainage systems. Located in the centre of the farm is a Chapel.  A rich sour ce of information about t he living an d working conditions o f colonial settlers and the co nvicts assig ned to rur al estate s from the 1820s until transportation to Tasmania ceased in 1853. There is a large collection of fa rming equipment and to ols, diaries, photos, paintings, maps and drawings from the convict era.

Woolmers Estate World Heritage property The Woolmers Estate World Heritage property (Lots 1 an d 3 Title Reference 135619) is also located in Longford at the northern extend of the MW S (on the eastern ban ks of the Macquarie River) and has cultural World Heritage values. These values include:  Representative of the use of penal transportation to expand Britain’s geo-political spheres of influence and to rehabilitate criminals and integrate them into a distant penal colony  Associated with global developments in the punishment of crime in the 19th century  The site ha s been managed and worked by descendants o f a single fa mily for o ver six generations  Significant f or its association with t he c onvict assignment system (provision of co nvict labour to settlers, called Masters, in exchange for food and clothing)  The house at Woolmers illustrate s the architectural evolution of a g entleman’s rural residence over time, including modifications made in the 1840s.  The layout and archite cture of Wo olmers Estate makes a strong dist inction betw een master and servant, which authorities believed to be important in reforming convicts.  Is a rare example of an early 19 th century colo nial rural ho mestead group, comprisin g complexes with houses, formal gardens and o utbuildings. The range of building s still

91.

extant at Woolmers is outstanding and evidences the range of operations of a substantial colonial pastoral estate owned by wealthy pastoralists. The range of buildings in cludes the homestead, the nearby Kitchen (also the Servant’s Quarters), Provisions Store , Bakers Cott age, Farm Stables, Ci der house, Woolshed, Blacksmith ’s Shop, C oach House and Stables an d Pump Ho use. Convict era Wor kers’ Cottag es, Coachman’s Cottage and Shed and Coach House and Stables are also on the estate. Located in the centre of the estate is a Chapel. The archaeological site of the Male Convict Barracks is believed to be located towards the bottom of the hill.  A rich source of information of life d uring successive periods at Woolmers, sourced from surviving musters, farm diaries, correspondence and conduct records, furniture, soft furnishings, floor coverings, artwork, books, photograph albums, household items, journals, farm machinery and plant.  The site also has a high degree of archaeological potential.

92.

PART 6 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION By intent, t he Program, and hence this sectio n, does not include sp ecific measures to be applied to individual va lues or sites. The Pr ogram is strategic and establishes mechanisms and processes to ensure that specific mitigation approaches are enacted during all stages of the Program to protect MNES. Specific measures applied to each MNES are discussed in Sections 6.3 to 6.8.

6.1 STRATEGIC MITIGATION APPROACH This section of the impact assessment report describes the strategic approach that the State is taking to address the potential threats to MNES that ha ve been identified through a risk assessment process. It discusses the key me chanisms being applied through the Program to achieve sig nificant positive outcomes for MNES within the strategic assessment area and covers threatening processes which have been accounted for in the approach taken by the State.

6.1.1 Identification of Threats, Avoidance of Key Sites and Populations A key mechanism for a chieving the Program commitments will be the avoidance of threats to, and thus impacts on, MNES. A comprehensive list of potential threats to MNES that have the potential to occur at each stage of the Program is outlined in Appendix H. The identification of ea ch of these h azards is ad dressed by the requirement in the Program to undertake specific assessment of areas of l and to be i mpacted by the imple mentation of the Program (described in Section 3.1). Program commit ments require th at, unless the Commonwealth Environment Minister approves otherwise, there will be no clearance and conversion of Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania, and no significant impacts on other MNES. Construction (CEMP) Where land is to be i mpacted through construction processes, specif ic surveys t o identify and quantify potential impacts are required through the Program (Appendix E). The potential threats to MNES whic h have bee n identified through the risk asse ssment process will b e investigated for each matter through this C EMP proce ss. The Pr ogram requires the development of CEMPs which ident ify mechanism s to achieve minimisation of impacts for each construction component. Over time if additional p ipelines are required within the MWS as a result of uptake of water from the two irrigation schemes, these will be assesse d using the pro cess outl ined in the Program. Where required, best practices guidelines (where they exist) for mitigation or offset approaches will be used to inform the approach taken. Dam Construction for the Operation of the Schemes In addition to being addressed in a CEMP, a da m permit un der the Water Management Act 1999 (WMA) will be req uired for ea ch of the 2 dams required for the o peration of t he MWS (one at Floods Creek and one on the Milford property at Glenesk). Under the WMA a da m permit is generally requi red for all dams except in circumstances such as:  a dam that is not on a watercourse and that holds less than one megalitre of water;  a dam constructed for the primary purpose of storing waste as defined in the Act. A dam assessment process administered under the Water Management Act 1999 considers issues relevant to the State includ ing environmental, social and economic issues a ssociated with each dam (Appendix K). Environmental assessments which identify natural values at the

93.

proposed dam site are required under the dam assessment process. These must mee t quality standards set by DPIPWE (Appendix L). Technical issues are considered by an asse ssment pane l and advic e is provide d to the Assessment Committee for Dam Construction (ACDC), which is a co mmittee established under the Act as the responsible e ntity for allocating dam permits in Tasmania. Advice can include recommendations for the requirement for more information on n atural values present at the site to be provided by the proponent. When considering proposals the A CDC follow guidelines on the establishment of offsets for impacts on natural values resulting from dam works (DPIW, 2007). The ACDC membership includes ex pertise in th e management of water resources, the use and econo mic development of water resource s, engineer ing and safe ty matters relating to dams, integrated nat ural resour ce management and best pra ctice envir onmental management. Decisions b y the ACDC are subject to public notification , and appeal rights thro ugh the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal of the State. Operation (FWAP) FWAPs are required in accordance with the Program in order for wate r to be avail able for use on farms. These p lans must id entify values within the areas to be directly impacted by the irrigation water. The se include a reas where infrastructure is req uired in order to enable the use and delivery of the water on-farm (for example, on-farm pipelines from the supply line or dams required to hold irrigatio n water sourced from the MWS). Specific minimum standards for FWAPs have been articulated in th e Program in order to achieve the Program commitments (Appendix D). The minimu m standards for FWAP biodiversity assessmen ts require a ny direct impacts on MNES to be identified d uring the on farm assessment. Also required is the consid eration of the potential indirect impacts which may result fro m the activities – this include s consideration of how th e changes in agricultur al enterprise ma y affec t other area s of the property. Avoidance of MNES is required and al ternative approvals processes are required should the farmer not be able to meet the commitment s under th e Program. Specific reference to and use of current published information relevant to MNES is required under the standards. This means that information such as listing st atements, policy statements and recovery plans, which may change from time to time, must be used to de termine a sustainable approach to the use of irrigat ion water from the MW S on the property. Seasonality must be specifically considered to ensure that on ground surveys are undertaken at the appro priate time of year for a ll species likely to occur. Monitoring at the farm scale is also to be determined as a standard requirement. Soil and water modules must also be completed in order to fulfil th e requirements of a FWAP. The completio n of these modules requires exte nsive consideration of background information. In order to ensure th at key issue s associate d with the MWS are taken into account, a data library containing information on all relevant aspects has been setup b y DPIPWE in conjunction with NRM regional orga nisations for use by prequalified co nsultants. Examples of available information include: information relating to ground water flow systems , land capability, land sys tems and th ose impacted by salinity, land degradation and salinity risk in cert ain areas, soils and la ndscape se nsitivity to recharge mo dels for the Arthurs Pipeline irrigation district. Section 6.2 of this report describes how relevant information has been used in the development of the MWS Program. An important requirement under the Program which will ensure that commitments are met is the requirement for FWAPs to be prepared by a ‘prequalified consultant’ approved by a panel represented by DPIPWE, TIDB and TFGA. The purp ose of the prequalification is to undertake due diligence on the qualifications, experience and organisational professionalism of prospective consultants.

94.

Only prequalified consultants will be able to prepare FWAPs. A Request for Tender for consultant s to pre-qualify (the prequalification RFT) was advertised nationally in The Australian and The Age newspapers and locally on 29 August 2009. The prequalification RFT comprised two parts: Part A - Contractor Information Information relating to the lead contractor and their team to undertake the work wa s required. This is detailed fully in the Program. Part B - Technical ability and professional capacity: Part B comprised the p roject assessment criteria used to e valuate submissions fro m contractors seeking prequalification. The information gained from Part A was used to supplement the assessment. The assessment criteria were: 1. Appropriate tertiary qualifications/documented equivalent experience in the areas of water management, water use efficiency and water quality; 2. Appropriate tertiary qualificat ions/documented equivalent experience in soil science and its relationship to agriculture; 3. Appropriate tertiary qualifications/documented equivalent experience in the areas of flora, fauna and terrestrial ecology; 4. Proven exp erience including docu mented examples of having undertaken simila r tasks; 5. Demonstrated past abilities to meet stipulated timeframes; and, 6. Project management and experience. The consult ants who have currently met preq ualification requirements are: RM Consulting Group (RMCG), Agricultural Resou rce Management (ARM), Rural Development Services (RDS) and Armstrong and Ketelaar (AK Consultants). Further consultants ma y be prequalified in intervening periods as the opportunity arises. Any change s to key pe rsonnel and/or venture parties within a prequalified team must be communicated to the TI DB or its successor s and approved by the Parties. This process of disclosure will apply to future water entities. The prequalification process will be reviewed annually by the State and the water entity and if indicated by that review, repeated to maintain currency.

6.1.2 Sustainable use of Water The sustain able use of water for the two irrig ation schem es will be a chieved through the water man agement planning and licen sing processe s under Ta smania’s R esource Management and Planning System (RMP S), principally throu gh the Water Management Act 1999. The RMPS syst em establishes principles for susta inable development in the State. Water Management Plans, which are established under Part 4 of the Water Management Act 1999, prese nt a clear statement of the comm unity’s environmental, social an d e conomic objectives f or the relevant water resources. The Plans describe th e water ma nagement regime that best gives e ffect to the se objectives (DPIWE, 2005) by guiding how fr eshwater resources are to be managed a nd allocate d and how the needs of the fre shwater ecosystems are to be protected. Appendix G sets out a generic model for water management planning. The Water Management Act 1999 also provides a regulatory fra mework for an integrated assessment and appro val process for the con struction of dams and related infra structure. Part 8 of t he Act provides for the establishment of an A ssessment Committee for Dam Construction (ACDC): its constitution, mem bership, functions and procedures. The ACDC’s

95.

main functions are to: consider applications to undertake dam works; grant or refuse permits; and determine any con ditions that should attach to the per mits. The Act sets out issues to be considered by the Committee in their deliberations and how permits to construct dams are to be granted. South Esk River Supply A Draft Water Management Plan under the Water Manage ment Act exists for the South Esk River catchment. The water regime that best gives effect to the en vironmental a nd other relevant objectives of this Plan is one that represents a balance in providing water to maintain environmental values and providing water for consumptive use. The South Esk River catchment is located within a hydro-electric district, conferring on Hydro Tasmania the right to all the water resources of the catchment (excluding the relatively small volume of water under entitlements held by other water licensee s). Together with the location of Trevallyn Dam at the bottom of the riv er system , these circum stances hav e resulted in two important outcomes. Firstly, whilst the media n annual discharge of the South Esk River is large (808,787 ML), a relatively small volume of water has been allocated to consumptive use to date (approximately 41,000 ML or 5% of the me dian annual discharge) . Secondly, Hyd ro Tasmania is considered to be a non-consumptive user of water, and the location of T revallyn Dam at the bottom of th e river syst em means that the bulk of the natural flow regime has been preserved upstream of the Dam. Given this context, there is a unique opportunity for further development of the water resource for irrigation a nd other co nsumptive uses, whilst still preserving most elements of the natural flow regime. Hence, for the South Esk River catchment, the water regime that best gives effect to the environmental and other relevant objectives of the Draft Water Management Plan is one that retains the key charact eristics of t he natural f low regime, albeit with some modification of natural flows reflecting t he consumptive use of water. As a result, this regime provides the overall water needs of the environment, while also providing secure access to water for consumptive purposes, generally at a high level of reliability. Based on the premise that the natural flow regime provides the best guide to the flow requirements of the entire aquatic e cosystem, the water re gime that b est gives eff ect to the environmental objectives is one in which the key components of the natural flow regime are maintained or mimicked. For the S outh Esk River, the key components of the nat ural flow regime that are relevant to identified freshwater ecosystem values, and the ecosyst em more broadly, include: a) base flows that sustain ecosystem health and populations of aquatic b iota, and provide refuge during dry times; b) moderate flows (freshes) and high flows that provide reproductive cues and dispersal mechanisms for some bio ta, and whi ch are impo rtant for tra nsporting material (organic matte r, sediments and nutrien ts) downstream and maintaining geomorphic processes; c) flood flows that support riparian zon es, floodplains and wetlands, and maintain connectivity and exchange of resources between the river and its floodplain; d) the natural pattern of f low variabilit y, including seasona l d istribution, f requency and duration of flows, and rates of rise and fall; e) groundwater flows and levels critical to surface water flows. As a key aim of the Draft Water Management Plan is to pr ovide reliable access to water for consumptive purposes, the water r egime, whilst retaining much of its natural pattern of flow variability, is one in which there is some modification of natural flows. The greatest degree of

96.

modification is in the low flow component of th e flow regime, reflectin g that the d irect taking of water for irrigation generally coincides with the driest part of the year. Accordingly, much of th e management focus of the Plan is targeted at the summer irrigation season, to ensure that a proportion of low flows are protected from extraction and retained in the system, and that the sharing of water between consumptive users is conducted in a fair and equitable fashion. The water regime established by the Plan provides significant op portunity for further development through ad ditional storage allocation. These allocations are at relatively hig h levels of reliability – a point that should not be under emphasised given the risks posed to the reliability of direct take allocations due to the effects of drought and climate change. Under this Plan, the water regime is managed through a combination of:

a) the provision of sub-catchment allocation limits which also indicate the potential amount of water available for further storage allocation. b) the application of seasonal and daily limits on s urface water abstractio n, based on the location of the resource and individual allocations; c) the application of a cease to take provision that prohibits the taking of water when recorded flow is less than a certain threshold flow; d) the application of stage d restriction management to ensure that users with lower surety allocations are not impacting upon those with higher levels of surety; e) the application of other daily access pr ovisions such as opportunistic flood take thresholds or the application of event-based rules: f) licence requirements to pass flows through instream storages; g) the provision of discretionary powers for Authorised Officers to manage the taking of water directly where this provides for a better outcome in achieving the Plan’s objectives. The Water Entity will be issued wit h a water licence under the Water Management Act 1999, which will p rovide the a uthorisation to take water from the South Esk River at Milford into storage. A water alloca tion will be endorsed on the licence, which will define the quantity of water able to be taken and stored under the licence, as well as the time of the yea r at which water may be taken. The Program allows for up to 9,000 ML of wate r annually from the Sout h Esk River at Glen Esk – this constitutes around 1% of the median annual discharge of the river. Conditions on the water licen ce will also pr escribe any requirements to pass t hrough or release water from the dam for environmental purposes. Water will b e allocated to the TIDB for taking into storage a t Milford in accordance with the draft South Esk River Catchment Water Man agement Pl an. The draft Plan provides for additional allocation of 94,595 ML of water from the South Esk River (at the confluence of the South Esk River and Nile River) between 1 May and 30 November inclusive, in ad dition to providing opportunistic h arvesting of water when flows in th e South Esk River (at Llewellyn streamflow gauging station) are greater than 6,500 ML/day. The volume of water required for the Lower South Esk Irrigation Scheme (900 0 ML) is le ss than 10% of the a dditional allocations available under the draft Plan. The South Esk River lies within a hydro-electric district, an d therefore Hydro Tasmania holds an entitlement to the water in the South Esk River. Water in the South Esk River drains into Trevallyn Dam, which is used to supply the Trevallyn Power Station. Any allocation issued to the TIDB will necessitat e a transfer of alloca tion from Hydro Tasmania, with the cost of the water to the TIDB reflecting the power generation income foregone by Hydro Tasmania.

97.

Hydro Tasmania’s Regulatory and Voluntary Commitments associated with Arthurs Pipeline Supply Hydro Tasmania holds a Special Water Licence under section 115 of the Water Management Act 1999 which came into effect on 1 January 2000. Prio r to this Hydro Tasmania’s water management activities were authorised under t he Water Act 1957 and the Hydro Electric Commission Act 1944. Hydro Tasmania’s existing righ ts include being allowed t o draw the water level in Arthurs Lake down to 943.05 mASL. In Ap ril 1992 Hydro Tasmania drew the water level in Arthurs Lake down to 946.5 mASL. More recently in April 2009 the water leve l in Arthurs Lake was drawn down to 947.0 mASL as part of Hydro Tasmania’s response to prolonged Statewid e drought. Hydro Tas mania reserves the ri ght to draw the wat er level be low 947.5 mASL (the Tasmanian Irrigation Board offtake sill level) at Arthurs Lake in order to: . meet the water supply requirements of irrigator s who have a statutory right to water under the Electricity Supply Industry Act (Savings and Transitional measures) Act 1995; . maintain water levels in Woods Lake . meet the electricity demands of Tasmania. Offtake of water from Arthurs Lake by the T asmanian Irrigation Development Board is therefore within the envelope of existing lake level operations. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 authorises an action which is a lawful continuation of a use of land that was occurring before 16 July 2000. Arthurs Lake has also been used to supply irrigation water that Hydro Tasmania is obliged to provide to ir rigators along the Lake River under section 16 of the Electricity Supply Industry Restructuring (Savings and Transitional Provisions) Act 1995. Thi s obliga tion is a lso specified a s a con dition of Hydro Tasmania’s Specia l Water Lice nce under the Water Management Act 1999. Section 54(3) of the Water Management Act 1999 provides that the prohibition on the taking of water from a water resource wit hout a licen ce does not apply to a person taking water directly from a dam or other works if the water in the dam or works has previously been taken in accordance with the Act. Hence , the TIDB will not requ ire a water l icence to take water from Arthurs Lake a s the water has already been taken into storage by Hydro T asmania in accordance with the Act. Hydro Tasmania operates Arthurs Lake in accor dance with a set of storage operation rule s and a Me morandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Inland Fisheries Service (a Statutory Authority that administers the Inland Fisheries Act 1995). The operating rules are based, amongst other factors, on the establishment of environmental risk ban ds. In 2008 a s a re sult of the ongo ing drought, Hydro Tasmania reviewed the potential adverse environmental impacts of a pr olonged period of low water levels a t a range of artificial water storages across Tasmania, including Arthurs Lake. The principle output of the review was the development o f risk bands for these water bodies. The environmental risk bands in Arthurs Lake were based upon two main comp onents. The first of these is the presence and possible impact on the endangered Galaxiid fish ( Galaxias tanycephalus and Paragalaxias mesotes). The second is the possible decline in water quality (WQ) associated with lower water levels. Risk bands have been set as follows: . Medium Risk zone (948m to 946.5m) - in this zone there is potential f or WQ decline, particularly from resuspension in the Morass, p otential for native fish stranding (and mortality) in isolated ponds formed as the water level drops.

98.

. High Risk zone (946.5m and 946 m) - in this zone there is reductio n of potential habitat, especially in Morass area of the lake, potent ial for WQ decline a nd heightened risk to the potential viability of threatened species. Regul ar draw-do wn into this level (e.g. eve ry 1-3 years) should be avoided. This zone represents t he lowest level reached since formation of the storage. . Extreme Risk zone (Below 946m) - in thi s zon e there will be a further reduction in potential ha bitat, and raises concerns this may ha ve a substantial impact upon Galaxiid fish populatio ns, especially if water levels do no t return to 9 48 m within a year. Hydro Tasmania plans to do perio dic review s of the envir onmental risk bands when new information becomes available. Research is currently underway to obtain information on th e life cycle s a nd habitat r equirements of threaten ed Galaxiid fish. More details are provided below. The MoU d ocuments measures agr eed between Hydro Ta smania and the Inland Fisheries Service to maintain the high quality recreational trout fishing experience and to maxi mise boating access at Arth urs Lake. The term of the MoU expires in 20 13 at which time it is expected that it would be revie wed and ren ewed. Th e MoU describes two potential operating regimes for the water levels at Arthurs Lake. These are: 1. Hydro Tasmania will make reasona ble endeavours to operate Arthurs Lake so that the water level is at or a bove 950.00 mASL on 1 st November each year and at or a bove 949.00 mASL on 1st June each year subject to the water level in Great La ke being above its Medium Risk Level of 1023.0 mASL and the Midlands Irrigation Scheme bei ng in operation. This will en sure that Arthurs Lake i s at or above 949.00 mASL durin g the general brown trout angling season (1 August to 30 April in the following year). 2. If Great Lake is below its Medium Risk Level of 1023.0 mASL or if the Midlands Irrigation Scheme is not operatin g then Hydro Tasmania will make reasonable endeavours to operate Arthurs Lake so that the water level is at or above 949.00 mASL on 1st November each year a nd at or above 948.00 mASL on 1 st June each year, both levels being one metre lower than the above case. This will ensure that Arthurs Lake is at or above 948.00 mASL during the general brown trout angling season (1 August to 30 April in the following year). Where the above requirements cannot be met then Hydro Tasmania is required to inform the Director of the Inland Fisheries Service of the circumstances. Hydro Tasmania is not obliged to comply with the MoU where this may conflict with a statutory obligation to provide irrigation water or electricity market requirements. To effectively manage for sustainable galaxiid populations in Arthurs Lake a research project is underway to exa mine the biology and ecology of threate ned galaxiid fishes in Arthur s Lake; establish relation ships between fish popul ations, critical habitats and lake hydrology; and assist in the development of water leve l manageme nt strategie s particu larly during periods of low water levels. The project was initiated in January 2009 and is expected to b e completed in July 2011. The study will provide info rmation to assist in t he re-assessment of environmental risk bands.

Arthurs Pipeline Supply The TIDB will take water from Arthurs Lake under a commercial arrangement with Hydro Tasmania. Arthurs Lake is primarily a diversion storage fo r Great Lake, which provides water for the Poatina Power Station. The water taken from Arthurs Lake and supplied to the MWS would otherwise have been utilised by Hydro Tasmania to g enerate electricity in the first instance in the Poat ina Power

99.

Station, and subsequently in the Trevallyn Power Station. The cost of the water to t he TIDB reflects the power generation income forgone by Hydro Tasmania. The TIDB’s extraction right will be limited in that it will only be entitled to extract water if the level of Arthurs Lake is at or above 947.5 metres above sea level. The TIDB’s intake will be constructed so water cannot be extracted if the water level is below 947.5 mASL. It will therefore not be physically possible for water to be taken by the TIDB below 947.5 m ASL as this is the height at which the base of the off take pipe will be located.

Background Information for Arthurs Lake Arthurs Lake is an artificial la ke created by t he construction of the Arthurs Lake Dam between 1961 and 1966. Prior to this there were two water bodies in close proximit y to each other: Arthurs and Blue Lakes. W hen the da m was completed and t he water level raised these lakes merged to form the current Arthurs Lake. The Arthurs Lake pump s are de signed to oper ate at fu ll capacity between 952.82 mm ASL (full supply level) and 943.05 m ASL (normal minimum operating level). Water is pumped fro m Arthurs Lake into the Great Lake. T ypically the pumps have ru n continuously except wh en being modified or r epaired, and historically this has averaged about nine months run ning each year. As we ll as pumping, water is released through a riparian valve and at times throug h siphons to allow wat er to flow to Woods Lake. These releases are intended to:  satisfy the (currently) uncapped irrigation rights of the Lake River irrigators;  support lake levels in Woods Lake to protect against damage to its ecosystem  act as a “spillway” when water levels become high. Over the past 40 years Arthurs Lake has developed into a multi-use lake. While w ater from the lake is used primarily for h ydro-electric ge neration, it is also used locally for domestic water supplies for the local settlements, and is released as required for irrigation purposes in line with th e requirements of the Electricity Supply Industry Restructuring (Savings and Transitional Provisions) Act 1995. Arthurs Lake is also used extensively b y the anglin g community and is the most popular angling location in Tasmania. Water man agement of Great Lake and Arthurs Lake fo r the past 10 years has been dominated by the effec ts of drought. This has lead to a decline in the water level of Great Lake and more recently a modification in how water levels at Arthurs Lake are managed.

Inflows to Arthurs Lake The estimated average volume yie ld to Arthurs Lake ove r the period 1924-2009 is 105 gigalitres (GL) (105,000 ML) per annum. Estimated volume yields over the period 1996 -2009 are shown in the following table: Table 12: Estimated Volume Yields for Arthurs Lake from 1996-2009 Annual Yield Year (megalitres) 1996 190,011 1997 82,596 1998 118,778 1999 85,425 2000 107,212

100.

2001 120,910 2002 65,528 2003 132,461 2004 93,421 2005 145,124 2006 23,545 2007 49,852 2008 42,099 160,000 2009 (estimated)

The proposed MWS will divert up to 38,500 ML from Arthurs Lake. This water take will be offset by a r eduction in the water volume that can be pumped across to Great Lake for hydro -generation purposes. For example, in 2009 over 120,000 ML could have been pumped across to Great Lake, in 2008 only 2000 ML would have been available, assuming the lake is above its minimum level at the start of the year. The 38,500 ML is equivalent to:  approximately 7% of the annual ave rage discharge from Poatina power station ove r the past 10 years;  approximately 6% of the annual average flow in Brumb ys Creek as measured at the #3 weir over the past 10 years;  0.7% of Hydro Tasmania’s long term annual average generation Over the past 10 years the annual discharge from Poatina power station has ranged between 893 GL in 2001, down to 179 GL in 2009 (average 592 GL over the past 10 years). Given that the reduction in energy generation through Poatina Power Station would equate to only 0.7% of Hydro Tasmania’s long term annu al average generation (the generation across the entire Hydro Tasmania network), only very small changes in operation across the existing generation network, including hydro generation, BassLink imports and gas-fired ge neration, would be required to make up the difference . A mini h ydro-generation power station is proposed to be built as part of the MWS. Once built, this will significantly reduce the amount of energy that has to be sourced by the MWS from other sources. The Lake River was dammed at Arthurs Lake and there are typically no flows from Arthurs Lake to Woods Lake. During 2007-2009 there was a release from Arthurs Lake. This was to enable Hydro Tasmania to meet its water supply oblig ations unde r section 1 6 of the Electricity Supply Industry Restructuring (Savings and Transitional Provisions) Act 1995. Hydro Tasmania’s Water Trading Activities Over the past 10 years Hydro Tasmania has transferred water allocation s totalling in excess of 100 GL t o other wat er users in Tasmania. These transfers are necessary because the Hydro-Electric-Commission Act 1929 allocat ed all th e wa ter in Ta smania to the Hydro- Electric Co mmission, now the Hydro-Electric Corporation (trading as Hydro Tasmania) . Subsequent legislation reduced Hydro Tasmania’s rights to the water t hat could flow into its power stations, i.e. water within hydro-electric water districts. Where there would be a reduction in the amount of energy that could be generated by Hydro Tasmania a commercial agreement, includ ing pay ment terms, is e ntered into. Hydro

101.

Tasmania charges a water fee equivalent to the value of t he foregone revenues t hat could have been earned had the water been used for hydro-generation purposes. Significant trades have included:  the right to all the wate r that flows into the Meander Dam, subject t o a limit on h ow much may be onsold for commercial purposes  over 50 GL of water to a large number of users across Tasmania  over 35 GL of water in recognition of historical use  over 20 GL for the Macquarie Settlement pipeline project  provision of up to 16 GL of wate r per annum for the Cressy-Longford irrigation scheme (this trade was completed in the 196 0s and the irrigation scheme draws water from the Poatina tailrace)  26 GL to th e Bell Bay pulp mill (m ay increase to 40 GL d epending u pon pulp mi ll expansion plans) Proposed Transfer to the Irrigation Development Board The core of the proposed water transfer agreement for the MWS is that:  The intake for the scheme would be set at a level to ensure that the scheme could not draw the lake down below 947.5 metres above sea level: this would mean that the activities of the TIDB or subsequent entities did not draw the lake below a level that it has been drawn down to previously for hydro generation purposes  Hydro Tasmania would reduce the annual volume it pump ed across t o Great Lake: this water volume would vary fro m year to ye ar dependin g on both t he volume of inflows and their pattern of arrival over the year but would generally be reduced by the volume extracted for the irrigation scheme  Hydro Tasmania would reduce (but not cease) its pumping of water on ce the wate r level in the lake dropped to 949 metres above sea level (948 if Great Lake is below its Medium Risk Level of 1023mASL).  Hydro Tasmania would continue to make releases or extract water from Arthurs Lake as required to o meet its irrigation water supplies obligation under the Electricity Supply Industry Restructuring (Savings and Transitional Provisions) Act 1995 o maintain the environmental health of Woods Lake o meet the electricity needs of Tasmania This may mean the wat er level in Arthurs Lake could drop below the level where t he TIDB can physically access the water. Given the above proposed measures the w ater level o f Arthurs L ake cannot be drawn outside the historical operating range.

6.1.3 Dealing with Climate Change Australia has undertaken considerable research into the impacts of clim ate change on wate r resource availability. In 2007/2008 CSIRO undertook an assessment of the groundwater and surface wat er resource s of the Mu rray-Darling Basin. Th e work investigated current and future climate change scenarios and land management changes that may arise as a result. In 2008 th is work was e xpanded to all states by COAG. The work und ertaken in Tasmania has been a comprehensive scient ific assessment of what water is a vailable in t he major water systems across the state. T his work is helping to provide co nsistent water policy decisions around the country (CSIRO 2010). The CSIRO sustainable yields study has been completed for Tasmania with several reports relevant to t he MWS (CSIRO 2009 a,b,c & d). The MWS has been a ssessed thro ugh the CSIRO Sustainable Yields Project t o be 100% reliable under the dry extreme, wet extreme and medium future climate scenarios.

102.

CSIRO Sus tainable Yie lds Project for the South Esk region under the future climatic conditions scenario demonstrated that there would be a rainfall decre ase of 3% under the median conditions and a decrease of 6% runoff under the median conditions. For the Upper Jordan component o f the MWS the CSIRO Sustainable Yields Project for the Derwent-South East region under the future climatic condit ions scenario demonstrated that there would be a rainfall decrease of 1% under the median conditions and a decrease of 3% runoff under the median conditions. The Strategic Assessment area like many areas of Tasmania, has large amounts of rainfall and run-off but these ar e unreliable with the majority occur ring in winte r. The MWS offers highly reliab le water (1 00% reliability for suppl y) which allows the lan dholders to develop sustainable farming practises, resulting in better land management.

6.1.4 Threatening Processes The EPBC allows for t he identification and list ing of processes which threatened or ma y threaten the capacity for MNES to thrive in the wild. Some of these processes are id entified as key threatening processes. Some key threatening processes have had plans developed to help abate the threats to MNES posed by them. Key threatening processes of re levance to th e MWS include: Land Clearance, Loss of Terrestrial Climatic Habitat Caused by Anthropogenic Emissions of Greenhouse Gases and Infection of Amphibians with Chytrid Fungus resulting in Chytridiomycosis.

6.1.4.1 Land Clearance DEWHA (2 007) recommends the following in relation to land clear ance as a listed key threatening process: 1. A threat ab atement plan is n ot co nsidered a feasible, eff ective or eff icient way t o abate the process; and 2. Each State and Territory needs a n appropriate response to this Ke y Threateni ng Process and further advised the Mi nister that t he Commonwealth should encourag e and support land mana gement quality assurances and pla nning mechanisms at the appropriate scales t o e nsure the conservation of biodiversity, especially threatened species and ecological communities. Land clearing controls apply throughout Tasmania, on both public and private land, for forest vegetation and threatened non-forest vegetation listed u nder Tasmanian statut e. Land clearance is controlled t hrough the State’s forest practices system. Th ere are exe mptions from the re quirements of the forest prac tices system whe re approval s have bee n gained under certain legislation within the state’s RMPS (FPA, 2010). Tasmania has committed to zero clearance and conversion of Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania a s a part of this Progra m. In addit ion, the pro gram commits to no significant impacts on other MNES. If these commitme nts cannot be met for whatever re ason, the decision as to whether or not to allow impacts which result in significant impacts will be that of the Commonwealth Environment Minister. The Program commits to land scape scale monitoring of vegetation extent over time t o provide an indication of threatened community extent as well as chang es in key habitats for threatened species (Appendix J).

6.1.4.2 Loss of Terrestrial Climatic Habitat Caused by Anthropogenic Emissions of Greenhouse Gases DEWHA (2009) recommends the following in relation to the loss of terrestrial climatic habitat caused by Anthropogenic Emissions of Greenhouse Gases as a listed key th reatening process:

103.

1. the Commonwealth, States and Territories have actions un derway to abate this Key Threatening Process and recommends that a threat abatement plan is not considered a feasible, effective or efficient way to abate the process; and 2. along with the issues of emissions reduction, the adaptation requirements of spe cies and commu nities likely to be affect ed by climate change should be given greater priority. Future climate modelling suggests that rainfall in the parts of the state relevant to the MWS is likely to reduce in the order of 1 – 3% over the next 20 years relative to the historical trends demonstrated in these regions (CSIRO, 2009a). In order to expand the State’s adaptive capacity to climate change, and implement measures that build t he resilience of our natural syst ems to climate change, the Ta smanian Government is un dertaking a major initiative ov er the next 4 years to investigate the impact of climate change on the State’ s natural values. This will allow decision s around management and policy relating to sustainable management and conservation of our natural resources t o be appr opriately in formed. Ou tputs from this initiative will in clude a vulnerabilities report, ri sk assessment tools an d spatial layers to inform planning processes. These tools will in turn i nform the development of management and policy princip les as well as monitoring and adaptive management programs.

6.1.4.3 Infection of Amphibians with Chytrid Fungus resulting in Chytridiomycosis Chytriodiomycosis is a highly virulent fungal pathogen that affects amphibians worldwide. At the very lea st it causes sporadic deaths in some populations and 100% mortality in other populations. It has be en recorded in Ta smania, as well as Adelaide , the south-west of Western Australia and on the eastern seaboard. The published EPBC advice (DEW HA, 2009) recommends that a threat abatement plan is a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate this Key Threatening Process. The Program requires all relevant DEWHA documents to be considered during the planning and development of CEMPs and F WAPs in order to receive and use irrigation wa ter. This includes, but is not limited to threat abatement plans and relevant background documents. Chytrid fungus monitoring will occur within the MWS to determine the status of this fungus which can infect Green and Gold Frogs (see Appendix J and 6.1.5 below). The suitability of the receiving environment for Green and gold frogs will be assessed. If suitable habitat is present, then the extent of occurrence of Chytrid in the receiving environment will be determined. If there is suitable habitat and no disease curren tly present then the risk of the disease being present in the supply region will b e assessed . If there i s a high r isk of disea se being transferred from source areas to supply areas, then mitigation measures will be put in place in accordance with the Threat Aba tement Plan for the Infection of Amphibians with Chytrid Fungus resulting in Chytridiomycosis (DEH, 2006). These mit igation measures will be moni tored in accordan ce wit h a p rotocol agre ed t o b y DPIPWE.

6.1.5 Monitoring Success of Strategic Measures Monitoring Monitoring during various stages of the Program will ensure that measures in place to protect MNES are appropriately applied, and are deliver ing what is expected throughout the life of the Program.

104.

Table 3 ( see Section 3.4.4) out lines all rep orting and auditing req uirements d uring the Program and Appendix J outlines strategic landscape level monitoring that will be undertaken under the Program.

6.2 COMPONENTS OF BIODIVERSITY, ECOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES Salinity Unless appropriately managed, land degradation through salinisation has been identified as a threat to ke y habitats t hroughout t he MWS strategic asse ssment area – particularly those areas within the NAP identified prio rity region of the Northern Midlands. Without ap propriate mitigation salinity may impact on MNES. The National Program for Sustainable Irrigation produced an environmental risk management framework (Hart et al. 2005). This framework was developed largely based on three catchment scale ca se studies which focussed mainly on the impacts of irrigation on water quality and aquatic habitat. The stu dy highlighted the complexity of defining the inf luence of one land use activity in a complex land system. Environmental impacts from irrigation areas identified in the frame work includ e: waterlogging, salinisation, soil acidification, erosion , polluted runoff, draining of wetlands, changes to the flow re gime of rivers and degr adation in structure and function of terrestrial/floodplain vegetation. In following this metho dology it could be reasonably exp ected that the primary potential threats to listed species and communities within the MWS from irrigation would be from:  waterlogging or salinisation of la nd supporting threaten ed specie s or habitat or threatened communities;  polluted runoff; and  erosion.

If realised, these could result in degradation of existing native vegetation or other impacts on MNES. Ho wever, the Program provides adequate mitigation of these threats t hrough the provision of information, the requirement for FWAPs and monitoring at various scales. The Program has in place a requirement to complete soil and water farm planning modules in the preparation of FWAPs. Within the modules are references to current relevant informatio n on threats such as salinity and related issue s such a s water table modelling. In addition, prequalified consultants have been provided with access to a range of d ata relating to water and soil management a nd health in order to assist them in preparing FWAPs (for exa mple: modelled data describ ing recharg e sensitiv ity, groundwater flow systems and other hydrological attributes have been made available for use in irrigation planning in the MWS). The soil module provides a pro cess by wh ich landho lders can id entify soils on their properties, and then de termine appropriate management strategies to protect the soils and productivity of them. The module specifica lly covers identificat ion of geomorphological features, so il structure, soil health, erosion, dra inage, sodicity, salinity, acid sulphat e soils, nutrient management, irrigation management and sustainable production.

The charact erisation of risks and management approache s relevant are outlined in the module. This provides the pre-qualified consu ltants completing FWAPs with a minimum standard a pproach for considerin g soil management issues. In ad dition, re levant cross references to the water module are provided to ensure water application issues which could impact on soil management or health are not considered in isolat ion of soil issues. It is through this planning process that t he Program will manag e salinity and waterlogging risks which could potentially arise throug h the introd uction of th e MWS – a nd hence, e nsure no significant impacts on MNES arise as a result of these threats.

105.

Waterlogging and salinisation impacts There is evidence of groundwater rise hazards in the MWS, (Finnigan (1998), Hocking et al 2005, Lynch et al 200 7 (a) and ( b), Hocking et al 2009 . This haza rd is at pre sent largely latent (particularly in th e less tha n 880mm rainfall zones).Without appropriate management, the introduction of irriga tion to the MWS has t he potential to cause lo calized grou nd water rise, potenti ally mobilizing existing salt stores i n the landscape and causing sali nity and waterlogging impacts on productive land and areas of natural vegetation. Davies and Barker (2005) undertook an a ssessment of critical eco logical assets in areas of high salinity hazard in the Tasmanian Midlands This work identified that 848 ha (or 8%) of priority vegetation communities (including those communities now listed under EPBC) were in areas of high salinity hazard as defined in their study. Subsequent work by Lynch et al (2007) undertook a detailed assessment of salinity hazard in municipal a reas in Ta smania. T hey found that less t han 1% of mapped t hreatened vegetation communities in the Northern Midland and 0% in th e Southern Midland s Municipalities were within areas of high salinity hazard. This information suggests that the risk from direct impacts of salinity and ground water rise is low f or the known extent of threatened communities in the MWS. Davies and Barker (2005) noted, however, that wetland ecosystems in the Midlands (which are habitat for a number of threat ened flora species) are in areas of high risk. A similar assessment was not provided by Lynch et al 2007. In 2007/08, the NHT funded Landscape Assessment to Inform Salinity Management Planning project (Hocking et a l 2009) evaluated the cu rrent status of groundwater systems in the Tasmanian NAP region (which includes the MWS area). This work modelled a number of land use change scenarios in this region to quantify the i mpacts of climate change, loss of tree cover through tree decline, irrigation expansion and complete revegetation of the region. This work also conclud ed that under a drying climate change scena rio for the Midlands, groundwater levels ma y trend down wards which would miti gate the impact of groundwater accession fr om irrigation. Continuin g tree dec line, howeve r, is like ly t o exacerbate ground water rise within the MWS. The report did not provide a synthesised assessment of the combined impacts of climate change, irrigation expansion and ongoing loss of wood y vegetation through tree decline. Preliminary maps were prepared of the ex tent of thr eatened co mmunities and areas containing EPBC listed threatened species that are overl ying shallow groundwa ter. These areas would be most at risk of progressive groundwater rise through changed water balance. This preliminary work was informed by Hocking et al (2009) who suggest that throu gh model calibration a nd field exp erience a d epth to watertable of 1 .5 m reflect s an incipie nt risk of groundwater discharge at the surface, leading to waterlogging and salinisat ion of surface soils in the Midlands. More recent work by Hocking (unp ublished information generated February 2010) indicate s that there are significan t variations in recharge sensitivity for land potentially irrigate d under the MWS – the approach taken is o utlined in Appendix M. This work in dicates that increased accession to groundwater in high recharge sensitivity areas could result in groun dwater rise on up to eight times the area actually irrigated. DPIPWE has undertaken a number of studies into the extent and significance of salinity and groundwater rise in regions, including the MW S (see App endix N). T hese studie s suggest that areas of greatest salinity hazard occur below the 880 mm rainfall isohyet. Many of these areas are located in local groundwater flow systems, where recharge and discharge of groundwater occurs within a relatively short distance (up to 5 km) (Hocking et al 2005). In these local flow systems, typical response time to changes in wate r balance is 3 to 30 years and responses generally manifest as new saline discharges and increased salinity and flow volumes in streams.

106.

For at least ten years DPIPWE has been monitoring the dep th and quality of groundwater as part of salin ity monitoring. Within th e MWS district, 76 gro undwater bores are pe riodically monitored for this purp ose. Monitoring of bores in the Tunb ridge area has shown an upward trend of up to 24 mm per year with median salinity levels of 4 Ds/M (Kidd pers. comm. 2009). Immediately following extensive h eavy rains in late 200 9, 130 groundwater bores were monitored to identify trends in salinity. Preliminary analysis of this data shows significant rises in standing saline water levels, re-activation, the develop ment of ne w salinity scalds and sustained a nd unexpec tedly high salinity in surface run-off surface from some a pparently non-saline f arm land. Also detect ed were some high salinity discharges dire ctly from streambanks into the water. The use of this information in the preparation of FWAPs is critical to ensure that accession to groundwater in high sensitivity areas is minimized. Key elements of the work are available for use by prequalified consultants in the preparation of FWAPs. Short term implications of increased irrigation in the MWS area Modelling undertaken b y DPI PWE staff and Mark Hocking (pers. comm. February 2010 ) indicates that immediate impacts of irrigation may be very localised (i.e. on property or close by) if salinity is allowed to become expressed through the lack of mitigation measures. These impacts may be manifest as localised groundwater rise and wate rlogging. The impact and rate at which changes occur will vary from farm to farm dep ending on soil type , topography and irrigatio n technolog y. So me so ils may ne ver show adverse impa cts from irrigation, while others will be affected by waterlogging irre spective of how efficiently water is applied. The FWAP process ha s been desig ned and will be implemented to de termine areas that require spe cialised management to minimise impacts fro m groundwater accession through irrigation. A component of the process is monitoring at the farm scale, to be determined b y prequalified consultants on a case by case basis. Soil mapping at the landscape and property s cale provides a valuable key to ap propriate management of risks. Modelled data describ ing recharge sensit ivity, groundwater flow systems and other hydrological a ttributes hav e been made available for use in irrigation planning in the MWS. Medium to long term impacts Given the evidence of groundwater rises in parts of the Midl ands primarily due to changes in water balance, an introduction of 47,500ML pe r annum of new water across the strategic assessment area of 31 6,000 hecta res, combin ed with a drying climate change scenario indicates a low risk to groundwater accession at the landscape level from the MWS. The FWAP process tea med with landscape scale monitoring will ensure through adaptive management measures that waterlogging or salinisation issues are identified and mitigated if required. Polluted runoff and erosion impacts Water quality studies in Tasmania have predomi nantly focussed on coastal catchments. The CERF rese arch hub ‘L andscape Logic’ (landscapelogic.org.au/) is at present undertaking a large number of water quality research and modelling projects in Tasmania aimed at establishing water quality responses to changes in land use and land management, and ho w water quality in turn affects riverine and estuarine health and function. This work includes studies of nutrient generation rates for a range of Tasmanian land uses. It has found that, in general, under existing land manage ment practices, the greater the intensity of management, the greater the nutrient losses. Th ree land uses in particu lar were linked to nutrient losses: grazing modified pastures, dairy pastures and cropping. All of these land uses are potentially relevant under irrigation develop ment in the MWS, noting that land

107.

management practice s i n the MWS will be d irected by FWAPs, which is not currently the case. Appendix J describes Program commitments to monitoring water quality at a landscape scale throughout the MWS to ensure that water quality does not result in a significant im pact on MNES. Specific on-farm monitoring that may be required will be identifie d through the FWAP process.

6.3 IMPACTS ON MNES The Strategic Assessment of a Program which is yet to be i mplemented requires consideration of:  the ability of the Program to identify and take into account the likely threats to relevant MNES;  the ability of the Program to reduce the risks these threats pose to MNES, and ;  the adequacy commitments the Program makes in terms of much it will reduce those risks. The identification of listed and nominated threatened communities, threatened species, listed migratory species, wetlands of international significance, national heritage places and World Heritage Properties through the Program occurs at a number of stage s as outlined in Tables 3, 4 and 14. The risk assessment p rocess which forms par t of this impact assessment has u sed best available inf ormation relating to the extent and like ly prese nce of MNES (Appendix H). All known and expected impacts from the construction and operation of irrigation schemes have then been considered in designing an approach to plannin g and implementing construction and operation components of the water access program. Identifying specific r isks at the property level wi ll occur thro ugh the FWAP processes. This process co mmits to minimum requ irements in relation to survey, information sources and reporting. Landscape scale risks are implicit in the broad er risk assessment undertaken (Appendix H). The Program addresses these issues on a farm and la ndscape scale through property planning which requires adaptive management in response to auditing, as well as through landscape scale monitoring. In identifying construction risks to MNES, the principles of environmental impact assessment have been applied. An assessment and management planning approach will be applied to all construction components to reduce the likel ihood of impacts to MNES. This will u se best available inf ormation, survey techni ques and avoidance measures to achieve the Program commitments via CEMPs. The survey approaches require d for constr uction are o utlined in Appendix E. The reduction of risks to MNES will occur throu gh the application of best practice guidelines and information, as required through the FWAP proc ess, in determining farm scale management that is app ropriate for t he particular community (see Appendix D for mi nimum biodiversity standards). Water man agement pl anning and approval t ake into account the need for sustainable allocation of water. The wa ter management planning framework for the state is National Water Initiative compliant. The adequacy of mitiga tion measures will be determined through the approval process for CEMPs, the endorsement process of FWAPs by prequalified consultant s. The effectiveness of the management and mitigation measures applied through the Program will be measured through a Quality Assurance protocol and through landscape and farm scale monitoring regimes to be agreed upon within 6 months of endorsement of the Program.

108.

The Program for the MWS strategic asse ssment has set some extremely high thresholds for levels of acceptable impacts throughout the implementation of the program components. The commitments are to e nsure that th ere is no clearance an d conversio n of Lowlan d Native Grasslands of Tasmania, and that there are no significant impacts on relevant MNES as a result of the operation of the MW S and the associated Irrig ations Districts within it unless clearance and conversion or significant impacts are otherwise approved by the Commonwealth Environment Minister. Threats and mitigation measures for specific MNES that were identified as being a potentially high risk from direct and indirect impacts of the MWS are di scussed in the following sections. Table 13 indicates ke y hazards identified for each of the species identified as being potentially at high risk from the scheme. Table 13: Direct and in direct hazar ds for species potentially at high risk from the MWS (* denotes grassland dependant species)

MNES HAZARDS

Lowland native Clearance and conversion resulting in direct loss grasslands ( Themeda Recruitment prevention/disturbance, including changes to pollination and Poa) dynamics Land use change and fragmentation of existing grasslands, increasing edge effects Changes to browsing pressure Soil nutrient changes Pesticide use (including drift and effect of residual herbicides) Weed invasion and management actions Changes in surface and sub-surface hydrology Increased salinity

Soil compaction * Ptunarra brown Clearance and conversion resultin g in direct (mortality) a nd habitat butterfly loss Oreixenica ptunarra Land use change and fragmentation of habitat Pest control (including the use of insecticides in cropping) Changes to browsing pressure leading to breeding disruption Green and gold frog Clearance and conversion resultin g in direct (mortality) a nd habitat Litoria raniformis loss Nutrient enrichment resulting in habitat loss Pesticide use Pests, including introduction of pest predators Changes in surface hydrology altering habitat Increased salinity Swan galaxiid Pest species invasion Galaxias fontanus Clearance and conversion resulting in changed hydrology

109.

Increased salinity Arthurs galaxias Reduced water level in critical breeding habitat Paragalaxia mesotes Turbidity Habitat loss Saddled galaxias Reduced water level in critical breeding habitat Galaxias Turbidity tanycephalus Habitat loss Introduction of pest species Wedge-tailed eagle Clearance and conversion resulting in habitat loss Aquila audax fleayi Breeding disruption (noise, disturbance) Land use change and fragmentation of habitat Pest control resulting in a disruption of predator-prey relationship Changes to browsing pressure leading to a disruption of predator-prey relationship Spotted-tailed quoll Clearance and conversion resulting in habit at loss an d dispersal Dasyurus maculatus disruption maculates Breeding disruption (noise, disturbance) Land use change and fragmentation of habitat Pest control resulting in a disruption of predator-prey relationship Changes to browsing pressure leading to a disruption of predator-prey relationship Tasmanian devil Clearance and conversion resulting in habit at loss an d dispersal Sarcophilus harrisii disruption Breeding disruption (noise, disturbance) Land use change and fragmentation of habitat Pest control resulting in a disruption of predator-prey relationship Changes to browsing pressure leading to a disruption of predator-prey relationship * Pterostylis Clearance and conversion resulting in direct loss commutata, Caladenia anthracina, Recruitment prevention/disturbance, including changes to pollination dynamics Prasophyllum incorrectum, Land use change and fragmentation of existing grasslands, increasing edge effects Prasophyllum taphanyx, Changes to browsing pressure Prasophyllum Soil nutrient changes tunbridgense, Pesticide use (including drift and effect of residual herbicides) Pterostylis ziegeleri, Weed invasion and management actions Pterostylis Changes in surface and sub-surface hydrology wapstratum Increased salinity

110.

Soil compaction Change in fire regime Glycine latrobeana Clearance and conversion resulting in direct loss Recruitment prevention/disturbance, including changes to pollination dynamics Land use change and fragmentation of existing grasslands, increasing edge effects Changes to browsing pressure Soil nutrient changes, especially fertiliser application Pesticide use (including drift and effect of residual herbicides) Weed invasion and management actions Changes in surface and sub-surface hydrology Increased salinity Soil compaction Change in fire regime Ranunculus prasinus Changes to hydrology, reducing suitable habitat Clearance and conversion resulting in direct loss Recruitment prevention/disturbance, including changes to pollination dynamics Land use change Changes to browsing pressure Pesticide use (including drift and effect of residual herbicides) Weed invasion and management actions Increased salinity Amphibromus fluitans Changes to hydrology, reducing suitable habitat Clearance and conversion resulting in direct loss Recruitment prevention/disturbance Changes to browsing pressure Pesticide use (including drift and effect of residual herbicides) Weed invasion and management actions Increased salinity

6.3.1 Impacts on listed and nominated communities under the EPBC Act The key threats to Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania likely to arise from the MWS are outlined in Table 13. The potential for impacts that are not accept able under the Program on Lowla nd Native Grasslands of Tasmania will be mitigated via th e strategic mitigation measures de scribed in Section 6.1 and 6.2.

111.

The identification of Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania will allow them to be avoided in the first instance. Under the progra m is not expected that clearance and conversion of this listed community will occur as it is a requirement to avoid. Identification will also allow the potential f or key threats like ly from the MWS to be determined, and appropriate management put in place to ensure no significant impacts to occur as determined by the EPBC significant impact guidelines below (2009(a)). The key conservation actions to achieve this outcome are o utlined in Table 14. As a result of implementing these actions the Program will no t meet any of the significant impact criteria outlined below: Significant Impact Criteria Critically Endangered and Endangered Ecological Communities:  reduce the extent of an ecological community  fragment or increase fr agmentation of an ecological community, for example b y clearing vegetation for roads or transmission lines  adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of an ecological community  modify or destroy abiot ic (non-living) factors ( such a s wa ter, nutrient s, or soil) necessary for an ecolo gical community’s survival, including reduction of groundwater levels, or substantial alteration of surface water drainage patterns  cause a su bstantial change in the species composition of an occurr ence of an ecological communit y, i ncluding ca using a decline or loss of functionally importa nt species, for example through regular burning or flora or fauna harvesting  cause a substantial re duction in the quality or integrity of an occurrence of an ecological community, including, but not limited to: o assisting invasive species, that are harmful to the listed ecological community, to become established, or o causing reg ular mobilisation of fertilisers, herbi cides or ot her chemicals or pollutants in to the e cological community which kill or inh ibit the gro wth of species in the ecological community, or  interfere with the recovery of an ecological community. In addition the Program will be consistent with:  Australia's obligations under: o the Biodiversity Convention; or o the Apia Convention; or o CITES; or  any recovery plan for the community or a threat abatement plan.

6.3.2 Impacts on listed and nominated threatened speices under the EPBC Act Key threats which could arise from the MWS to listed a nd nominated threatened species which were assessed as potentially being at high risk from the scheme are outline d in Table 13. The potential for impacts that are not acceptabl e under the Program will be mitigated via the strategic mitigation measures described in Sections 6.1 and 6.2. The identifi cation of li sted threatened specie s will allow them to b e avoided in the first instance. U nder the pr ogram is not expected that cleara nce and co nversion of the liste d Lowland Native Grassland, which f orms habitat for a number of species consid ered to be

112.

potentially a t high risk f rom the Pro gram, will occur. Thi s will provide habitat cert ainty for these species. Identification will also allow the potential f or key threats like ly from the MWS to be determined, and appropriate management put in place to ensure no significant impacts to occur as determined by the EPBC significant impact guidelines below (2009(a)). In addition, susta inable management of waterways and bodies through t he water management system within the stat e will ensur e habitat re quirements are maintained for aquatic spe cies. The Program also has a requ irement for avoidance of MNES in t he first instance. The key conservation actions to achieve this outcome are o utlined in Table 14. As a result of implementing these actions the Program will no t meet any of the significant impact criteria outlined below: Significant Impact Criteria Critically Endangered and Endangered Species: • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population • reduce the area of occupancy of the species • fragment an existing population into two or more populations • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species • disrupt the breeding cycle of a population • modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline • result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat • introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or • interfere with the recovery of the species.

Significant Impact Criteria Vulnerable Species: • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species • reduce the area of occupancy of an important population • fragment an existing important population into two or more populations • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species • disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population • modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline • result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat • introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or • interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.

In addition the Program will be consistent with:  Australia's obligations under: o the Biodiversity Convention; or

113.

o the Apia Convention; or o CITES; or  any recovery plan for the species or a threat abatement plan.

6.3.3 Impacts on listed migratory species under the EPBC Act The impact assessment covered a consideration of key thr eats which could arise from the MWS to listed migratory species (Appendix F). In co nsidering t hese threats it was determined that none of the listed migratory species likely to occur within the MWS area, or within areas which could be impac ted by the scheme wo uld be at a high risk from the scheme. A discussion of individual species is contained within the Appendix. However, in taking a precautionary approach, the Program requires th at all impacts that are not accepta ble under t he Program will be miti gated via th e strategic mitigation measures described in Section 6.1. The identifi cation of li sted migratory species will allow them to be avoided in the first instance. Identification will also allow the potential for key threats like ly from the MWS to be determined, and appropriate management put in place to ensure no significant impacts to occur as determined by the EPBC significant impact guidelines below (2009(a)). In addition, susta inable management of waterways and bodies through t he water management system within the stat e will ensur e habitat re quirements are maintained for aquatic spe cies. The Program also has a requ irement for avoidance of MNES in t he first instance. The key conservation actions to achieve this outcome are o utlined in Table 14. As a result of implementing these actions the Program will no t meet any of the significant impact criteria outlined below:

Significant Impact Criteria Listed Migratory Species: • substantia lly modify (i ncluding by fragmenti ng, altering f ire regimes, altering nu trient cycles or altering hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species • result in an invasive specie s th at is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species, or • seriously disrupt the lifecycle (bre eding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species.

In addition the Program will be consistent with:  the Bonn Convention;  CAMBA;  JAMBA;  an international agreement approved under subsection 209(4).

6.3.4 Impacts on wetlands of international importance The impact assessment covered a consideration of key thr eats which could arise from the MWS to we tlands of int ernational importance (Appendix F). In conside ring these t hreats it was determined that none of the wetlands of international importance within Tasmania occur within the MWS area, nor are they likely to be impacted by the scheme.

114.

The Ramsa r listed wetland Interlaken (Lake Crescent) lie s nearby, b ut outside the MWS strategic assessment area and associated buffer. The MWS will not result in the loss of water at this site. However, there is an identified risk for potential impacts of the proposed pipeline crossing at Mountain Creek, a tributary of La ke Sorell. It is consider ed unlikely that the construction of the pipe line will sig nificantly impact on water quality in Mountain Creek, or that any ch ange would be significant enough to have c onsequences for the wetland. Mitigation measures outlined in 6.1 will adequately identify and account for any management intervention required at this site to ensure no significant impacts occur on the wetland values. The strategic mitigation measures described in 6.1 will allow appropriate management to be put in place to ensure no significant impacts to occur as determined by the EPBC significant impact guidelines below (2009(a)). In addition, susta inable management of waterways and bodies through t he water management system within the stat e will ensur e habitat re quirements are maintained for aquatic species and associated values within the lake. The key conservation actions to achieve this outcome are o utlined in Table 14. As a result of implementing these actions the Program will no t meet any of the significant impact criteria outlined below: Significant Impact Criteria Wetlands of International Importance:  areas of the wetland being destroyed or substantially modified  a substantial and measurable chang e in the hydrological regime of the wetland, for example, a substantial change to the volume, timing, duration and frequency of ground and surf ace wat er flows t o and within t he wet land, the ha bitat or li fecycle o f nat ive species, including in vertebrate f auna and f ish species, dep endent upon t he wet land being seriously affected  a subst antial and mea surable cha nge in t he water quality o f t he wet land – for example, a subst antial change in t he level of salinit y, pollut ants, or n utrients in t he wetland, or water temperature which may adversely impact on biodiversity, ecological integrity, social amenity or human health, or  an invasive species that is harmful to the ecological character of the wetland being established (or an existing invasive species being spread) in the wetland. In addition the Program will be consistent with:  Australia’s obligations under the Ramsar convention.

6.3.5 Impacts on listed national heritage places under the EPBC Act The impact assessment covered a consideration of key thr eats which could arise from the MWS to National Heritage Sites (Appendix F). In considering these threats it was determined that neither of the two N ational Heritage Sites in or adjacent to the MWS area is likely to be impacted by the scheme. The Woolmers Estate occurs within the strate gic asse ssment area, and the Brickendon Estate occur outside th e assessment area, ho wever, Brickendon Estat e does fall within the buffer zone around the assessment area. The MWS will not result in chang es in the fl ow regime of the Macquarie River at these properties. It is not e xpected tha t there will be changes in the wat er table at t hese two properties, and hence, changes to salinity and water q uality at the sites. Ther efore it is considered that:  damage to historic stru ctures a s a result of changes in water table levels and/ or salinity;

115.

 changes to the historic landscape of the sites a s a result of changes to water flows and volumes in the Macquarie River or changes in salinity;  issues with preservation of subsurface artefacts as a result of changes in the wate r table level and quality would be unlikely. The strategic mitigation measures described in 6.1 will allow appropriate management to be put in place to ensure no significant impacts to occur as determined by the EPBC significant impact guidelines below (2009(a)). The key conservation actions to achieve this outcome are o utlined in Table 14. As a result of implementing these actions the Program will no t meet any of the significant impact criteria outlined below: Significant Impact Criteria National Heritage Places:  one or more of the National Heritage values to be lost  One or more of the National Heritage values to be degraded or damaged, pr  One or mo re of t he Nat ional Herit age values t o be notably al tered, modi fied, obscured or diminished. In addition the Program will be consistent with:  the National Heritage management principles; or  an agreement to which the Commonwealth is party in relation to the National Heritage place; or  a plan that has been prepared for the manage ment of the National Heritage place under section 324S or as described in section 324X of the EPBCA.

6.3.6 Impacts on listed world heritage places under the EPBC Act As discussed in Part 5 of this Impa ct Assessment Report, subsequent to the sign ing of the Agreement to which the strategic a ssessment relates, two sites listed as National Heritage Places (Brickendon Estate and Woolmers Estate) were ad ded to the World Heritage list, and have theref ore become World Heritage properties und er the EPBCA. The strategic assessment has includ ed a consid eration of th e potential impacts arising from the actions associated with the Program on World Heritage properties. Both properties considered in the assessment have cultural values heritage values. The MWS is not likely to cause:  damage to historic stru ctures a s a result of changes in water table levels and/ or salinity;  changes to the historic landscape of the sites a s a result of changes to water flows and volumes in the Macquarie River or changes in salinity;  issues with preservation of subsurface artefacts as a result of changes in the wate r table level and quality as discussed above. The strategic mitigation measures described in 6.1 will allow appropriate management to be put in place to ensure no significant impacts to occur as determined by the EPBC significant impact guidelines below (2009(a)). The key conservation actions to achieve this outcome are o utlined in Table 14. As a result of implementing these actions the Program will no t meet any of the significant impact criteria outlined below:

116.

Significant Impact Criteria World Heritage Properties:  One or more of the World Heritage values to be lost  One or more of the World Heritage values to be degraded or damaged, or  One or more of the World Heritage values to be notably altered, modified, obscured or diminished.

World Heritage properties (WHP) with cultural heritage values: An action is likely to have a significant impact on cultural heritage values of a WHP if there is a real chance or possibility that the action will:  Historic heritage values Permanently remove, destroy, damage or substantially alter the fabric of a WHP  Extend, renovate, refurbish or substantially alter a WHP in a manner which is inconsistent with relevant values  Permanently remove, destroy, damage or substantially disturb archaeological deposits or artefacts in a WHP  Involve activities in a WHP with substantial and/or long-term impacts on its values  Involve construction of buildings or other structures within, adjacent to, or within important sight lines of, a WHP which are inconsistent with relevant values, and  Make notable changes to the layout, spaces, form or species composition in a garden, landscape or setting of a WHP which are inconsistent with relevant values

 Other cultural heritage Restrict or inhibit the existing use of a WHP as a cultural or values including ceremonial site causing its values to notably diminish over Indigenous heritage time  values Permanently diminish the cultural value of a WHP for a community or group to which its values relate  Alter the setting of a WHP in a manner which is inconsistent with relevant values  Remove, damage, or substantially disturb cultural artefacts, or ceremonial objects, in a WHP, and  Permanently damage or obscure rock art or other cultural or ceremonial features with World Heritage values

In addition the Program will be consistent with:  Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention; or  the Australian World Heritage management principles; or  a plan that has been prepared for the management of the declared W orld Heritage property under section 316 or as described in section 321 of the EPBCA.

6.4 INFORMATION SOURCES AND CONFIDENCE LEVELS The Program report defines a process for the identificat ion and subsequent mana gement of threats to MNES. This is based on information to hand today.

117.

The assessment of the potential impacts of implementing the Program has require d the use of a range of information sources described in Section 3. 7 includ ing the most up to date digital information on species and community distributions, threats and other related issues. There is an understanding that for many of the values occurring throughout the Midlands, there is a limit to how much about them is documented currently. The use of specialist knowledge on threats and resultant risks to natural values has played a large role in determining how the Program components were designed. In combination, the in formation from each of t hese sour ces is deemed to be ad equate to provide a strategic insight into the capacity of the Program to deliver its commitments.

6.5 MANAGEMENT COMMITMENTS The following section identifies the management commitments made by the State in order to achieve the commitme nts made in the Program in relation to MNES. Table 16 lists these commitments by matter. For furthe r information on specif ic mechanisms used to achieve each of these management commitments refer to the Program Report.

118.

Table 14: Activities to Achieve Conservation Outcomes

Matter (NES) Objective Action Responsibility Timing1 Resources Performance Measure Listed No clearance Identify potential Water entity Short term Water entity CEMP completed Threatened and conversion Lowland Native Dam permit completed Communities of Lowland Grasslands of Native Tasmania within FPP completed Grasslands of construction corridor Tasmania Propose avoidance Water entity Short term Water entity CEMP approved and mitigation Dam permit approved measures for construction activities FPP approved LUPAA approval Crown Lands Act approval NPRMA approval Monitor success of DPIPWE Ongoing Water entity Monitoring indicates CEMP outcomes mitigation measures being met. Local Government and adapt 5 yearly monitoring indicates no accordingly State Minister for reduction in extent of Lowland Native Environment Grasslands on areas directly impacted Heritage Council by construction. Deputy Secretary Parks and Heritage, DPIPWE Identify potential Prequalified Ongoing Farmer Annual Audit of 15% of FWAPs Lowland Native Consultant demonstrates 100% compliance with Grasslands of requirements of FWAP process. Tasmania within 5 yearly monitoring indicates no areas covered by the reduction in extent of Lowland Native Water Access

1 Short Term = 2010 – 2012, Ongoing = for the duration of the program

119.

Matter (NES) Objective Action Responsibility Timing1 Resources Performance Measure System and avoid Grasslands on areas directly impacted by irrigation. QA indicates values are being identified and managed appropriately through the FWAP process, Low number of EPBC referrals received by DEWHA Receive Farmer Ongoing Farme r Annual Audit of 15% of FWAPs Commonwealth demonstrates 100% compliance with Water Entity Water entity approvals to clear if requirements of FWAP. avoidance not Annual reporting to Minister by water possible entity indicates entire water allocation only being supplied where all approvals gained. Monitor success of DPIPWE Ongoing Farme r Monitoring requirements of legislative mitigation measures approvals met Prequalified DPIPWE and adapt consultant Annual reporting completed by water accordingly Water entity entity indicating compliance with FWAP State Minister for requirements Environment QA indicates values are being identified Deputy Secretary and managed appropriately through the Parks and Heritage, FWAP process, DPIPWE Greater level of Identify potential Water entity Ongoing Wate r entity Continued mapping of Lowland Native understanding Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania through Prequalified Farmer of condition and Grasslands of FWAPs and CEMP. consultant extent of Tasmania within Lowland Native areas covered by the Grasslands of Water Access Tasmania System and construction corridor.

120.

Matter (NES) Objective Action Responsibility Timing1 Resources Performance Measure

Listed No significant Identify listed Water entity Short term Water entity CEMP completed Threatened impact on Listed threatened species Dam permit completed Species Threatened within construction Species corridor and FPP completed watercourses Watercourse authority issued Propose avoidance Water entity Short term Water entity CEMP approved and mitigation Dam permit approved measures for construction activities FPP approved and watercourses LUPAA approval Crown Lands Act approval NPRMA approval Monitor success of DPIPWE Ongoing Water entity Monitoring indicates CEMP outcomes mitigation measures being met. Local Government and adapt 5 yearly monitoring indicates no accordingly State Minister for reduction in extent of Lowland Native Environment Grasslands on areas directly impacted Deputy Secretary by construction. Parks and Heritage, Conditions of watercourse authority DPIPWE being met.

Identify listed Prequalified Ongoing Farmer Annual Audit of 15% of FWAPs threatened species Consultant demonstrates 100% compliance with within areas covered requirements of FWAP process. by the Water Access 5 yearly monitoring indicates no System and avoid reduction in extent of Lowland Native Grasslands on areas directly impacted by irrigation. Low number of EPBC referrals received by DEWHA.

121.

Matter (NES) Objective Action Responsibility Timing1 Resources Performance Measure QA indicates values are being identified and managed appropriately through the FWAP process, Receive Farmer Ongoing Farme r Annual Audit of 15% of FWAPs Commonwealth demonstrates 100% compliance with Water entity Water entity approvals to clear if requirements of FWAP. avoidance not Annual reporting to Minister by water possible entity indicates entire water allocation only being supplied where all approvals gained. Monitor success of DPIPWE Ongoing Farme r Monitoring requirements of legislative mitigation measures approvals met Prequalified DPIPWE and adapt consultant Annual reporting completed by water accordingly Water entity entity indicating compliance with FWAP State Minister for requirements. Environment QA indicates values are being identified Deputy Secretary and managed appropriately through the Parks and Heritage, FWAP process, DPIPWE Greater level of Identify listed Water entity Ongoing Wate r entity Continued mapping of Lowland Native understanding threatened species Grasslands of Tasmania and grassland- Prequalified Farmer of condition and within areas covered dependent species. consultant extent of Listed by the Water Access Threatened System and FWAP process Species construction corridor.

Listed No significant Identify listed Water entity Short term Water entity CEMP completed Migratory impact on Listed migratory species Dam permit completed Species Migratory and/or habitat within Species construction corridor FPP completed Propose avoidance Water entity Short term Water entity CEMP approved

122.

Matter (NES) Objective Action Responsibility Timing1 Resources Performance Measure and mitigation Dam permit approved measures for construction activities FPP approved LUPAA approval Crown Lands Act approval NPRMA approval Monitor success of DPIPWE Ongoing Water entity Monitoring indicates CEMP outcomes mitigation measures being met. Local Government and adapt 5 yearly monitoring indicates no accordingly State Minister for reduction in extent of Lowland Native Environment Grasslands on areas directly impacted Heritage Council by construction. Deputy Secretary Parks and Heritage, DPIPWE Identify listed Prequalified Ongoing Farmer Annual Audit of 15% of FWAPs migratory species Consultant demonstrates 100% compliance with within areas covered requirements of FWAP process. by the Water Access QA indicates values are being identified System and avoid and managed appropriately through the FWAP process, Low number of EPBC referrals received by DEWHA Receive Farmer Ongoing Farme r Annual Audit of 15% of FWAPs Commonwealth demonstrates 100% compliance with Water entity Water entity approvals to clear if requirements of FWAP avoidance not Annual reporting to Minister by water possible entity indicates entire water allocation only being supplied where all approvals gained Monitor success of DPIPWE Ongoing Farmer Monitoring requirements of legislative

123.

Matter (NES) Objective Action Responsibility Timing1 Resources Performance Measure mitigation measures approvals met Prequalified DPIPWE and adapt consultant Annual reporting completed by water accordingly Water entity entity indicating compliance with FWAP State Minister for requirements Environment QA indicates values are being identified Deputy Secretary and managed appropriately through the Parks and Heritage, FWAP process, DPIPWE

Wetlands of No significant Identify Wetlands of Water entity Short term Water entity CEMP completed International impact on International Dam permit completed Importance Wetlands of Importance within International construction corridor FPP completed Importance or which could be potentially impacted by construction. Propose avoidance Water entity Short term Water entity CEMP approved and mitigation Dam permit approved measures for construction activities FPP approved LUPAA approval Crown Lands Act approval NPRMA approval Monitor success of DPIPWE Ongoing Water entity Monitoring indicates CEMP outcomes mitigation measures being met. Local Government and adapt 5 yearly monitoring indicates no accordingly State Minister for reduction in extent of Lowland Native Environment Grasslands on areas directly impacted Heritage Council by construction. Deputy Secretary Parks and Heritage, DPIPWE

124.

Matter (NES) Objective Action Responsibility Timing1 Resources Performance Measure Identify Wetlands of Prequalified Ongoing Farmer Annual Audit of 15% of FWAPs International Consultant demonstrates 100% compliance with Importance within requirements of FWAP process. areas covered by the 5 yearly monitoring indicates no Water Access reduction in extent of Lowland Native System and avoid Grasslands on areas directly impacted by irrigation Low number of EPBC referrals received by DEWHA Receive Farmer Ongoing Farme r Annual Audit of 15% of FWAPs Commonwealth demonstrates 100% compliance with Water entity Water entity approvals to clear if requirements of FWAP avoidance not Annual reporting to Minister by Water possible Entity indicates entire water allocation only being supplied where all approvals gained Monitor success of DPIPWE Ongoing Farme r Monitoring requirements of legislative mitigation measures approvals met Prequalified DPIPWE and adapt consultant Annual reporting completed by water accordingly Water entity entity indicating compliance with FWAP State Minister for requirements Environment Deputy Secretary Parks and Heritage, DPIPWE National No significant Identify National Water entity Short term Water entity CEMP completed Heritage impact on Heritage Places Dam permit completed Places National within construction Heritage Places corridor FPP completed Propose avoidance Water entity Short term Water entity CEMP approved and mitigation FPP approved measures for

125.

Matter (NES) Objective Action Responsibility Timing1 Resources Performance Measure construction activities LUPAA approval Crown Lands Act approval Historic Cultural Heritage Act approval Aboriginal Relics Act Approval Monitor success of DPIPWE Ongoing Water entity Monitoring indicates CEMP outcomes mitigation measures being met Local Government and adapt Monitoring requirements of legislative accordingly State Minister for approvals met Environment Annual reporting completed by water Heritage Council entity indicating compliance with FWAP Deputy Secretary requirements Parks and Heritage, DPIPWE

126.

127.

PART 7 AUDITING, REPORTING AND REVIEW Monitoring will be und ertaken to confirm that the Program is being followed an d that the measures put in pla ce by the Program are actually deliv ering the d esired out comes for MNES. If the measures are not be ing met, the n whether o r not the Program is changing to accommodate the evolving needs in the environment must also be gauged. The approach to auditing and reporting is aimed at demonstrating:  the Program is being complied with  the Program delivers the required outcomes for MNES  Where issu es arise with the Program, management is being adapted to deliver t he outcomes required.

7.1 Monitoring, Reporting and Adaptive Management Monitoring during various stages of t he Program will ensure that measures to protect MNES are appropriately applie d, and are delivering what is expected throughout the life of the Program as follows. Stage 2: Process Implementation The aim of monitoring at Stage 2 of the Pro gram is to ensure that the archite cture for protection of MNES is put in place in accordance with the requirements of the Program. Monitoring of the adequacy of legislative permit conditions will be undertaken by DPIPWE to ensure that all condit ions refle ct th e commitments and re quirements in the Progr am. This monitoring will occur th rough internal review wi thin DPIPWE as leg islative approvals issued by the Department are completed. Stage 3: Construction and Works Construction and works will involve a larger number of parties in both the impleme ntation of approvals and the actu al constru ction work o n the grou nd. Private contractor s will b e engaged to undertake construction works across the sche mes. Vario us State and Local Government regulators will be invol ved in implementing requirements for this stage of the Program. All contractors will be required to comply with the relevant CEMP. Monitoring of compliance with various statutory approvals will be undertaken through existing legislative mechanisms (Table 3) . An exce ption to thi s will be t he Construction and Environmental Management Plan which will be monitored by DPIPWE in accordance with the Program. Stage 4: Ongoing Operation Monitoring of compliance with the Program and the effectiveness of prescriptions d eveloped in response to management needs of MNES will be und ertaken at t hree differe nt levels, determined by risk assessments undertaken for the Progra m: strategic, targeted and random audit. Each component of the Program will have separate r equirements for monitoring and reporting co mmensurate with the p otential for impacts. Th ese will be required by different parties within the Program and are outlined in Table 3 (see Section 3.4.4). Strategic level monitoring A 5-yearly report on the efficacy of t he Program, as indicated by landscape level monitoring will be provided to the State and Common wealth by the Water Entity. This report will be a requirement of the irrigation district declaration.

128.

Landscape level monitoring within the strategic a ssessment area of biological and ecological factors rele vant to the decline of MNES and specific to key threatening processes, will be undertaken. This will p rovide an in dication as t o whether the construct ion and operation of the MWS is resulting in: iii. a significant impact on MNES; or iv. clearance and conversion of Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania. Criteria relevant to the recovery of s pecies and communities will also be monitored with focal species being agreed upon by the Commonwealth and State. Biological a nd ecological factors t o be monitored will include water quality and salinity indicators, change in extent and condition of ve getation communities listed under the EPBC as well as change in extent and quality of habitat for MNES. Monitoring of changes in extent and condition of vegetation communities listed under the EPBC, and habitat for MNES will be undertaken by a comparison of extent of values with the baseline dataset over time. Strategic monitoring of criteria relevant to the recovery of species and communities will include assessment of reservation status over time of MNES, as well as the monitoring of habitat condition a nd extent as a surrogate. Focal species agreed upon by the Commonwealth and the State w ill have spe cific demographic monit oring undertaken, as well as specific associated species monitoring (i.e. pest monitoring). The outcomes sought from strategic landscape level monito ring are set out in App endix J. Specific mechanisms f or achieving these ou tcomes, including the frequency at which monitoring information will be co llected, will be developed by and will r equire the agreement of the State. The baseline datasets for MNES, against which change will be monito red over time, have b een used in the preparation of this r eport. Where a complete baseline d oes not exist for the MWS (e.g. salinity and water control monitoring network) the location and extent of these, as well as the implementation sc hedule, will be agreed to by the Commonwealth and State. Review and interpretation of strate gic scale monitoring will occur. The interpretation of data will be related back to the construct ion and operation of the MWS to id entify any d irect or indirect impacts from the scheme. The comparison of values and an interpretatio n of this data will be undertaken by a suitably qualified consultant(s) agreed upo n by both the water entity and the Tasmanian Government. This information will be reported at least on a 5 yearly basis, as required by the Commonwealth and State. Efficacy monitoring to identify how well the FWAPs identify MNES and provide management prescriptions that are appropriate for the species and ensure Program commitments are met, will be measured through a Quality Assurance (QA) protocol. This QA protocol will be approved by the Commonwealth and State within 6 months of endorsement of the Program (the ‘approved QA protocol’). Components of the QA protocol will include:  Initial training for prequalified consultants on the Program and its commitments;  Quality assurance audits for each pre-qualified consultant after the completion of one FWAP;  Feedback to prequalified consultants and changes to plans which are identified as being deficient;  Quality assurance audits for each pre-qualified consultant after the completion of three FWAPs; 129.

 Feedback to prequalified consultants,changes to plans which are identified as being deficient and retraining where required. Targeted Property-scale assessment of the impacts (short term and expected medium to long term) of the Scheme on MNES will be und ertaken in accordance with the ge neric appro ved PMS Framework modules. Property-scale monitori ng will be determined by a prequalified consultant as p art of the component planning modules required for the FWAPs (bi odiversity, soil and water). The FWAP will i ndicate how often monit oring should occur, what type of monitoring i s required, and how this relates to regional scale monitoring to be und ertaken by the water entity. It will also outline who is to undertake the monitoring. The monitoring may include specie s population information, condition a nd extent, t rend information, monitoring of associated species (e.g. predators), as relevant to the particular circumstances of the FWAP. Minimum requirements for biodiversity asse ssments for FWAPs outlined in the Program require that all monitoring is to be based around best pract ice, with the requirement to use published literature rela ting to MNES includin g, but not limited to re covery plans, listing statements and EPBC Act Policy Statements. The water e ntity must p rovide an a nnual report to the Co mmonwealth Environment Minister and the State Minister for Primary Industries on the administration a nd operation of the Irrigation District as a condition of its approval. The water entity does not determine the level and nature of monitoring at the pro perty-scale, but will be required to include an analysis of the results of monitoring at this scale in its annual reporting. In addition, other legisla tive permits and approvals for works required under the Program may include monitoring requirements. It will be incumbent upon the wate r entity to monitor the manage ment of irrigation water supplied un der an irrig ation right t o ensure it is sust ainable and in accordance with the individual FWAP. Conditions relating to the taking of water prescribed in the required water licence s will be audited by DPIPWE th rough the Water Allocation and Compliance Section of t he Water Management Branch on a 5 yearly basis. The Operational processes for dete rmining water availabilit y on a sust ainable basis will be monitored via the water licensing process. Reporting requirements on water licences will b e as per the conditions placed on the licence by the Minister at the time of approval. Random Audit A random audit of 15% of the prop erty management plans (on a prop erty basis) t hat have been prepared by consultants for the scheme will be conducted annually by suitably qualified persons approved by the Minister. The audit is designed to ensure that:  water is only being supplied where an approved FWAP is in place; and  landowners are operating in accordance with their individual plans; and  water is on ly being sup plied by the Water Entit y to those p arts of a property approved under a FWAP. The adaptive management approach which will enable this to occur is outlined in Section 3.

130.

PART 8 CONCLUSION The Terms of Reference for the strategic a ssessment outline that the Commonwealth Environment Minister may approve the taking of actions or classes of actions in accordance with an endorsed policy, plan or program (s.146(B)). The effect of such a decision is that th e approved actions or class of actions would not need further approval from the Minister under the Act. In determining whether to endorse the Program t he Minister will have regard to the extent to which the Program is consistent with the objectives of the EPBC Act. In particular that it:  protects the environment, especially the following matters of national environmental significance: nat ional herit age places, listed threatened sp ecies and communities, wetlands of international importance and listed migratory species  promotes ecologically sustainable development, and  promotes the conservation of biodiversity. Without limiting the matters the Minister may consider when making the decision to endorse the Program, the Minister will consider the manner in which the Program:  provides for the avoidance of impa cts on nat ional heritage places, listed threatened species and communitie s, wetlands of internatio nal importance and list ed migratory species or areas of high biodiversity value,  mitigates impact s on nat ional herit age places, listed threatened species a nd communities, wetlands of international importance and listed migratory species,  offsets imp acts on n ational herit age places, listed t hreatened species an d communities, wetlands of international importance and listed migratory species,  provides a comprehensive framework of adaptive management, monitoring, auditing and public reporting, and  contributes to the enha ncement o f t he exist ing environment and ma nagement o f existing threats. The State considers that the Program and its re lated strategic approach have taken account of all of these principles. The measures in the Program operate over the short, medium and long term. The worst case sce nario has been used in ide ntifying risks to MNES from the Program. Species cur rently under considerat ion for list ing have also been inclu ded in the assessment, as have areas outsid e of the MWS footprint within clo se proximity, to enable species likely to occur within the MWS to also be considered.

131.

PART 9 INTERPRETATIONS AND DEFINITIONS ARA – Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 (No. 81 of 1975), Tasmania.

ACDC – Assessment Committee for Dam Construction

Action – as defined in S.523-524A of the EPBC Act to include a project, development, undertaking and activity, or series of activities, and to expressly exclude Government authorisations (e.g. grant of an export permit by the Commonwealth Government, local government planning approval); or grant of Government funding for a project.

CEMP – an environmental management plan for all aspects related to the class of actions associated with construction of the MWS infrastructure. CLA – Crown Lands Act 1976 (No. 28 of 1976), Tasmania.

DPIPWE – Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment.

ESIA – Electricity Supply Industry Act 1995 (No. 58 of 1995), Tasmania.

EPBCA – Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Commonwealth of Australia Law, Version No.125 of 2008.

EMPCA – Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (No. 44 of 1994), Tasmania.

Extraction – the taking of water from a water resource.

Farm Water Access Plan or FWAP – a plan developed by individual landholders for the sustainable application of irrigation water to specific properties, or areas within properties.

FPA – Forest Practices Act 1985 (No. 48 of 1985), Tasmania.

GBEA – Government Business Enterprises Act 1995 (No. 22 of 1995), Tasmania.

HCHA – Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1985 (No. 117 of 1995), Tasmania.

HECA – Hydro-Electric Corporation Act 1995 (No. 57 of 1995), Tasmania.

ICA – Irrigation Clauses Act 1973 (No. 39 of 1973), Tasmania.

Irrigation Right – a statutory right, granted under the Irrigation Clauses Act 1973, to each individual water user within an irrigation district.

LUPAA – Land Use and Planning Approvals Act 1993 (No. 70 of 1993), Tasmania.

Licence – a licence granted and in force under water allocation means a quantity of water that a licensee is entitled to take and use under a licence.

132.

Likely – in regard to impacts has been interpreted to mean, “prone, with a propensity or liable” and a “real or not remote chance or possibility regardless of whether it is less or more than fifty per cent”. Booth v Bosworth [2001] FCA 1452 (17 October 2002).

Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania or LNG – The threatened ecological community listed under the EBPC. Lowland temperate ecological community comprising two sub-types: Poa labillardierei (silve r tussock), and Themeda triandra (kangaroo grass) grassland s occurring p rincipally in Tasmania in the Northern Midlands and South East bioregions (IBRA).

MWS – Midlands Water Scheme – the area covered by this strategic assessment which encompasses two separate proposed irrigation districts: the Arthurs Pipeline and the South Esk.

MNES – matters of national environmental significance (see EPBC Act).

NCA – Nature Conservation Act 2002 (No. 63 of 2002), Tasmania.

NPRMA – National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002, Tasmania.

NWC – National Water Commission

PMS(F) – Property Management Systems (Framework), Tasmania.

Program – Water Access Program for the Midlands Water Scheme, Tasmania

Responsible Entity – a water entity declared by the Minister: may refer to the TIDB or successor entities.

Significant Impact – has been interpreted to mean an impact that is “important, notable or of consequence having regard to its context or intensity” Booth v Bosworth [2001] FCA 1452 (17 October 2002) at paragraph 64, approved in Minister for the Environment and Heritage v Greentree [2004] FCA 741, and may be both positive and negative.

The degree of ‘significance’ will take account of the “sensitivity, value and quality of the environment” and the “intensity, duration, magnitude and geographic extent” of the impacts.

State – the State of Tasmania

Tasmanian Planning Commission – established September 2009 under the Tasmanian Planning Commission Act 1997. Roles include the functions of the former Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC) and the Land Use Planning Branch, of the Tasmanian Department of Justice.

TIDB – Tasmanian Irrigation Development Board Pty Ltd.

TSPA – Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (No. 83 of 1995), Tasmania.

Watercourse Authority – an authority to use river sections for transmission and delivery of water

133.

Water entity –

a. Government Business Enterprise; or

b. Municipal Council; or

c. an authority under Division 4 of Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1993 or any other statutory authority; or

d. a body corporate under the Corporations (Tasmania) Act 1990; or

e. a trust established under Part 10 of the Water Management Act 1999; or

f. an electricity entity; or

g. a body registered under the Cooperatives Act 1999; or

h. Regional Corporation within the meaning of the Water and Sewerage Corporations Act 2008 ; and also includes

i. State Minister for Water, if he/she is administering a water management plan under a notice referred to in section 47(3) of the Water Management Act 1999.

Water Connection Agreement – a contractual arrangement between a water entity and an individual water user which sets out the terms for the installation, and continued use of, a Connection Point, that being the infrastructure by which the water is supplied and accessed.

WMA – Water Management Act 1999 (No. 45 of 1999), Tasmania.

Working days means a business day as measured in Canberra, ACT.

Zoned Flow Delivery Right – a contractual a rrangement between a water entity and an individual water user specifying

134.

PART 10 REFERENCES Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 (No. 81 of 1975)

Bastick, C.H. and Walker, M.G 2000a, Extent and impacts of dryland salinity in T asmania, Project 1A, Volume 1, Department of Primary Industries and Water, Hobart

Bastick, C.H. and Walker, M.G 2000b, Extent and impacts of dryland salinity in T asmania, Project 1A, Volume 2, Department of Primary Industries and Water, Hobart

Bell, P 1999, Ptunarra Brown Butterfly Recovery Plan 1998-2003, Department o f Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart

Bell, P. an d N, Moon ey 1998, Recovery Plan for the Wedge-tailed Eagle 1998-2003, Department of Primary Industries and Water, Hobart

Bryant, S.L and Jackso n, J 1999 , Tasmania’s Threatened Fauna Handbook: what, where and how to protect Tasmania’s threatened animals, Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart

Carter, O 2010, National Recovery Plan for the Curly Sedge (Carex tasmanica), Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne

Council of Australian Govern ments (COAG) 1992, National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, Ecolog ically Susta inable Development Steering Co mmittee, Canberra

Council of Australian Governments 2000, National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, Canberra (COAG 2000)

Council of Australian Governments 2004, Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Governments of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, Canberra (COAG 2004) Council of Australian Governments 2009, National Partnership Agreement on Water for the Future, Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations, Canberra (COAG 2009)

Crown Lands Act 1976 (No. 28 of 1976)

CSIRO 2009a, Water availability for Tasmania. Report one of seven to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Tasmania Sustainable Yields Project, CSIRO Wat er for a Healthy Country Flagship, Australia

CSIRO 2009b, Climate change projections and impacts on runoff for Tasmania. Report two of seven to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Tasmania Sustainable Yields Project, CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, Australia

CSIRO 2009c, Water availability for the South Esk region. Report six of seven to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Tasmania Sustainable Yields Project, CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, Australia

CSIRO 2009d, Water availability for the Derwent-South East region. Report seven of seven to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Tasmania Sustainable Yields Project, CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, Australia 135.

CSIRO, The sustainable yields projects website, viewed 30 June 2010, http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/waterforahealthycountry/sustainable-yields.html

Department of Environment and Water Resources 2007, Draft Policy Statement: Use of Environmental Offsets under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999), Canberra (DEWR 2007) Department of Enviro nment, Parks, Heritag e and the Arts 2009, Aboriginal Heritage Guidelines and Standards Packages for Aboriginal Heritage Officers, Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania, Hobart (DEPHA 2009a) Department of Enviro nment, Parks, Heritag e and the Arts 2009, Aboriginal Heritage Guidelines and Standards Packages for Consulting Archaeologists, Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania, Hobart (DEPHA 2009b) Department of Enviro nment, Parks, Heritag e and the Arts 2009, Aboriginal Heritage Investigation Practices Notes for Aboriginal Heritage Officers – Edition 1, Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania, Hobart (DEPHA 2009c) Department of Enviro nment, Parks, Heritag e and the Arts 2009, Aboriginal Heritage Investigation Practices Notes for Consulting Archaeologists – Edition 1, Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania, Hobart (DEPHA 2009d) Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources 2009, Energy Policy Statement December 2009, Hobart (DIER 2009b) Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources 2009, Tasmanian Government Policy for Maintaining a Permanent Native Forest Estate, Hobart (DIER 2009a) Department of Primary Industrie s and Water 2001, (DPIW 2001), Water for Ecosystems Policy – Water Management Policy 2001/1, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries and Water 2002, (DPIW 20 02), Biodiversity Strategy Case Study of the Tasmanian Northern Midlands Bioregion – A report to the National Land and Water Resources Audit, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries a nd Water 2 003, (DPIW 2003(a)), Information Sheet for Permits, Authorities and Other Licences Required to ‘Take’ Native Flora in Tasmania, Hobart Department of Primary Industries a nd Water 2 003, (DPIW 2003(b)), Guidelines for Permit Applications for the ‘Taking’ of Native Flora, Hobart Department of Primary I ndustries and Water 20 06, (DPIW 2006(a)) Implementation Plan for the National Water Initiative (Tasmania), Hobart Department of Primary Industries and Water 2006, (DPIW 2006(b)), National Recovery Plan for Tasmanian Orchids, Hobart

Department of Primary I ndustries and Water 2006, (DPIW 2006(c)), Threatened Tasmanian Eagles Recovery Plan 2006-2010, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries and Water 2006, (DPIW 2006(d)), National Recovery Plan for Tasmanian Freshwater Galaxidae, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries and Water 2006, (DPIW 2006(e)), National Recovery Plan for Ranunculus prasinus (Tunbridge buttercup), Hobart

136.

Department of Primary Industries and Water 2006, (DPI W 2006(f)), Flora Recovery Plan: Threatened Tasmanian Grasstrees 2006-2010, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries and Wa ter 2006, Legislation Compliance Policy, Department of Primary Industries and Water, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries and Water 2007a, Dam Works Code, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries and Water 2007b, Draft Guidelines for the Preparation of a Dam Development Effect and Management Statement, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries and Water 2007c, Guidelines for Establishing Offsets for Impacts on Natural Values within the Dam Assessment Framework, Assessment Committee for Dam Construction, Hobart < http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Attachments/JMUY- 7PEVVC?open> viewed 11 February 2010.

Department of Primary Industrie s and Water 2008, Information Sheet: Dianella amoena, Hobart.

Department of Primary Industries and Water 2009a, Listing Statement for Austrodanthonia popinensis (blue wallabygrass), Hobart

Department of Primary Industries and Water 2009b, Water Facts – Water Districts, Hobart

Department of Primary Industrie s and Water 2009c, Annual Report Guidelines for Water Entities administering Irrigation Districts (Water Management Act 1999), Hobart

Department of Primary Industries, P arks, Water and Environment (unpublished), Tasmanian Threatened Species Listing Statement, seepage heath, Epacris moscaliana, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries, P arks, Water and Environment (unpublished), Tasmanian Threatened Species Listing Statement, South Esk heath, Epacris exserta, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and En vironment 1 997, State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997, Hobart < http://www.environment.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=118> viewed 11 February 2010.

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment 200 9 a & b, Draft South Esk River Catchment Water Management Plan, Hobart Department of Primary Industrie s, Parks, Wa ter and En vironment 2 009c, Guidelines for Natural Values Assessments, Hobart

Department of Primary I ndustries, Parks, Water and Environment 2009d, Business rules for the creation of the Tasmanian Reserve State spatial layer, Hobart, vi ewed 5 June 2010, http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Attachments/DRAR- 7YHW2X/$FILE/Metadata%20and%20Business%20Rules%20for%20TRESP%202009.pdf

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment 2009, Water Facts – Water Districts, Hobart (DPIWE 2009b)

Department of Primary Industrie s, Parks, Wa ter and En vironment 2 009b, Guidelines for Natural Values Assessments, Hobart viewed 12 February 2010. 137.

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment 2010a, Standard Operating Procedures for the Development of Statutory Water Management Plans in Tasmania, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment 201 0b, Risk Assessment Methodology for the Midlands Water Scheme Strategic Assessment, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment 201 0, (DPIPWE 2010(a)) Works to Heritage Places, Hobart vie wed 12 March 2010. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Wa ter and Environment 2 010, Annual Report Guidelines for Water Entities administering Irrigation Districts, Hobart (DPIPWE 2009c)

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment 2010, Standard Operating Procedures for the Development of Statutory Water Management Plans in Tasmania, version 1.5, Hobart (DPIPWE 2010a)

Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment 1998, Threatened Species Listing Statement, Midlands wattle, Acacia axillaris, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environme nt 1999, Grose, C (ed), Land Capability Handbook: Guidelines f or the Classificat ion of Agricultural Land in T asmania, Prospect. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment 2000, Threatened Species Listing Statement-Tunbridge leek orchid Prasophyllum tunbridgense D. L. Jones 1998

Department of Primary Industrie s, Water and Environme nt 2001a, Swift Parrot Recovery Plan, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environmen t 2001b, Listing Statement: Green and Golden Frog Litoria raniformis, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environme nt 2001c, Threatened Species Listing Statement-Native wintercress, Barbarea australis Hook.f. 1852, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environmen t 2003, Tasmanian Surface Water Quality Monitoring Strategy, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environme nt 2003a, Threatened Flora of Tasmania Glycine latrobeana, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environme nt 2003b, Threatened Species Notesheet - Xerochrysum palustre, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries, Water an d Environment 2004, A Guide for Major Development / Significant Impact Assessments, Crown Land Services Instruction Sheet No. 1 – Major Project Assessment Guideline, Hobart (DPIWE 2004)

Department of Primary I ndustries, Water and Environment 2004, Enforcement Policy for the Water Management Act 1999, Interim Policy 2004/1, Hobart

Department of Primary I ndustries, Water and Environment 2004, Enforcement Policy for the Water Management Act 1999 2004/1, Interim Policy (DPIWE 2004(b)), Hobart

138.

Department of Primary Industrie s, Water and Environment 2004, Guide to Assess Applications for New Water Allocations from Water Courses During Winter – Water Resources Policy 2004/1, Hobart (DPIWE 2004(a))

Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environme nt 2004, Tasmanian Wetlands Strategy (DPIPWE 2004), Hobart

Department of Primary Industrie s, Water and Environme nt 2004a, Guidelines to Assess Applications for New Water Allocations from Water Courses During Winter, Water Resources Policy no.2003/1, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environme nt 2004b, Threatened Flora of Tasmania Ozothamnus selaginoides, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environme nt 2005, Generic Principles for Water Management Planning, Water Resources Policy 2005/1, Hobart (DPIWE 2005)

Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment 2005a, Water Governance Arrangements for Tasmania: Report to the National Water Commission, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environme nt 2005b, Threatened Species Notesheet - Lepidium hyssopifolium, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environme nt 2005c, Threatened Species Notesheet - Leucochrysum albicans ssp. albicans var. tricolor, Hobart

Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment 2008, Threatened Species Listing Statement-Liawenee greenhood Pterostylis pratensis D. L. Jones 1998, Hobart

Department of the Environment and Heritage 2001, National Framework for the Management and Monitoring of Australia’s Native Vegetation, Natural Resource Minist erial Council, (DEH 2001(a))

Department of the Environment and Heritage 2001, National Objectives and Targets for Biodiversity Conservation 2001 – 2005, (DEH 2001(b))

Department of the Environment and Heritage 2006a, Infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis, Threat Abatement Plan, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Canberra

Department of the Environment and Heritage 2006b, Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) - EPBC Policy Statement 3.6, Canberra

Department of the Environment, Sport and Te rritories 199 6, The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity (DASET 1996), Canberra Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Art s 2008a, Strategic Assessment Under the EPBC Act, EPBC online publications, Canberra, viewed 11 February 2010, < http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/pubs/strategic-assessment.pdf>

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Art s 2008j, National Recovery Plan for Australian Grayling, Canberra

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2009(b), Matters of National Environmental Significance, Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1, EPBC Act 1999, Canberra

139.

< http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/pubs/nes-guidelines.pdf> viewed 11 February 2010. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2009a, Implementation Plan for Supporting More Efficient Irrigation in Tasmania, National Partnership Agreement on Water for the Future, Canberra

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2009a, Matters of National Environmental Significance, Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Canberra < http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/pubs/nes-guidelines.pdf> viewed 11 February 2010. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2009b, Significant Impact Guidelines for the vulnerable growling grass frog (Litoria raniformis), EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.14, Canberra

Department of the En vironment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 20 09d, Compliance and Enforcement Policy, Canberra

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2009e, Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens A Nationally Threatened Ecological Community Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Policy Statement 3.16, Canberra

Department of the En vironment, Water, Heritage and t he Arts 20 09f, Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania, Policy Statement 3.18, Canberra

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2009g, Background Paper to the Draft EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.14: Significant Impact Guidelines for the vulnerable growling grass frog (Litoria raniformis), Canberra

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2010a, Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Tasmania relating to the assessment of impacts of the Water Access System for the Midlands Water Scheme, Canberra

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and t he Arts 20 10b, Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania — a nationally threatened ecological community. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Policy Statement 3.18, Canberra

Department of Treasury and Finance 2008, Water Infrastructure Fund Protocol, Hobart

Electricity Supply Industry Act 1995 (No. 58 of 1995)

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Commonwealth of Australia Law, Version No.125 of 2008

Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (No. 44 of 1994)

Forest Practices Act 1985 (No. 48 of 1985)

Forest Practices Autho rity 2008, FPA Planning Guideline 2008/1: An internal Planning Framework Developed by the Forest Practices Authority for the Purposes of Delivering Management Prescriptions through the Threatened Fauna Adviser to Avoid or Limit the Clearance and Conversion of Significant Habitat for Threatened Forest Fauna, Hobart

140.

Gentilli, J 1 972, The cli mates of Tasmania, in Australian Climate Patterns, Thomas Nelson Ltd, Australia

Gilfedder, L 1991, Ranunculus prasinus Flora Recovery Plan: Management Phase- 1991- 2000, Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife Service, Hobart.

Government Business Enterprises Act 1995 (No. 22 of 1995)

Hart B, et al 2005, Ecological Risk Management Framework for the Irrigation Industry, Water Studies Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, 2005

Hilson, D a nd Hulett, D 2004, Assessing Risk Probability: Alternative Approaches, PMI Global Congress, Prague

Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1985 (No. 117 of 1995)

Hydro-Electric Corporation Act 1995 (No. 57 of 1995)

Irrigation Clauses Act 1973 (No. 39 of 1973)

Keith, D 1997, Recovery Plan - Tasmanian Forest Epacrids 1999-2004, Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife Service, Hobart

Kellett, B.M, Walshe, T and Bristow, K 2005, CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report 26/05 Ecological Risk Assessment for the Wetlands of the Lower Burdekin, CSIRO, Canberra

Land Use and Planning Approvals Act 1993 (No. 70 of 1993)

National Water Quality Manage ment Strat egy (DEW HA), Agri culture and Resource Management Council of Australia a nd New Zealand (ARMCANZ) and the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) (ongoing since 1992) Nature Conservation Act 2002 (No. 63 of 2002)

Potts, W.C and Gilfedder, L 1999. Barbarea australis Recovery Plan 1999-2002, Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart

Resource Planning and Development Commission 2003, Guide to the Resource Management and Planning System, Hobart (RPDC 2003) Rudman, T 2005 , Interim Phytophthora cinnamomi Management Guidelines, Nature Conservation Report 05/7, Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart

Standards Australia / Standards New Zealan d 2006, Environmental Risk Management – Principles and process, Sydney

Tasmania’s Nature Conservation Strategy 2002-2006 (2002), State Biodiversity Co mmittee Tasmania's Nature Conservation Strategy - Government Response ?

Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement 2005

Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association 2009, Tasmania Property Management Planning Framework Information Series, Booklets 1-4, version 1, December 2009, Launceston (TFGA 2009)

141.

Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement 1997

Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (No. 83 of 1995)

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2001, Commonwealth Listing Advice on Caladenia anthracina (Black-tipped Spider-orchid, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2001, Commonwealth Listing Advice on Caladenia lindleyana (Lindley's Spider-orchid), Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2001, Commonwealth Listing Advice on Prasophyllum olidum (Pungent Leek-orchid), Department o f the Enviro nment and Heritage, Canberra

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2001, Commonwealth Listing Advice on Pterostylis commutata (Midland Greenhood), Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2001, Commonwealth Listing Advice on Caladenia pallida (Rosy Spider-orchid, Pale Spider-orchid), Department of th e Environment and Heritage, Canberra

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2001, Commonwealth Listing Advice on Pterostylis wapstrarum (Fleshy Greenhood), Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2003, Commonwealth Listing Advice on Eucalyptus gunnii subsp. divaricata (Miena Cider Gum), Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2004, Commonwealth Listing Advice on Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Spot-tailed Quoll, Spotted-tailed Quoll, Tiger Quoll), Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2004, Commonwealth Listing Advice on Eucalyptus ovata - Callitris oblonga (Black Gum) forest, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2005, Commonwealth Listing Advice on Tasmanian Bertya (Bertya tasmanica), Dep artment of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 20 05, Commonwealth Listing Advice on Coral Heath (Epacris acuminata), Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra

Threatened Species S cientific Co mmittee 20 08, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Amphibromus fluitans (River Swamp Wallaby-grass), Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra

Threatened Species S cientific Co mmittee 20 08, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Prasophyllum crebriflorum, Depart ment of the Environ ment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra

142.

Threatened Species S cientific Co mmittee 20 08, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania, Dep artment of t he Environ ment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra

Threatened Species S cientific Co mmittee 20 08, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Prasophyllum incorrectum, Depart ment of the Environ ment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra

Threatened Species S cientific Co mmittee 20 08, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Perameles gunnii gunnii (Eastern Barred Bandicoot (Tasmania)), Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra

Threatened Species S cientific Co mmittee 20 08, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Pseudocephalozia paludicola, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra

Threatened Species S cientific Co mmittee 20 08, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Prasophyllum taphanyx, Departme nt of the E nvironment, Water, Heritage and t he Arts, Canberra

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2008, Commonwealth Listing Advice on Pterostylis ziegeleri, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2008, Commonwealth Listing Advice on Stenanthemum pimeleoides, Department of the Environmen t, Water, Heritage and t he Arts, Canberra

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2009, Commonwealth Listing Advice on Sarcophilus harrisii, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra

Wapstra, M (unpublished), Senecio psilocarpus (swamp fireweed) in Tasmania

Water Management Act 1999 (No. 45 of 1999)

Zacharek, A 2000, Community recovery plan: Eucalyptus ovata-Callitris ob longa Forest, Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart

143.

PART 11 APPENDICES

Appendix A Agreement and Terms of Reference for the MWS Strategic Assessment

Appendix B Indicative Maps of the Proposed MWS Irrigation schemes and the Locations of Supply & Distribution Pipelines & Associated Infrastructure

Appendix C Prequalification Process for Consultants Preparing Farm Water Access Plans

Appendix D Minimum Standards for Biodiversity Assessments for Farm Water Access Plans

Appendix E Survey Requirements

Appendix F Water Licence Application Process

Appendix G Generic Principles for Water Management Planning

Appendix H Risk Assessment Methodology

Appendix I Sites Listed on the Register of the National Estate within the Strategic Assessment Area

Appendix J Landscape Monitoring for the Midlands Water Scheme

Appendix K Dam Assessment Process

Appendix L Guidelines for Natural Values Assessments

Appendix M Methods for Modelling Recharge Sensitivity

Appendix N Bibliography of Salinity Work Relevant to MWS

Appendix O Distribution of MNES within MWS

144.