Taswater, Swansea Dam Upgrade

TasWater Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits Environmental Effects Report

February 2018

Table of contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Proponent Information ...... 1 2.1 Proponent ...... 1 2.2 Proponent Contact ...... 2 2.3 Consultant Contact ...... 2 3. Proposal Description ...... 3 3.1 Description of Project ...... 3 3.2 Project Location ...... 5 3.3 Rationale and Alternatives ...... 10 3.4 Planning Information ...... 10 4. Potential Environmental Effects ...... 11 4.1 Natural Values: Flora and Fauna ...... 11 4.2 Water Quality ...... 16 4.3 Reserved Land ...... 17 4.4 Air Emissions ...... 18 4.5 Liquid Effluent ...... 18 4.6 Solid Wastes ...... 18 4.7 Noise Emissions ...... 18 4.8 Transport Impacts ...... 19 4.9 Other Off-site Impacts ...... 20 4.10 Hazardous Substances and Chemicals ...... 20 4.11 Site Contamination ...... 20 4.12 Climate Change ...... 21 4.13 Heritage ...... 21 4.14 Sites of High Public Interest ...... 22 4.15 Rehabilitation ...... 22 5. Management Commitments ...... 24 6. Public and Stakeholder Consultation ...... 26 7. Conclusion ...... 26 8. Limitations ...... 27 9. References ...... 28

Table index

Table 1 Machinery and equipment ...... 4 Table 2 Project Management Commitments ...... 24

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | i

Figure index

Figure 1 Project location map ...... 7 Figure 2 Project site plan ...... 9 Figure 3 Ecological Values map of the Project Site ...... 15

Appendices

Appendix A – Borrow Pit Investigation Geotechnical Report Appendix B – Flora & Fauna Study Appendix C – CFEV Report Appendix D – Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Appendix E – European Heritage Assessment

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | ii

1. Introduction

TasWater are in the process of upgrading and repairing the Swansea Dam on the east coast of Tasmania, as part of this project, significant volumes of clay and capping material are required. TasWater are seeking approval for the development of two clay borrow pits and the reuse of an existing spoil mound on an area of land adjacent to the Swansea Dam (the Project). Under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPC Act), the Project is considered a Level 2 Activity in accordance with the Schedule 2 category of the Act: ‘Mineral Works: the conduct of works for processing mineral ores, sands or earths processing 1 000 tonnes or more per year of raw materials.’ A Development Application for the Project was submitted to the Glamorgan Spring Bay Council on 24 November 2017, as required under the Land Use Planning and Approval Act 1993. The Project was subsequently referred to the EPA in accordance with Section 25(1) of the EMPC Act. The Project was allocated as a Level 2A assessment by the Board of the EPA and Project Specific Guidelines for this Environmental Effects Report were issued to TasWater on 21 December 2017. The Project will involve the extraction and screening of clay and fill material from two borrow pit locations, a 1.5 ha pit expected to yield up to 25,000 m3, and a 4.3 ha pit with a ~60,000 m3 yield. Additionally, an existing spoil mound adjacent to the pit areas is also proposed to be utilised for clay and capping material, up to ~25,000 m3.

The total disturbance footprint for the Project, including stockpiles, laydown areas and access roads is 19.4 ha, occurring over two separate titles, referred to as the Project Site. The Project is expected to take approximately six months to complete, with commencement planned in April 2018. The Project is for the exclusive purpose of the Swansea Dam upgrade and upon completion of that project, the Project will also be completed. A mining lease application has also been submitted for the Project to Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT). The Project has not been referred to the Commonwealth under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), as significant impacts to matters of National Environmental Significance were deemed unlikely to occur as a result of the Project. This EER has been written with guidance from the Quarry Code of Practice 2017 (EPA, 2017).

2. Proponent Information

2.1 Proponent Entity Name: Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation Pty Ltd Trading Name: TasWater Address: 169 Main Rd, Moonah. Tasmania 7009 ACN: 162 220 653 ABN: 47 162 220 653 Web: www.taswater.com.au

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 1

2.2 Proponent Contact Name: Patrick Marshall (Project Manager) Phone: (03) 6237 8335 or 0466 104 366 Email: [email protected]

2.3 Consultant Contact Consultant name: Dan Elson (Senior Environmental Consultant) (GHD) Phone: (03) 6210 0734 or 0411 296 901 Email: [email protected]

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 2

3. Proposal Description

3.1 Description of Project The Project relates to the development of two borrow pits and the reuse of existing material from a spoil mound to provide clay and capping material for repair works to the adjacent Swansea Dam (also known as Meredith Dam). The borrow pits have been identified in this report as Pit A and Pit C, with the spoil location referred to as the Spoil Mound.  Pit A has a footprint of ~1.5 ha, with an estimated available extraction volume of 25,000 m3.  Pit C has a footprint of ~4.3 ha with an estimated available extraction volume of 60,000 m3.

 The Spoil Mound has a footprint of ~0.8 ha, containing an estimated 25,000 m3 of material. The exact volume of material required for the Project is unknown, but will not exceed the estimates provided above. The Project is expected to take approximately six months to complete, with commencement of construction of the site planned in April 2018. A Project Location map is provided in Figure 1, showing the location of the Land on which the Project is to occur (which also forms the boundary of the mining lease for the Project) and its relation to the Swansea Dam site and nearby residences. A Project site plan is provided in Figure 2, showing the three extraction locations and associated proposed infrastructure, as well as a conceptual layout of topsoil storages and water management infrastructure. The Project Site including all extraction areas, laydowns, stockpile areas and roads/drainage, has a total footprint of 19.4 ha, as depicted in Figure 2. A geotechnical/resource definition investigation was undertaken for the Project (Appendix A) and found a combination of low and high permeability clays, as well as fill material extending down to approximately 2 m in the soil profile throughout the Project Site, see Section 3.1.1 for resource definition information.

The borrow pits are relatively shallow and therefore will not require benching to win the target material. No specific sequence of extraction has been proposed as this stage, with the intention that this would be at the discretion of the contracting company. Pit walls will remain within suitable slope angles to ensure pit stability during operation, and will be flattened to 4H:1V or flatter as part of the borrow rehabilitation (see Section 4.15). Groundwater was encountered at the Pit C location only, at a depth of ~1.3 m, which is suspected to be a result of seepage from the adjacent dam site. In order to deal with this issue, it is proposed to initially drain the dam prior to works on the Project and install a drainage line downstream of the Pit C area, linking it to the drainage system for the Project, as depicted in Figure 2 and explained in detail in Section 4.2.3. This will lower the groundwater table in Pit C to allow excavation in the pit. Access roads, perimeter fencing and water management infrastructure will be constructed in the first weeks of Project commencement, followed by installation of required infrastructure, including a mobile shaker screen. At the borrow pit locations, topsoil will initially be stripped and placed in dedicated stockpile areas adjacent to the pits (as shown Figure 2). Following topsoil stripping, the pits will be ripped to allow the material to dry back to the required moisture content. Conversely, if the clays are drier than required, it is possible that moisture would be added to the material, which would be undertaken in situ using a water cart. After the material has achieved the required moisture

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 3

content, it will then be excavated to a maximum depth of 2 m throughout the footprint areas, as required. The topsoil from the Spoil Mound will be stripped and stockpiled in an adjacent area. Stockpiled material will then be excavated directly and treated onsite at a mobile screening plant to separate clay and gravel materials. The mobile plant will be located adjacent to the Spoil Mound location for the duration of the Project. Following screening, the material will be ready for transport to the dam site. Minimal stockpiling of excavated material is expected to be required within the Project Site, as the material will generally be taken directly to the dam site and temporarily stored within the dam footprint itself. Excavated material from the pits and processed material from the Spoil Mound will be loaded onto articulated dump trucks for transport to the adjacent Swansea Dam site. A network of temporary gravel access roads will be constructed within the Project footprint, which will adjoin to access roads within the Swansea Dam construction footprint. The roads are proposed to be approximately 6 m wide, with associated temporary drainage infrastructure along their lengths. Hauling of material will occur exclusively within the Project Site and the adjacent dam site, with no haulage on public roads. Access to the site by staff will be via the existing dam access off Maria Street. There are no proposed temporary or permanent buildings required for the Project, with offsite facilities to be used by contractors (at the adjacent Swansea Dam site).

Operating hours of the Project will be limited to between 0700 and 1900 Monday to Friday, with occasional weekend work if required, this will be restricted to 0800 – 16:00 on Saturday only. Daily production rates will be variable and dependant on the amount of material required to be excavated, as governed by the dam construction requirements. There is not expected to be any seasonal variation of the material extraction rate, with continuous operation until the Dam upgrade is complete.

Equipment required during the construction and operation of the project are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Machinery and equipment

Item

Wheeled Loader (1)

Excavator 20 – 30 t (1-2)

Dozer D6 (1)

Articulated Dump Trucks A25 and A40 (2-3)

Watercart (1)

Screening Plant (1)

3.1.1 Resource definition A resource definition assessment was undertaken for the Project during September/October 2017 and the subsequent report is provided in Appendix A of this document.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 4

The assessment involved the test pitting of a number of potential locations in the vicinity of the Swansea Dam, including several tests within the Pit A, Pit C and Spoil Mound areas that form the target resource for the Project. A number of soil profile samples were collected from the test pits and sent to a NATA accredited laboratory for analysis of a range of parameters, including:  Particle size distribution  Moisture content  Organic content  Permeability testing Tabulated summaries of the results from these tests are available in Appendix A. Following assessment of the test pit material, the results were compared to the required physical characteristics of the material required, which included sufficient permeability and particle size characteristics. The preferred resource areas where then selected from the area and a quantity assessment was then undertaken for each preferred area. This was done using average material thickness found during test pitting and multiplying by an approximate boundary, as defined by changes observed in surrounding test pits. The result of the above process was the definition of Pit A, Pit C and the Spoil Mound areas selected for the Project. The key attributes of each of the sites is outlined below:  The target resource of Pit A is a combination of low permeability alluvial clay suitable for lining and extremely weathered capping/general fill material.

 Pit C contains a ~0.5 m layer of high plasticity clay assessed as being suitable for clay lining material. Clayey gravel material (designated “High Permeability Holocene” in the geotechnical/resource definition investigation, Appendix A) suitable for capping is also present within the Pit C area.  The Spoil Mound, made up of material from the construction of the adjacent wastewater lagoons, will be screened to produce materials suitable for clay lining (material passing the screen) and capping material (material retained on the screen) using shaker screens.

3.2 Project Location “The Land” on which the Project will occur is defined on Figure 1 by the red polygon and covers an area of 186.03 ha. It is comprised of two separate titles:  Lot 1 Tasman Highway (CT 158015/1)  Lot 2 Tasman Highway (CT 170094/2) The Land is located to the north of the Swansea township on the western side of the Tasman Highway. The land borders Maria Street to the south and Meredith River to the north. The area of the land within Lot 1 is zoned Utilities and contains an existing Utilities use (water storage and treatment plant). The land within Lot 2 is zoned Rural Resource and contains an existing agricultural use, including livestock and crops. No residential dwellings are present on either lot. The Project Site is located on the flood plain of the Meredith River, at an elevation of between 10 and 25 m AHD (Australian Height Data 1983). The northern section of the Project site drains directly towards the Meredith River, with the remaining project site relatively flat, with existing drainage lines draining to the adjacent Maria Street. The site is heavily infested with gorse and other weed species, as outlined in Section 4.1.4.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 5

The climate of the site is temperate, with an annual minimum average of 7.7°C and maximum average of 17.9°C. Rainfall is consistent throughout the year, with monthly means ranging from 40.4 – 59.9 mm. Winds are generally stronger during the summer months, with predominant north-easterly winds, switching to north-westerly dominant in the winter months. The geology of the site is described as Quaternary (Holocene) sediments – sand, gravel and mud of alluvial, lacustrine and littoral origin (Qh), overlying Jurassic Dolerite (JD). Historical land use in the area is predominantly associated with agricultural activities. The Project site occurs within the heritage registered ‘Red Banks’ property (CHMA 2017b). The Project site is relatively isolated, with the nearest residence ~300 m away. Surrounding land uses include agricultural and residential, as well as the adjacent dam site and sewage treatment ponds.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 6

X Y

XY X Y

X Y

Y X XY

XY X Y

X Y

X XY

X Y

X Y X Y

X XY X Y

X XY

X Y

Y X XY

X Y X Y

X Y

X XY

X Y

X XY X Y

Y XY X X Y

X Y

X XY

X Y

XY X

X Y

X Y Y

X XY

X Y

X XY

X Y

X XY X Y

X Y

X Y Y

X XY

XY XY X X Y

X Y

XY X

X Y

Y X Y

X XY

Y X X Y

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

Y X XY

X Y X Y

X Y

X XY

X Y

X XY X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

Y X XY

X Y Y

XY X

X Y

X XY XY

X Y

X X Y

X Y X X Y

X XY

X Y X Y

XY X

X Y X Y

X XY

XY X Y

X Y

X Y X X Y

X XY

X Y

X Y X X Y

XY XY X

X XY XY

X Y X Y

X XY

X Y

XY X

X Y Y

X XY X Y

X XY X Y Y

X XY XY

XY X X Y

X Y

Y X XY

X Y Y

XY X

X Y X Y Y

X XY

Y XY X

X XY X Y

X Y

XY X

X Y

Y XY X

X Y Y

X XY

Y X XY

X Y

XY X

X Y

X XY XY

X Y Y X XY

X XY XY

Y XY X X Y

X Y

X XY Y XY X X Y Y

X XY

Y XY X Y XY X

X Y

X XY

X Y

XY Y

X Y X X Y

X XY

X Y Y

X XY

X Y X Y

X Y

X XY X Y

X Y X Y

Y X XY

X Y Y

X XY X Y

X Y X Y

Y X XY

X Y X Y

Y X XY

X Y Y

X XY X Y

X Y

X XY

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y Y

X XY

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X XY

X Y

XY XY XY Y X XY

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y X Y Y

X XY

X Y

X Y X Y

X XY

X Y X Y

X Y

Y X X XY

X XY

X Y X Y

XY X Y

X Y

X XY X Y

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X XY Y X XY

XY XY

X Y

X Y Y XY X

X Y

XY XY Y

X XY XY

X Y Y X XY XY

X Y Y

X XY

XY XY X

Y X XY

XY XY

XY X

X XY

Y XY X Y

X XY

Y XY X

XY X Y

Y XY X

Y X XY

Y XY X XY

Y XY X

XY X Y

Y XY X

XY X Y X Y

X Y

X Y X Y

X XY

X Y

XY X XY

Y XY X

XY Y

X XY

Y X XY

X Y X Y X Y

XY XY

X Y

XY X

XY X Y

X Y

X XY XY

X XY Y

XY X

X Y

Y XY X

X Y Y

X XY

X Y

Y XY X Y

X XY X Y

X Y

Y XY X X Y

X Y

Y XY X

X Y

Y XY X

X Y Y

X XY

X Y

X XY

X Y X X Y

XY X XY

Y X Y X

X Y Y

X XY

X Y

X Y Y

X X Y

XY X Y

Y X XY X

Y XY X

Y XY XY X X Y X Y

X XY

X Y X Y X Y Y XY XY X

X Y

X XY X Y

Y XY X XY

XY Y

X XY X Y

X Y Y

X XY

XY XY X

X XY

X Y

X Y X

X Y

Y X XY

X XY XY XY X Y

X Y

X XY XY Y

X Y X Y X

X Y X

X XY X Y

X Y X Y X Y

XY X

XY Y X XY

X Y Y

X XY

X Y Y

X XY

X Y Y X XY

XY X Y X Y X Y

Y XY X

XY X X Y Y Y X

X XY Y

X XY XY

X Y

Y X XY

X Y

X XY

Y X XY

XY Y

X XY

X Y

Y X XY

X Y

X XY

X Y

Y X XY XY

XY X Y

X Y

X Y X Y

X XY X Y

X XY

XY XY X

Y X Y X XY XY XY

XY X

X Y

X Y X Y

XY X Y X Y

X XY Y XY XY X X Y

X Y X Y

X XY X Y

X Y Y

X XY

X Y

XY X

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

Y XY X Y X XY Y

X XY

X Y

X Y Y X XY

X Y

X XY

X Y

X Y X Y

X XY

X Y

X XY

X Y

X Y X Y X Y

X Y

X XY

X Y

XY X X Y

X Y

X X Y

585,500 586,000 X 586,500 587,000 587,500 588,000 588,500

X Y

X XY

X Y Y

XY X

X Y

Y XY X

Y X X Y

X Y

X Y XY X

XY XY X

X Y

XY X

X Y Y

X Y Y X

X XY X Y

X Y

X XY

X Y X Y X Y

X X Y

Y X XY

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y Y

X XY X Y

X Y

X XY

X Y

X XY

X Y

X XY

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X XY

X Y

Y X XY

X Y

X Y X Y

0 0

X Y X Y

Y X XY

X Y

0 0 X Y

X Y

0 X 0 X Y

X XY

XY X

, ,

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y Y

7 X XY 7

X Y

X Y X Y

3 3

X Y

XY X

X XY

Y 3 X 3

X Y

, XY XY ,

X Y

X XY

5 5 X Y Y

XY X

X Y X Y

X Y Y

X XY

X Y

Y X XY X Y Y

X XY

X Y

Y XY X

X XY X Y

X Y

XY X XY

Y X 34

X Y

X Y Y X XY

Y & XY X

X Y

X XY X Y

Y & X XY

35 XY X Y X Y Y

X XY

X Y Y 33 & X

X Y

X XY

X Y

Y 32 X

XY X Y

& X

XY XY X Y

X Y

X Y X Y

Y X XY

X Y Y X XY XY

X Y

XY XY

X Y

XY Y

X XY

X 36

X Y

X Y Y

& X XY

X Y

X XY XY

X Y

Y 31 X

X Y Y & X XY

XY Y

X XY X Y

X Y

X XY

X Y X Y Y

X XY Y

X 30 37 XY X Y Y

X & XY

X &

X XY XY

X Y

Y X 38

XY Y

X & XY X Y

X XY X Y

XY Y

X 40

X Y

Y 39 X XY Y

X & & XY

XY X Y X Y

X XY XY

X Y

X 29

Y X XY

X Y Y X XY

XY Y X Y X Y

X &

X XY

Y XY X

XY X Y

X Y

XY XY

X Y

X Y Y

X XY Y

X XY

Y X XY

X XY Y

XY X

X Y

XY X Y

Y X XY

X Y

Y XY X

Y X XY XY

XY X Y X Y

X Y

Y XY X

X Y

X Y X Y

X XY

XY Y

X XY

X XY Y

XY X

X Y X Y

XY X Y

X Y Y

X XY X Y

Y X XY

28 XY

Y X XY

Y & X

Y X XY

4X 3 Y

X XY X Y Y

XY & X X Y Y

X XY

X Y X Y

XY X X Y

XY X

X Y

Y X XY Y

XY X XY

X Y

X Y X Y

XY X Y

Y X XY Y

27 X XY

X Y X Y

X & XY

X Y

XY X X Y

X XY

Y XY X

X XY

X Y

X Y Y

X XY

X XY X Y

X Y

X Y X Y

X XY

Y XY X

X XY

X Y X Y

X Y

XY X

X Y

Y XY X

Y X XY

X Y

X Y X Y

X XY

Y XY X

X Y Y

X XY

X Y

Y X XY

X XY XY

Y 26 X

X Y

Y X XY

& XY X

X Y

X Y X Y

X XY

XY X X Y

Y X XY

X XY

10 11 X

X Y

Y X XY

X Y Y

& & XY X XY

X Y X Y

X Y

X XY XY XY

X XY X Y X Y Y

9 X XY

X XY XY

X & 12 25 XY

X Y Y

X XY

XY XY

Y & & X

X Y

X XY

X Y

Y 13 X

XY XY

X Y

X Y Y

& 44 X Y 4X 5 XY

0 & 0 Y

X &XY Y

X 14 &

X XY

Y X XY

0 0

Y 8 & 24 42 X

X Y

& X Y X &

5 XY XY 5

X XY Y

, 23 XY X ,

X Y

Y X XY

& XY

6 XY 6

X Y Y

15 X

XY X XY

Y & X XY 3 3

XY XY

X Y Y

41 X XY

Y X XY

3 XY 3

22 X

XY X Y

, 17 XY ,

7 16 46 XY

XY Y

& XY X X Y Y

& & & & X XY

5 XY XY 5

21 X

Y XY X

Y 18 X XY

& XY Y

20 X XY

Y & X

& XY XY XY X Y

XY XY X Y

19 X XY

Y X XY XY

& XY

X Y

Y X XY XY

XY XY X

X Y

Y X XY XY

XY 47

X XY X Y Y

XY & X

XY X XY

X Y

XY X

XY X Y

X Y

XY XY Y

X XY

XY X Y Y

6 X Y

XY X XY X Y

& 48 X

XY X Y

X Y

Y & X XY

XY X Y

X Y

Y X XY

X Y Y

49 X XY Y

& X XY XY

X Y Y

XY 5&7 X

XY & X Y 59 X

& XY

X Y Y

X XY & &

XY X Y 50 X XY

X Y

Y X &

XY XY Y

5 X XY

XY XY

XY X Y & 4 X XY

58 XY

X Y X Y

X XY XY Y

& X XY

Y X XY XY XY

51 XY XY Y

XY X

XY XY

X Y Y & X

XY Y XY X

Y XY X XY

XY 60

X XY

X Y Y

& X

XY Y XY X

r X XY

Y XY X XY

X Y

XY X

X XY

X Y Y X XY

XY Y e X

XY X

X XY

X Y

Y XY X

X Y

X XY XY

X Y

Y v XY X

61 XY X

Y X XY

Y i X

X Y Y & X XY

XY XY

X Y Y

XY X Y XY X XY XY

XY Y

X XY XY

Y X XY

XY X Y

Y R X XY

Y X XY XY

XY Y XY X XY

XY 62 Y X XY

XY Y

& X

XY XY XY

Y XY X

h XY Y X XY

Y 3 X XY XY

t XY

& XY X

i X XY

Y X XY

Y & XY X d XY

63 XY

2 X

& XY

Y X XY XY

e XY Y XY X

r XY X Y

Y XY X

XY Y

e X

X XY

X Y

XY X

X Y X Y

Y M X

X Y

X Lot 2 XY

X Y Y 64 X

X Y X Y

X Y Y

X XY

X Y

Y X 65

& X

X Y

X XY Y

Swansea Dam X

X XY

X Y

XY X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

Y X XY

X Y Y

X XY

X Y

Y X XY

X XY

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

Y X XY X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

XY X

X Y

X Y Y

XY X X Y

X Y

Lot 1 X

XY X XY

X Y

X Y X Y

Y X XY

0 0

X XY XY

X Y

X Y Y X XY

X Y Y X XY 0 0

X XY

66 X X Y

0 0

X Y

X Y Y

X &

X Y Y

, XY X ,

X Y X Y X Y

Y 6 X 6

X Y

X Y Y

XY X Y

3 X 3

X Y

3 XY X 3 X Y

X Y

, ,

X Y

X Y Y

5 XY X 5

X Y

Y X XY

X Y

XY X

Y X XY

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

XY XY X

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y Y

X 1

XY Y

XY X

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y Y & X

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y Y 67 X

XY XY

XY X XY

& X X Y

X Y

X Y X Y X Y

X XY

X Y

X XY

X Y

X XY

X Y

Y XY X

X Y

X XY X Y

154 X XY

X Y

Y XY X

X Y Y X XY

X &

Y XY X

X XY Y XY X XY

X Y

Y 68 X

X Y Y

XY X

X XY Y

XY X XY

X Y

& X XY

XY X

X Y

X Y X Y

Y X XY

XY X Y

X Y

Y X XY

XY X

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y Y X XY

X XY

X Y Y X XY

X XY

X Y X Y

X Y

X XY

Y X XY Y XY XY X

X Y

X Y Y X XY

X Y

X Y Y

XY X

Y X XY XY

X Y X Y

Y X XY

XY X

X Y

X Y Y X XY XY

XY XY X X Y

X Y

Y X XY

X Y X Y Y

122 X

X Y

& X

X Y

& XY X X Y

X Y

Y XY X

X Y

Y 87 89X

& XY

& X

Y 121 X X Y

X Y

Y & X

XY X X Y Y

& X

X Y

X XY

XY X X Y

X Y X Y X Y

X Y

XY X XY X Y

Y X XY

X Y

X Y Y

X XY XY X Y

86 88 X Y

XY X

X Y

XY XY X Y

X Y

X XY XY

X Y

X Y X Y

X XY

X Y XY X XY

XY XY X Y

X Y

X XY Y XY X X Y

X Y

X XY XY

X Y

X XY

X Y

X Y Y

X XY

Y XY X Y

X XY

X Y

X Y Y

X XY XY X Y

X Y

Y X XY

X Y

X Y Y XY X XY XY XY

X Y X Y

X Y Y

XY X XY

Y X XY

X Y

XY X XY X Y Y

XY X

X Y

XY XY

X XY

XY XY

X Y

X Y X Y

Y XY X

XY XY

X Y Y X XY

XY XY X Y

X Y Y

XY X XY

X XY

XY X

X Y

X XY XY XY

X Y

123 X XY

& X XY

Y XY X

X XY XY

Y X XY Y

X XY

X Y Y

X XY XY

X Y

XY XY XY

X Y

Y X XY

X Y

153 X XY XY XY X Y

X Y

& XY

Y X XY

X Y Y

XY X XY

X Y

Y XY X

X XY XY Y

X t

X Y

X Y Y

XY XY X

X Y

Y X e XY XY

Y XY X X Y Y

X e XY

X Y

Y X XY Y X r

X Y Y X t

XY XY X Y Y XY XY X X Y

S X

X XY Y

XY X XY Y

X a

X Y

Y X i Y

X XY XY Y

r XY X

X Y Y

XY X

X Y

Y X a XY XY

XY XY

X Y

X Y Y

120 XY X

XY Y X M XY

X Y Y

& X XY XY

X XY

X XY Y X XY XY

X Y Y

X XY

XY XY X Y

X Y Y

XY X Y

124 X XY XY

X XY X Y Y X XY

& XY XY

X Y

X XY

X XY Y

X XY XY

XY XY

X Y

Y X XY

X XY XY

X XY XY X Y

X Y Y

X XY XY XY XY

X Y

Y XY X Y X XY

XY XY Y

X XY XY

Y X XY

X Y Y

118 119 X XY XY

XY X XY

X Y

X & XY

152 X XY

XY XY XY XY Y

X XY XY

X Y

X Y X Y X Y

Y & X

XY XY

X XY XY

XY XY Y

X 125 XY

Y 126 X X Y

Y X XY XY

XY XY X

& X

& X XY

") X

Y XY XY X Y

117 X XY XY

XY XY XY

X XY

X Y

X XY

X Y

Y X XY

116 X XY XY Y

X XY XY XY X Y

X XY XY

X Y

X Y X Y

Y X XY

X XY XYXY

X XY X Y

XY X XY X Y

XY X X Y

X Y

XY XY

0 0

X Y

X XY X Y

X XY XY Y

XY X

X XY XY XY

X Y

0 X 0

X Y

X XY XY

XY X

X Y

Y X XY

X Y

5 XY X XY 5 Y

X XY XY X Y

X XY Y

X XY

, , X Y X Y

X XY

XY XY XY X Y

X Y X Y Y

XY X XY

5 X 5

Y X XY

X Y

Y X XY XY

X XY X Y

X Y

X XY XY

3 m X XY XY 3

X Y

X 1 XY

X Y

X 3 XY XY XY

X Y

3 3

Y X XY

X Y Y X 4

XY Y X XY XY

X Y

, X ,

XY XY X

X Y

X Y X Y X Y

X XY XY X Y X Y X Y

5 XY XY X 5 XY XY X Y

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

XY X

X XY X Y

Y X XY

X XY

X Y

X Y Y

X X Y

X Y

Y X XY XY XY

X Y

Y Y X

146 X XY Y X XY

X Y X Y

X Y X

X Y

X Y X Y Y

& X Y

& XY X

XY X Y

Y X XY

Y X XY XY

X Y

X Y X Y Y

X XY X Y

X Y X Y Y

147 X

X Y

X Y Y

XY XY X

X Y

X XY

X Y

& X

X Y

XY X XY

X Y X Y

X Y

Y X XY

X Y X Y

X Y

97 99 X XY

X Y X Y Y

145 X

XY XY X Y

Y XY X Y

& X XY

Y & X

X Y Y

XY X

Y X XY

XY X XY

X XY

X Y

X Y X Y Y

X XY

Y XY X

X Y

Y XY X XY

X Y

XY X XY

X Y

Y X XY

X Y

X XY X Y

X Y

Y X XY

X Y X Y

Y X XY X Y

X Y

XY X X Y

X XY XY

X 96 98

X Y X Y

Y XY X X Y

XY X XY

XY X

XY XY X

X Y

XY X

Y X XY X Y X Y

X Y

XY X XY XY

XY X

X Y

X Y Y X XY

XY XY

Y XY X

X Y

X XY XY X Y

X Y

X Y Y

X XY Y

XY X 148 Y

X XY XY XY Y

X XY

X Y Y X XY

X Y

& XY X

X XY

XY XY XY X

X Y

X XY Y

X XY X Y Y

XY X X Y X Y X Y

Y X XY

Y X XY XY

XY 149 XY

X Y

!( X XY XY XY

& XY X XY

XY XY

X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y

XY X

X Y

X XY

X Y X Y Y

X XY XY XY

XY XY XY

XY X

X Y Y

XY X

XY XY XY

X Y Y

XY XY X XY

XY XY XY X

X Y

Y X XY X Y X Y

XY X XY

XY 151 XY XY

XY XY X XY Y

X XY XY

X XY

Y & X

Y X XY

X Y Y

XY X 3 XY

XY XY XY XY

X Y

X XY X Y Y

XY X XY Y

X XY XY

X Y

XY X Y

X Y Y

X XY XY XY

XY X

X Y

Y XY X

XY X XY X Y

X XY Y X XY Y

X 1 XY

X Y Y

X XY X Y

X XY XY XY

X Y

X Y X

X Y

Y X XY

XY XY XY XY XY

X Y X Y Y

X XY XY X Y

X Y

X XY X Y

XY X XY Y

X Y X X Y Y

X XY

Y X

X XY

Y X XY Y

X XY

Y X XY X Y X Y

Y 9 X

X Y

XY X Y XY X XY

X XY

XY XY XY XY Y X XY

XY XY XY X

X Y X Y

X Y

XY X XY

Y X XY

X Y

X XY

XY X Y

X XY XY XY X Y

Y XY m X

X XY

X m XY X Y X Y Y

X XY

XY XY X

X Y

X XY

XY XY X

X XY XY XY

Y XY X

X Y

5 X

X Y

X XY

X XY X Y

X Y

Y X XY X Y

XY XY XY X

X Y

150 X

XY X Y

X Y

Y X 5

X X Y X Y Y

X XY Y

X X Y

X Y

Y & X

XY Y

X XY

X Y

X XY XY

X Y

X XY

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y Y

3 XY X

X Y

X XY XY

X Y

X Y Y

XY X XY X Y

X XY XY

X Y

X XY

X Y Y

X XY

X Y

Y XY X

X Y

X Y X Y X Y

X XY XY

X Y

X XY X Y

XY X XY

X Y

XY X

X Y

X Y X Y X Y

X Y

X XY

X XY XY

X Y X Y X Y X Y

X Y

X Y Y X XY

XY X

X Y X Y Y

X XY XY

X Y X Y

X Y

Y X XY

X XY XY

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y X Y

X XY

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y X Y Y

X XY XY

X Y

Y X XY X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y Y

X XY

X Y

X XY

X Y

X XY

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

Y XY X X Y

X Y

X XY

X Y X Y X Y

X Y

X Y Y

X XY

X Y X Y Y

X XY

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X XY X Y X Y

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X XY

X XY X Y

Y X ")

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y Y

XY X XY XY

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y X Y Y

") X

X XY

X Y Y

XY X XY

X XY X Y

X Y

X XY

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y X Y

XY X

X XY

X Y

XY XY

X Y

XY X XY X Y

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

Y X XY

X Y Y

X XY Y

XY X XY X Y

X Y

XY X XY

X XY

X Y

X Y X XY

X Y X Y X Y

X Y Y

X XY XY

X Y

X XY XY

X Y

X Y X Y X Y

Y X XY

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y Y

XY X

X Y

Y XY X

X Y

X Y X Y

XY X

X Y X Y

X Y

XY X

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y X Y

X XY X Y X Y Y

X XY

X Y

XY X X Y

X Y

X Y X Y Y X XY

the LIST © State of Tasmania the LIST © State of Tasmania X

X XY XY

XY X

XY X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

Y XY X

X Y Y

X XY

XY X Y

X Y X Y Y

X X Y

Y X XY X Y

XY X

XY X XY XY

X Y X Y X X Y X Y

Y X XY X

X Y Y

X XY Y X XY

X XY XY

X Y

XY X

Y XY X

X Y

X Y Y

X XY

X Y X Y

585,500 586,000 586,500 587,000 587,500 588,000 588,500 X

X Y

XY XY X X Y X Y

Y XY X

X Y Y

XY XY X

X Y

Y X XY

X Y

X Y Y X XY

X Y

Y Y X

XY X XY

Y XY X Y

XY X

X Y

X XY Y X XY Y

X XY XY

XY XY

XY X

X Y Y

XY XY X

XY X

X Y X Y

XY X

X Y Y X XY XY Y X XY

XY XY XY

XY XY

XY XY XY X

X Y X Y X Y

X Y

X Y Y

X XY

X Y

XY XY XY X

Y X XY Y

X XY

X Y X Y

Y X XY XY XY

XY XY XY XY X Y

Y XY X

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y X Y Y XY X Y

XY XY X

XY XY Y X XY XY XY

X Y

X X Y

X XY X Y X Y

X Y

XY X

Y X XY

Y XY X

XY XY

XY X XY X Y

X Y X Y

X XY

X Y X Y

Y X XY

X Y

X XY Job Number 32-18505

XY X Y

X XY XY XY

X TasWater XY XY XY

X XY Y

XY XY X X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y Y

X XY XY XY XY

Paper Size A3 XY XY

X XY X Y Y

XY X

X XY X Y

Y X XY XY

X Y Y X XY XY XY

Inland waterways Project Site XY XY XY

X Y

X XY Y

XY X XY

X Y

Y X XY

X X Y XY

Revision B X X Y Y X XY X Y X Y XY XY XY

XY Swansea Dam Upgrade X Y

X Y X Y

XY X XY XY

XY X Y

X Y

Y XY X

X Y

0 35 X 70 140 210 280 350

X XY

X Y

Y XY X XY X Y

X XY

XY X Y

X Y X Y X Y

X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y XY XY

X Y

X XY 09 Feb 2018 XY Y

X Date XY

X XY

X XY X Y Y X XY

X XY XY XY

X Y

Roads The Land/Mining Lease X

XY Y

XY X

XY XY Y

X XY

X Y

X Y X Y Y

X XY XY X Y

XY X XY

X XY

X Y X Y X Y Y

X XY XY

X Y X Y

Metres XY

X Y

Y XY X

Y X XY

X Y Y

X XY

X Y

X Y X Y X Y Y X Y

X XY XY Y

XY X

X Y

XY X

X Y X Y Y

X X Y

X Y

XY X Y

XY X

X Y

X X Y

X Y

XY X X Y

X Y Y

X X Y

X Y Y

X X Y

X XY Y

XY X X Y

XY XY X

X Y

X X Y Y

Residance SX poXY il mound

X Y Y

X XY

X Y X Y Y

XY X

X Y

") X

X Y

X X Y

X Y

Y X XY Y

X X Y

X XY

X Y X Y Y

XY X

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X X Y

X Y X Y

Y X XY

X XY

Map Projection: Transverse Mercator X X Y

X Y

X Y Y

X XY X Y

X Y

X XY

X Y

X X Y

XY X

X Y

X Y X Y

X XY

X Y

XY X

X Y

X X Y X Y

Y X XY X Y

Y X Y

X XY Y X Y

XY X

X XY

X Y Y

Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994 X X Y

X Y

X XY

X Y

Y X Y X

X Y X Y

X o X Y Y

X XY XY

Y XY X

XY X XY

X Y

X Y X

X Y Y

X X Y

X Y

XY X

X Y Y

Y X

X Site Location

X XY

X Y

X Y Y

X X Y Y X XY Y X Y

XY X XY X Y Y

Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55 XY X

X Y

X Y Y

XY X XY

XY X

X XY X Y Y

X Y XY X X Y X Y Y X XY XY XY XY XY Figure 1 XY

XY X Y X XY

XY XY

XY Y

XY XY X

XY X

XY X Y

X XY X Y X Y Y X XY Y X XY

XY XY

X Y

X Y X Y

Y XY X Y

X Y X XY

XY X Y Y

X XY

XY X Y

XY X

X XY

XY X Y X Y X Y X Y Y X XY

XY XY XY Y

G:\32\18505\GIS\Maps\Working\3218505_009_Site_Location_RevA.mxd X

X Y

Y X Y X

XY XY X 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7000 Australia T 61 3 6210 0600 F 61 3 6210 0601 E [email protected] W www.ghXY d.com Y

X Y X

X Y X Y

X Y Y

X X Y

XY X XY XY

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y X Y Y XY X

XY XY

XY XY X

X Y

Y X XY

X Y X Y

X XY XY Y

X XY XY

X X Y Y

X X Y

Y X Y X

2018. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and other data custodians) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind X XY

X Y

X Y Y X Y

XY X

Y © X

X Y

X Y X Y X Y Y

X Y X

XY X

X XY X Y

X Y

X XY XY

X Y X Y

Y X XY

X Y

XY X

X Y

X Y X Y Y

X Y (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and fX or any reason.

XY X XY

X Y

X XY XY

Y X XY

X Y

Y X Y X

X Y

XY X

X Y

X X Y

X Y Y

X X Y Y X XY

X XY Y

X X Y Y

X XY XY

X XY

X Y

Data source: DPIPWE, TasVeg3, 2017; GHD, observed vegetation, 2017, GHD Proposed Borrow Locations. Created by: drockliff X

X Y Y

X XY Y

X XY

XY Y X XY X Y

XY X

X Y

X Y Y

X XY Y

X XY

Y X XY

X Y Y

X XY

X Y

X XY

X Y

Y X XY

X Y

X XY X Y

Y X XY

X Y

X XY

X Y

X Y Y X XY

X Y

XY Y

X X Y

X Y

X XY X Y

X Y

Y X XY

X Y

X Y Y

X XY

X Y

X Y Y

X XY

X Y

Y X XY

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X XY X Y

X Y

Y X XY

X Y X Y

X Y

Y X XY

X Y

X XY

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y X Y

X Y

X Y Coordinates from Figure 1

Site ID Easting Northing Site ID Easting Northing Site ID Easting Northing Site ID Easting Northing 1 586577 5335934 41 587429 5336512 81 588232 5335820 121 586912 5335815 2 586579 5336235 42 587429 5336512 82 588232 5335820 122 586801 5335830 3 586569 5336248 43 587790 5336668 83 588232 5335820 123 586836 5335709 4 586498 5336345 44 587891 5336526 84 588232 5335820 124 586867 5335608 5 586167 5336350 45 587897 5336524 85 588232 5335820 125 586883 5335557 6 586208 5336405 46 587954 5336475 86 588231 5335820 126 586883 5335557 7 586256 5336475 47 588016 5336434 87 588231 5335820 127 586914 5335455 8 586281 5336514 48 588076 5336401 88 588231 5335819 128 586914 5335455 9 586317 5336547 49 588111 5336385 89 588231 5335819 129 586914 5335455 10 586352 5336561 50 588078 5336358 90 587041 5335428 130 586914 5335455 11 586400 5336561 51 588102 5336335 91 587041 5335428 131 586914 5335454 12 586460 5336542 52 588126 5336371 92 587040 5335427 132 586914 5335454 13 586515 5336530 53 588126 5336375 93 587040 5335427 133 586914 5335454 14 586558 5336518 54 588127 5336377 94 587040 5335427 134 586914 5335454 15 586591 5336494 55 588136 5336373 95 587040 5335427 135 586914 5335454 16 586642 5336475 56 588137 5336372 96 587040 5335427 136 586914 5335454 17 586692 5336476 57 588137 5336372 97 587040 5335427 137 586914 5335454 18 586720 5336463 58 588135 5336369 98 587040 5335428 138 586914 5335454 19 586779 5336451 59 588134 5336370 99 587040 5335428 139 586914 5335454 20 586827 5336460 60 588103 5336322 100 587040 5335428 140 586914 5335454 21 586881 5336466 61 588140 5336288 101 587040 5335428 141 586914 5335454 22 586949 5336479 62 588167 5336262 102 587040 5335428 142 586914 5335454 23 587003 5336501 63 588208 5336225 103 587040 5335428 143 586914 5335454 24 587046 5336523 64 588099 5336166 104 587040 5335428 144 586914 5335454 25 587062 5336542 65 588061 5336146 105 587039 5335428 145 586914 5335454 26 587100 5336576 66 588099 5336011 106 587039 5335428 146 586914 5335453 27 587131 5336636 67 588123 5335924 107 587039 5335428 147 586875 5335440 28 587150 5336680 68 588156 5335892 108 587039 5335428 148 586894 5335379 29 587173 5336762 69 588219 5335831 109 587039 5335428 149 586846 5335363 30 587177 5336809 70 588231 5335820 110 587039 5335428 150 586547 5335260 31 587185 5336835 71 588232 5335821 111 586993 5335573 151 586520 5335340 32 587194 5336891 72 588232 5335821 112 586993 5335573 152 586572 5335567 33 587212 5336918 73 588232 5335821 113 586993 5335573 153 586535 5335689 34 587229 5336929 74 588232 5335820 114 586993 5335573 154 586632 5335904 35 587247 5336908 75 588232 5335820 115 586993 5335574 36 587262 5336847 76 588232 5335820 116 586993 5335574 37 587264 5336810 77 588232 5335820 117 586993 5335574 38 587272 5336796 78 588232 5335820 118 586993 5335574 39 587296 5336780 79 588232 5335820 119 586993 5335574 40 587327 5336781 80 588232 5335820 120 587009 5335629 586,500 587,000

Stockpile/laydown area

M 0 e 0 0 r 0

5 e 5 , d ,

6 it 6

3 h 3

( ! 3 R 3 , i ,

5 ver 5 (

! Borrow Pit A the LIST © State of Tasmania e id iv t D en hm tc

( ! Areas for laydown & stockpiling

Lot 2 Lot 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 , !( , 6 6 3 3 3 3 , , 5 5

Borrow Pit C

Site Office (TBC) WWTP !( Spoil mound

Irrigation Pond

! ( (

! Screening plant

( ! Laydown & stockpiling

Pond

! ( 0 0 0 0 5 5 , , 5 5 3 3 3 3 , , 5 5

t tree ia S Mar

Site Access (TBC) !(

the LIST © State of Tasmania 586,500 587,000

LEGEND

# Surface Slope Direction Pond # Spoil mound

# # # # #

# Clean Water Diversion Bund/Drain Retention Pond # # # Borrow pit # # # Dirty Water Diversion Bund/Drain Rock Filter Dam Stockpile New Internal Road Topsoil/Material Stockpile The Land

X Y X Y X Y X Y Roads Project Site Road Access

Paper Size A3 TasWater Job Number 32-18505 0 20 40 80 120 160 200 Swansea Dam Upgrade Revision D Date 14 Feb 2018 Metres Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994 Site Plan Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55 o Figure 2 G:\32\18505\GIS\Maps\Working\3218505_010_Site_Plan_RevA.mxd 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7000 Australia T 61 3 6210 0600 F 61 3 6210 0601 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com © 2018. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data source: Data Custodian, Data Set Name/Title, Version/Date. Created by: drockliff

3.3 Rationale and Alternatives The Swansea Dam is a 470 ML off-stream earth and rock fill dam providing drinking water storage for the township of Swansea. When the dam was initially filled, seepage and mud boils were observed downstream. Further investigations into the foundations of the dam concluded that the risk of dam failure would lie above the ANCOLD limit of tolerability (LoT) if the dam was operated to Full Supply Level (FSL). The dam has subsequently been run at a lower level (RL 18 m), with an active storage of approximately 70 ML. The primary purpose of the upgrade and repair works are to allow the dam to be safely operated to the design level (RL 24.5 m). The secondary purpose of the upgrade is reducing the seepage losses from the reservoir. There were several methods for the repair of the Swansea Dam investigated. The main alternative to a clay liner was the use of a geosynthetic liner, however this was deemed as an excessively expensive and higher maintenance option in comparison to a clay liner. In the search for suitable clay and capping material, the geotechnical investigation undertaken assessed several sites in the vicinity of the dam. Seven sites were investigated, including several areas around Cranbrook ~20 km from the Swansea Dam as well as several quarries ~50 km away from the dam site. These sites were then subject to a multi-criteria analysis taking into account proximity, likely quality and quantity of available material, and ease of rehabilitation. The analysis found the current proposed borrow pits and Spoil Mound scored the highest overall and hence were the focus of the test pitting program (Appendix A).

The dam cannot currently be safely operated above approximately 20% capacity, leading to water shortage and restrictions in the township of Swansea over summer months. The upgrade and repair of the dam is seen as an absolute necessity to allow the dam to be safely filled to full capacity, hence the do nothing approach is not applicable.

3.4 Planning Information A Development Application under LUPAA was lodged for the Project with the Glamorgan Spring Bay Council on 24 November 2017. The Proposal use class under the Glamorgan-Spring Bay Interim Planning Scheme 2015 (the Scheme) for the two lots are as follows:

Lot 1 Tasman Highway (CT 158015/1) (Utilities) The proposed excavation within Lot 1 will be located within the same site as the existing Swansea Dam and will obtain material that will be used to repair and upgrade the dam. The Utilities use class is identified as a permitted use class in the use table for the Utilities zone under the Scheme.

Lot 2 Tasman Highway (CT 170094/2) (Rural Resource) The borrow pits will be rehabilitated to enable the existing agricultural use within Lot 2 Tasman Highway to continue. The proposed works are categorised into the Resource Development use class. It is identified as a no permit required use class in the use table for the Rural Resource Zone. The spoil mound was created with the development of the sewage treatment plant ponds within 91 Maria Street. However, it is located within Lot 2 Tasman Highway. The removal of the spoil mound will enable this part of the site to be returned to agricultural use. The proposed works are categorised into the Resource Development use class which applies to that use.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 10

4. Potential Environmental Effects

4.1 Natural Values: Flora and Fauna An ecological survey of the Project Site was undertaken by GHD in 2017 (Appendix B). The survey covered the entirety of the Project Site footprint as well as some additional areas including the Swansea Dam site and several other potential borrow areas originally investigated within the Lot 2 property boundary. The survey was undertaken on 6 July 2017 and a follow up completed on 25 August 2017. Flora and fauna habitat values were investigated on foot utilising the random meander technique, with specific areas of interest surveyed more thoroughly.

4.1.1 Vegetation Communities Vegetation mapping was undertaken on site utilising a combination of existing TasVeg 3.0 mapping units and on ground assessment, the vegetation map for the Project Site and surrounds is presented in Figure 3. Surveys found that the vast majority of the Project Site was located on undulating agricultural land (FAG), containing a combination of wet and dry areas. The general flora composition of the area was dominated by both introduced grasses, such as Holcus lanatus (yorkshire fog) and Lolium perenne (perennial ryegrass), as well as native grasses such as Poa labillardierei (tussockgrass) and Poa rodwayi (velvet tussockgrass). Gorse (Ulex europaeus), sweet briar (Rosa rubiginosa), and blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) were the main weeds identified from the area.

The north-western tip of the Project Site transitions to an area of Eucalyptus viminalis grassy forest and woodland (DVG). The dominant eucalypt in this area was Eucalyptus viminalis subsp. viminalis (white gum) with occasional Eucalyptus ovata var. ovata in wetter areas and Eucalyptus pulchella in the drier areas. A variety of shrubs and smaller trees were also present including Bursaria spinosa subsp. spinosa (prickly box), Exocarpos cupressiformis (common native-cherry), and Acacia dealbata subsp. dealbata (silver wattle) (GHD 2017). The area of DVG was generally considered to be in good condition, with increasing quality with distance from the areas of agricultural land. Fringing the outside of the northern tip of the Project Site is the riparian vegetation associated with the Meredith River, classified as Eastern Riparian Scrub (SRE), a threatened vegetation community. However the Project footprint does not occur within this vegetation type and hence no clearing is required. The community was assessed as being in good condition with low numbers of exotic and weed species. The dominant eucalypt species included Eucalyptus viminalis and Eucalyptus ovata, with understory species including Acacia dealbata subsp. dealbata, Allocasuarina verticillata and Banksia marginata. Sedges and grasses included Lepidosperma inops and Poa labillardierei. Overall, the Project will potentially require the clearance of 0.65 ha of the 3.2 ha of the DVG community within the Land. It is noted that the DVG community extends well beyond the Land to the west. To ensure potential threats to any fauna present within the community are reduced, pre-clearance surveys of individual hollow-bearing eucalypts within the community will be undertaken. As a substantial area of this vegetation type is located in the adjacent area, minimal impacts to fauna are expected.

4.1.2 Threatened Flora The desktop survey undertaken for the Project Site identified that seven species listed under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSP Act) have historically been found within 500 m of

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 11

the study area. Several of the records were considered of low reliability owing to the age of the record or observer qualifications. The on ground survey found a single listed species, Melaleuca pustulata (warty paperbark), within the vicinity of the Project Site. These were mainly located outside of the southern extent of the Project site along Maria Street, with a single individual found within the riparian scrub to the north (outside of the Project Site), as shown in Figure 3. No other threatened flora species were recorded during the field assessment, noting that the assessment was not undertaken in the optimum season for many of the listed species. Habitat types observed suggested a low probability of herbaceous annuals or orchids occurring (GHD, 2017). With mitigation implemented for the protection of the Melaleuca pustulata (warty paperbark) individuals, no impacts to threated flora are expected.

4.1.3 Fauna Habitat and Threatened Fauna The Natural Values Atlas and the EPBC Act Protected Matters search tool were utilised to identify records and potential occurrence of listed fauna species within and surrounding (~5000 m) the Project Site. The assessment found a number of species with the potential to occur within the Project site (see Appendix B for a complete list). Of those species, the following were considered to have a higher possibility of occurring within the Project Site given habitat types present:

 Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii)  Masked owl (Tasmanian) (Tyto novaehollandiae subsp. castanops)  Green and gold frog (Litoria raniformis)

 Wedge-tailed eagle (Aquila audax subsp. fleayi)  Eastern barred bandicoot (Perameles gunnii)  Eastern quoll (Dasyurus viverrinus)

 Swift parrot (Lathamus discolour)  Grey goshawk (Accipiter novaehollandiae)  White-bellied sea-eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster)

The majority of the Project Site occurs within agricultural land where the habitat values are considered marginal. It is considered unlikely that the Project Site provides key habitat for any threatened fauna species. However, there are several potential habitat trees and foraging areas located in the small area of Eucalyptus viminalis - grassy forest and woodland community (DVG) in the north-western tip of the Project Site (Figure 3), which may be impacted by Project works. Several species, such as the White bellied sea eagle and the Grey goshawk, may utilise the general area, in particular the woodland and riparian vegetation for foraging, roosting and nesting. There has been a single Masked owl sighting within 1 km of the Project Site. Several nest locations and sightings of raptors were found in the Natural Values Atlas within 5 km of the study area; no eagle nests have been recorded within 2 km of the study area. No potential denning habitat for species such as the Tasmanian devil, Spotted tailed quoll and the eastern quoll where identified within or adjacent to the Project Site, however it is possible that these species occasionally utilise the area for foraging. Given the general lack of quality fauna habitat within the disturbance footprint, potential impacts to fauna species through vegetation clearance are considered negligible. Pre-clearance surveys

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 12

of hollow-bearing eucalypt species will ensure direct impacts to fauna are minimised as a result of clearing. There is potential for roadkill to occur as a result of the Project, however this is expected to be minimal given the absence of quality habitat in the direct area. The application of 25 km/h speed limits and restricted operational hours will assist in minimising potential roadkill events. Noise and light impacts to fauna species are not anticipated to be significant given the operating hours will be restricted to daylight hours. Several management and mitigation measures will be implemented to ensure environmental best practice is achieved, as identified in Section 4.1.5.

4.1.4 Weeds and Pathogens The Natural Values Atlas identified seven weed species listed as declared weeds under the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 within 500 metres of the Project Site, five of these are also listed as weeds of national significance:  Asparagus asparagoides (Bridal creeper)  Echium platagineum (Pattersons curse)  Eragrostis curvula (African lovegrass)  Lycium ferocissimum (African boxthorn)  Nassella trichotoma (Serrated tussock)

 Rubus fruticosus (Blackberry)  Ulex europaeus (Gorse) Of these species, the field survey identified significant quantities of gorse (Ulex europaeus), sweet briar (Rosa rubiginosa), and blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) within the investigation areas. The inclusion of management and mitigation consistent with the Weed and Disease Planning and Hygiene Guidelines (DPIPWE, 2015a) within the EMP for the Project will minimise the threat of weed and pathogen spread around the site.

4.1.5 Management, Mitigation and Monitoring The Project Site has limited ecological values and is dominated by agricultural land, with some small areas of native vegetation. The key management and mitigation measures proposed to limit impact to the flora and fauna of the Project area are:  Topsoil from the immediate works area will be scalped (top horizon) and carefully stockpiled for replacement after excavation, to facilitate natural regeneration of native vegetation. In the areas identified as native vegetation, woody debris cleared as part of the work will be retained and re-laid once works are complete. This will not be undertaken for areas mapped as agricultural land (FAG).  A 5 m buffer is to be maintained around the Melaleuca pustulata (warty paperbark) trees at the southern end of the Project Site, along the road verge on Maria Street, as depicted in Figure 3. This buffer zone will be marked out with flagging tape.  Weed and hygiene management principles will be included in the Project environmental management plan (EMP), which will include as a minimum: – Wash-down prior to entry and exit from the site in accordance with the Weed and Disease Planning and Hygiene Guidelines – Preventing the spread of weeds and diseases in Tasmania (DPIPWE, 2015a)

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 13

– Weed inspection and control during and post operation in accordance with the Quarry Code of Practice 2017.  The Pit A area contains a significant amount of gorse which will be cleared prior to topsoil ripping. Gorse will be mulched onsite and transported to a green waste facility. The mulched weed material will be covered during transport to avoid spread of seed and material.  Clearance of trees and understorey vegetation will be minimised where possible. In particular the stand of E. viminalis var. viminalis in the north-western corner of the Project Site (which provides potential habitat for a number of listed threatened fauna species).  Where clearance of eucalypt trees is required, a pre-clearance survey for birds and other native arboreal fauna, including a search for nests/nesting hollows, will be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist to ensure no direct impacts to these species.  No open trenches or holes will be left uncovered at the end of each day unless the appropriate camber is incorporated in the trench sides to provide egress of fauna species.  To minimise impacts to fauna (e.g. devils and quolls) from local traffic increases around the Project Site, the following management and mitigation measures will be implemented in line with the Survey Guidelines And Management Advice For Development Proposals That May Impact On The Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus Harrisii), 2015 (DPIPWE, 2015b): – Truck movements restricted to daylight hours – Speed limits implemented on haul roads – Driver education and awareness training to be implemented for contractors – Roads inspected on regular basis for roadkill and reported to site manager

The above measures will be included in the contractor’s EMP.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 14 586,500 587,000 587,500 588,000 588,500

Threatened Species

# Melaleuca pustulata

Declared Weeds

" Gorse

" Blackberry

Dry eucalypt forest and woodland

DVG

DVC

Scrub, heathland and coastal complexes 0 0 0 0 5 5 , , 6 6 3 3

3 SRE 3 , , 5 5 Native grassland

GCL

Agricultural, urban and exotic vegetation

FAG

FUM

FUR

FWU

Lot 2 Other natural environments OAQ Lot 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 6 6 3 3 3 3 , , 5 5

Melaleuca pustulata with 5m buffer 0 0 0 0

5 Swansea 5 , , 5 5 3 3 3 3 , , 5 5

the LIST © State of Tasmania the LIST © State of Tasmania 586,500 587,000 587,500 588,000 588,500

TasWater Job Number 32-18505 Paper Size A3 Legend Revision A 0 25 50 100 150 200 250 Swansea Dam Upgrade The Land Spoil mound Date 09 Feb 2018

# # # # # #

# Metres # # # #

# # #

# # # Borrow pit

# Map Projection: Transverse Mercator # # # # Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994 o # # # Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55 Stockpile Ecological Values Figure 3 G:\32\18505\GIS\Maps\Working\3218505_011_DPEMP_EcologicalValues_RevA.mxd 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7000 Australia T 61 3 6210 0600 F 61 3 6210 0601 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com © 2018. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and other data custodians) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data source: DPIPWE, TasVeg3, 2017; GHD, observed vegetation, 2017, GHD Ecological Observations. Created by: drockliff

4.2 Water Quality

4.2.1 Surface Water The Meredith River borders the Land to the north, flowing easterly towards Great Oyster Bay. The CFEV database was queried for the section of the Meredith River adjacent to the Project Site, the report of which is provided in Appendix C. The river section investigated (~3 km length) is classed as a H2 waterway: “The states driest, most variable stream systems; medium and highly skewed annual flows; highly variable peak and low flows and seasonality” (CFEV, 2018). The river has a high integrated conservation value owing to the presence of platypus, Australian grayling and intact riparian vegetation. Important biophysical classes associated with the river section include East coast lowland dry sclerophyll with Oyster Bay pine (CFEV, 2018). The river is considered to have a moderate level of catchment disturbance affecting stream channel and sediments. The majority of the section of river assessed is considered to be near natural biological condition, and holds a significant value in regards to fish migratory passage. There is an existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) adjacent to the Land, which contains overflow features that extend onto the Land in the form of a drainage line and existing pond (south of the Spoil Mound), as depicted in Figure 2. There is a small pond to the north of the WWTP ponds which is used for irrigation reuse on the Lot 2 property. The overflow from this pond (during storm events) is directed into the drainage ditch, which feeds into the existing pond south of the Spoil Mound. This pond is not relied on as a retention pond or storage and is not monitored as part of an EPN. The pond outflow is then directed to Maria Street where water disperses into drainage lines along the road, there is no specific stormwater collection on Maria street other than the runoff drains along the sides of the road. There will be no direct impact to the Meredith River. The highest potential for impact is the deposition of sediment into the waterway through site drainage, potentially impacting on the biological and visual qualities of the river. The construction of a site drainage system will manage stormwater runoff from the Project and reduce the likelihood of any impacted water from entering the system, reducing potential impacts to a negligible level. Disturbance will not occur within 40 m of the river, in line with the Quarry Code of Practice (2017). Other risks include fuel or chemical spills nearby to the waterway, which could enter via drainage lines during rainfall. Chemical and fuel storage offsite, and handling management and mitigation will reduce the likelihood of spill events occurring. Clean-up protocols in the EMP will reduce the severity of the impacts of a spill event.

4.2.2 Groundwater Groundwater information at the Project site is limited, and restricted to test pitting results. Test pitting confirmed that the majority of the site contained quaternary (Holocene) sediments (sand, gravel and mud of alluvial, lacustrine and littoral (Qh) origin), overlying Jurassic Dolerite (Jd). Groundwater was only encountered during test pitting at Pit A, with a depth to groundwater ranging from 1.3 – 1.4 m. It considered most likely that this water is seepage from the Swansea Dam itself draining into the Pit A area. The Swansea Dam will be drained prior to the construction of the Project, with minor works planned to reduce groundwater at the Pit A site through ripping prior to construction. Depth to groundwater at all other impact sites is unknown. No groundwater abstraction is undertaken on the Project Site or surrounds.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 16

Potential for impacts to groundwater are limited to spills of fuels and chemicals, however with suitable management and mitigation in place the resultant potential for impact is considered negligible.

4.2.3 Management, Mitigation, and Monitoring An erosion and sediment control plan will be included in the contractors EMP. This will be developed in accordance with the Quarry Code of Practice 2017, relevant approvals (e.g. this document), permits, and Australian Standards. The following key mitigation measures will be incorporated into that plan:  For erosion and sedimentation control, clean water diversion drainage lines or bunds will be trenched upstream from the pits, spoil mound and topsoil stockpile areas, with impacted water runoff drains to be dug downstream of the features and directed to settling ponds, as depicted in Figure 2.  Pit A will have a drainage wall bund installed upstream of the pit and topsoil storage area. Impacted water downstream from the pit will drain through a rock filter dam into a sediment retention pond (shown in Figure 2) prior to entering the clean water bunded drainage line, which is proposed to be discharged to the Meredith River. Bank stability on the Meredith River will be reinforced using rock armouring or sandbags.  For Pit C, its associated topsoil storage areas, and the Spoil Mound, the downstream impacted water drainage lines will contain a series of rock filter dams spaced intermittently along the drainage line network, with final discharge into the existing drainage pond onsite (south of the Spoil Mound). Water will then be passively discharged to the existing drainage system along Maria Street. As the existing drainage pond is an overflow feature of the WWTP and is not regularly used, it is unlikely to be overloaded from additional drainage inflow from the Project Site. In the event that the pond is ineffective as a settlement pond (during storm events), the upstream overflow from the WWTP irrigation pond will be slowed significantly by irrigating upstream pond water onto the Lot 2 area to disperse. The entry point of the Project’s dirty water runoff into the settlement pond has been located away from the settlement pond outflow (to Maria Street) to increase residence time of dirty water in the pond.  Impacted water drainage discharges will be monitored visually (ensuring water is clean and free from oils etc.) daily during storm events to ensure sedimentation control measures (rock filters, holding pond) are effective.  Wet-weather stop work procedures will be included in the EMP to minimise erosion and run-off.  Following completion of quarrying and rehabilitation, artificial drainage lines will be removed to return surface flows to their original condition. The drainage sump will be backfilled to restore the existing drainage line to its previous state. Sediment and erosion design controls will be included in the final landform design, as required.  Erosion and sediment control devices will be inspected weekly during dry weather and daily during wet weather.

4.3 Reserved Land There are no conservation reserves or other known significant areas within the boundaries of the Land.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 17

The Moulting Lagoon – Great Oyster Bay sub-region geoconservation area does occur partially on the Land, however this is a regional classification and no actual significant direct impacts to this feature will occur as a result of the Project.

4.4 Air Emissions

4.4.1 Dust generating sources Dust may be generated through Project activities including vegetation clearance, establishment of access roads, excavation of material, screening, and haulage of material. Dust may also be generated from unsealed roads and stockpiles. Failure to mitigate against dust has the potential to impact on flora and vegetation, visual amenity and public safety. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site are several houses to the south of the site, the closest being 319 m away from the southern boundary. With the below mitigation implemented, significant impacts to these receptors as a result of dust generation are considered unlikely.

4.4.2 Management, Mitigation and Monitoring As a minimum, the following mitigation measures will be included in the contractor EMP:

 Daily visual monitoring by site staff of dust levels.  Spraying of stockpiles and roads if dust generation becomes problematic, with the potential use of dust suppressants if water spraying is not sufficient.

 Appropriate speed restrictions will be applied to reduce potential for dust generation.  Maintenance of a complaints register to monitor and address any dust complaints.  Rehabilitation of exposed areas as soon as possible.

4.5 Liquid Effluent No liquid effluent waste streams will be generated by the Project, with staff facilities included in the adjacent Swansea Dam permit area (not part of this assessment). Stormwater management is addressed in Section 4.2.

4.6 Solid Wastes Solid wastes generated by the Project will be restricted to general contractor wastes including rubbish, and small amounts of construction wastes. These waste streams will be collected in onsite covered skip bins and removed from site on a regular (i.e. weekly) basis. Where possible waste segregation will be applied, with separate vessels for recyclable and non-recyclable wastes. Solid waste generation is unlikely to have a notable affect within the Project Site or surrounding land.

4.7 Noise Emissions The key noise generating activities from the Project include access track construction, excavation, screening, haulage of material from the site and light vehicle movements to and from the Project Site. The main vehicles and items of equipment with potential to generate noise include excavators, screen vibrators, bulldozers, haulage trucks, and light vehicles.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 18

The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site are residential properties to the south and east, as shown in Figure 1. As noted in the Quarry Code of Practice 2017 all quarrying activities will be restricted to daytime operations from 0700 to 1900, Monday to Friday and 0800 – 1600 on Saturdays.

4.7.1 Attenuation Distances and Potential Noise Impact The Quarry Code of Practice 2017 recommends the following separation distances measured from the planned maximum extent of quarry operations to any sensitive use in order to limit potential for environmental nuisance:  Where regular blasting takes place - 1000 metres  Where material is crushed only - 750 metres  Where vibrating and trommel screens alone are utilised - 500 metres  Where no blasting, crushing or screening occurs - 300 metres As vibrating screens will be in use at the screening plant adjacent to the Spoil Mound, the plant has been strategically positions to maintain a 500 m buffer from the closest resident for compliance with the code’s recommendations. The 300 m buffer for no blasting, crushing or screening is maintained at the closest positions where hauling will occur also.

4.7.2 Management, Mitigation and Monitoring Noise mitigation measures will be outlined by the contractor in the EMP and will include the following as a minimum for construction and operational machinery:

 Operation of machinery and equipment will be restricted to normal daytime operating hours (0700 – 1900) from Monday to Friday and 0800 – 1600 on Saturdays.  Machinery will be selected with consideration of noise generation and plant will be fitted with industry standard noise reduction mechanisms.  The contractor shall regularly service and maintain equipment used to minimise noise emissions.

 A complaints register will be developed and maintained to monitor and address any noise complaints.

4.8 Transport Impacts Excavated material from the Project Site will be hauled to the Swansea Dam via new access roads, with the roads associated with the dam site excluded from this application. The new access roads are not in close proximity to any houses or other sensitive receptors. It is estimated that during peak quarrying periods, two to three haul trucks (~20 tonne capacity) will be utilised to transport the material to the dam site. As the haulage route will be via a new private road, there will be no impact on the public road network from hauling. There is no intention to use the Project for any other application, so no other offsite haulage will occur. In addition to haulage of quarried material, the Project will also generate a very small number of vehicle movements to and from site, including:  Construction and quarry equipment delivered at the commencement of works and removed at completion.  Daily light vehicle access for site workers (estimated at approximately ten vehicles per day during the operational period, with occasional periods of higher activity).

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 19

These ancillary movements (i.e. aside from material haulage) will be predominantly via Maria Street (via Tasman Highway) through the site access point shown in Figure 2; the movements are expected to be relatively minor in the context of the existing road use, with no significant amenity impacts to surrounding users expected. Management of transport impacts in this case is generally limited to control of noise, the management of which is covered in Section 4.7. Appropriate speed restrictions (along with additional management outlined in Section 4.1.5) will be applied to reduce potential for fauna and dust impacts. Additional management will include ensuring machinery and vehicle engines are well maintained by the contractor to ensure exhaust emissions remain acceptably clean.

4.9 Other Off-site Impacts There will be no significant off-site impacts as a result of the Project. The Project will utilise site access from the adjacent Swansea Dam site, but this does not form part of the Project and is not a public road.

4.10 Hazardous Substances and Chemicals The Project requires the use of heavy machinery and trucks that will require regular refuelling and maintenance.

Wherever possible, machinery and vehicles will be refuelled offsite, most commonly at the adjacent dam site (excluded from this application). The exception to this will be quarrying machinery that is to remain in situ during quarrying operations; this machinery will be refuelled via mobile fuel trucks. Minor servicing of quarry machinery will be undertaken onsite by a mobile mechanic, with any major servicing required to be undertaken offsite. Small volumes of hydraulic fluid and fuel will be transported into the Project Site as required (not stored onsite), with the storage of this material to occur at the adjacent dam site (excluded from this application).

4.10.1 Management, Mitigation and Monitoring Mitigation measures will be further documented in the contractor EMP and include as a minimum:  Chemical and hydrocarbon spill kits will be kept on the Project Site and all staff trained in their use.  Refuelling trucks will contain hydrocarbon spill kits.  In the event of a fuel or oil spill, soil will be bunded around the affected area to prevent runoff. Any soils affected by a spill will be excavated and removed off site by a licenced contractor to a suitable disposal facility.  All refuelling or servicing events will be undertaken well away from any drainage lines within the Project Site.  Any volumes of hazardous materials will be stored in bunded facilities at the adjacent dam site.

4.11 Site Contamination There are no known indications of previous soil or groundwater contamination at the site.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 20

4.12 Climate Change The Project will result in the emission of limited greenhouse gases from the burning of fuel in machinery and trucks. In order to reduce carbon emissions and implement best practice greenhouse impact management, the following management and mitigation is proposed for the Project:  Use of modern earth moving equipment and haul vehicles to maximise efficient use of fuel.  Regular scheduled maintenance of vehicles and earth moving equipment.  Maximising efficiency of haul routes and speed limits to ensure the least amount of fuel is required per tonne of material hauled. As the Project is short-term in nature, climate change is not expected to significantly affect the Project, therefore additional management and mitigation for more severe weather in the long- term is not seen as necessary in this instance.

4.13 Heritage

4.13.1 Aboriginal Heritage An Aboriginal heritage assessment was undertaken for the Project Site and other surrounding areas of interest associated with additional TasWater projects in October 2017 (CHMA, 2017a) (Appendix D). The desktop component of the assessment found three registered Aboriginal sites within the Land on the Aboriginal Heritage Register (AHR), including an artefact scatter site and two individual isolated artefact sites. The desktop assessment did not identify any registered sites within the Project Site itself. Field surveys of the Project Site and surrounds identified site AH13090, which was listed as an isolated artefact. The field assessment uncovered a second artefact within approximately 25 m of the original site, therefore the boundaries of AH13090 were extended as a result. This artefact scatter is several hundred metres from the Project Site and is not under direct threat from the Project. Site AH8547 was identified in the field and was considered to not be at threat from the Project. Site AH10714 was investigated and searches were undertaken in the surrounding areas for any extensions to the artefact scatter. The original spatial extent of the site was considered uncertain from previous surveys and was considered as potentially extending beyond the listed extent. The field survey identified that although the site was potentially larger than previously listed, the site did not encroach on the Project Site. In order to ensure that any extensions to AH10714 were not overlooked in the survey, standard management and mitigation for Aboriginal heritage sites will be incorporated into the contractors EMP. The assessment concluded that no permit under the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 would be required for the sites (CHMA, 2017a).

4.13.2 European Heritage A historic heritage assessment was undertaken for the Project Site and surrounds in 2017 (CHMA, 2017b) (Appendix E). The assessment included a desktop and field component. All relevant heritage registers were searched via desktop. The search confirmed that the entirety of the Land is located within the boundaries of the “Red Banks” property, registered on the Tasmanian Heritage Register and under the Glamorgan Spring Bay Planning Scheme 1994. The heritage listings focus on the

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 21

value of the built heritage on the property, including a homestead and associated out buildings (CHMA 2017b). The Project Site does not occur in the immediate vicinity of the built heritage assets (>1 km to the north-east of the study area). The field component of the survey found no sites, features or objects within the Project Site or immediate surrounds. The assessment concludes that there is low potential for undetected historic heritage features to occur within the study area. Field surveys of the Project Site also failed to identify any significant heritage sites. Given that the proposed works pose little to no threat to the built structures and heritage landscape planting on the Red Banks property, a Certificate of Exemption for the proposed works in this property boundary will be acquired from the Tasmanian Heritage Council by TasWater.

4.13.3 Management, Mitigation and Monitoring The following mitigation and management will be undertaken by the contractor in relation to Aboriginal heritage management:  The contractors EMP will incorporate an Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Aboriginal sites in accordance with the methodology outlined in CHMA (2017a). The following mitigation and management will be undertaken by the contractor in relation to European heritage management:

 The contractors EMP will incorporate an Unanticipated Discovery Plan for historic heritage sites in accordance with the methodology outlined in CHMA (2017b).

4.14 Sites of High Public Interest The Project Site is not located within or adjacent to a site of high public interest.

4.15 Rehabilitation The following rehabilitation principles will be followed:

 The site will be rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the landowner and suitable for recommencement of its former land use (agriculture).  Pit voids will be rehabilitated using the following methodology:

– Side wall slopes will be restored to a maximum grade of 25% – Voids to be reinstated with topsoil – Re-seeding with suitable grasses to suit the agricultural nature of the land  Any remaining portion of the spoil mound will be rehabilitated using the following methodology: – Shaping surfaces to allow surfaces to drain, with minimum grade of 3% – Maximum batter slopes of 33% – Re-seeding with suitable grasses to suit the agricultural nature of the land  All site infrastructure will be removed.  On site stockpiled topsoil will be reinstated on any disturbed areas.  A suitable seed mix consistent with surrounding native species or pasture will be applied to the topsoil, as required by the landowner.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 22

 Drainage infrastructure installed at the Project Site will be removed to reinstate natural drainage to the site, with any necessary long-term sedimentation or drainage infrastructure installed to maintain the site in a stable condition.  All temporary roads will be graded, covered with topsoil and seeded, and natural drainage reinstated through the removal of any artificial drainage infrastructure (unless the site owner wishes to retain the roads for future use).  Rehabilitation will be monitored and remedial planting and weed control undertaken by the contractor if required.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 23

5. Management Commitments

Table 2 Project Management Commitments

Number Commitment Completion Date By Whom

1 A site specific Environmental Prior to construction Contractor Management Plan (EMP) will be prepared prior to construction and made available to the EPA upon request

2 Melaleuca pustulata (warty Prior to construction Contractor paperbark) trees will be taped off with a 5 m buffer along Maria Street

3 Weed and hygiene Prior to construction Contractor management principles will be included in the Project EMP

4 The gorse infestation within Prior to construction Contractor the Pit A area will be mulched onsite and transported to a green waste facility.

5 Where clearance of hollow- Prior to construction Contractor bearing eucalypt trees is required, a pre-clearance survey for birds and other native arboreal fauna will be undertaken

6 No open trenches or holes will Prior to construction Contractor be left uncovered at the end of each day unless the appropriate camber is incorporated in the trench sides to provide egress of fauna species

7 Roadkill mitigation measures Construction, All Parties be implemented in accordance Operation, and with the Survey Guidelines and Closure Management Advice for Development Proposals that may Impact on the Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) 2015 where practicable. Note speed restrictions will mitigate dust impacts also.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 24

Number Commitment Completion Date By Whom

8 An Erosion and Sediment Prior to construction Contractor Control Plan will be included as part of the EMP

9 Impacted water drainage Construction and Contractor discharges will be monitored Operation daily during storm events

10 Drainage and sedimentation Prior to construction Contractor control will installed at the Project Site prior to operation

11 Water management During operation Contractor infrastructure will be inspected weekly during dry weather and daily during wet weather

12 A complaints register to During construction TasWater monitor and address any dust, and operation noise or other complaints will be maintained.

13 Operation of machinery and During construction Contractor equipment will be restricted to and operation 0700 - 1900 Monday to Friday and 0800 – 1600 on Saturdays

14 Hydrocarbon spill kits will be During construction Contractor present for all and operation refuelling/servicing events insitu

15 An Unanticipated Discovery Prior to construction Contractor/TasWater Plan for Aboriginal/European heritage sites will be included in the EMP

16 The site will be rehabilitated to Closure Contractor/TasWater the satisfaction of the landowner and suitable for recommencement of its former land use

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 25

6. Public and Stakeholder Consultation

Specific to the Project, TasWater has regularly consulted with the landowner(s) regarding the use of the Project Site in the last 12 months and the Development Application for the Project was supported by the landowner(s). Given the nature of the Project, it is considered unlikely to cause significant community issues and therefore consultation has been limited in the community to local landowners around the Project Site. TasWater submitted a Development Application with the Glamorgan Spring Bay Council on 24 November 2017, with Council referring the application to the EPA on 27 November 2017. TasWater have had an Aboriginal heritage assessment undertaken which has been sent to Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania, who have facilitated discussions with the Indigenous community, who have provided advice on permit conditions. Local stakeholder consultation will continue throughout the Project life.

7. Conclusion

The proposed Project will result in the extraction of up to 110,000 m3 of material (clay and capping material) from two pits and a spoil mound for the exclusive use of the Swansea Dam repair and upgrade project. The proposed Project will be short-term in nature, with an expected 6-month Project life, followed by a month of rehabilitation.

This Environmental Effects Report has found the environmental impacts form the Project are likely to be limited and localised in nature. The key impacts to be managed, as outlined in the mitigation measures in this report, are related to preservation of flora and fauna values, and the minimisation of noise and water quality impacts. An EMP incorporating all the management and mitigation measures from this report will be developed prior to construction commencing and will be available to the EPA upon request.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 26

8. Limitations

This report: has been prepared by GHD for TasWater and may only be used and relied on by TasWater for the purpose agreed between GHD and the TasWater as set out in section 1 of this report.

GHD otherwise disclaims responsibility to any person other than TasWater arising in connection with this report. GHD also excludes implied warranties and conditions, to the extent legally permissible.

The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this report were limited to those specifically detailed in the report and are subject to the scope limitations set out in the report.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on conditions encountered and information reviewed at the date of preparation of the report. GHD has no responsibility or obligation to update this report to account for events or changes occurring subsequent to the date that the report was prepared.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on assumptions made by GHD described throughout this report. GHD disclaims liability arising from any of the assumptions being incorrect.

GHD has prepared this report on the basis of information provided by TasWater and others who provided information to GHD (including Government authorities)], which GHD has not independently verified or checked beyond the agreed scope of work. GHD does not accept liability in connection with such unverified information, including errors and omissions in the report which were caused by errors or omissions in that information.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 27

9. References

CHMA (2017a) TasWater Meredith Dam Reparation Project: Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Report Final Version 1, Cultural Heritage Management Australia, 12 October 2017. CHMA (2017b) TasWater Meredith Dam Reparation Project: Historic Heritage Assessment, Final Report, Cultural Heritage Management Australia, 13 October 2017. DPIPWE (2015a) Weed and Disease Planning and Hygiene Guidelines - Preventing the spread of weeds and diseases in Tasmania. (Eds.) Karen Stewart and Michael Askey-Doran. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart, Tasmania, March 2015. DPIPWE (2015b) Survey Guidelines and Management Advice for Development Proposals that may impact on the Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii). Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, April 2015. EPA (2017) Quarry Code of Practice 3rd Edition, EPA Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, May 2017 GHD (2017) Swansea Dam Upgrade Ecological Survey, GHD, November 2017. CFEV (2018) CFEV database, v1.0 (2005), Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values Project, Water Resources Division, Department of Primary Industries and Water, Tasmania(accessed 10/1/2018).

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 28

Appendices

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 29

Appendix A – Borrow Pit Investigation Geotechnical Report

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 | 30 TasWater Swansea Dam Upgrade Borrow Pit Investigation

February 2018 Table of contents

1. Introduction...... 1 1.1 Purpose of this Report ...... 1 1.2 Scope and Limitations...... 1

2. Desktop assessment of potential borrow sources ...... 3 2.1 General ...... 3 2.2 Assessment Methodology...... 3 2.3 Available information...... 4 2.4 Preliminary assessment & recommendations ...... 9

3. Test Pit Investigation...... 10 3.1 General ...... 10 3.2 Laboratory Testing...... 11 3.3 Gradco Screening Investigation...... 11

4. Site Conditions ...... 19 4.1 Subsurface Conditions...... 19 4.2 Groundwater ...... 20

5. Clay resource quality and quantity assessment...... 21 5.1 Material resource quality...... 21 5.2 Quality of available materials...... 21 5.3 Quantity Assessment...... 24

6. Recommendations ...... 26 6.1 Suitability of investigated borrow areas ...... 26 6.2 Alternative borrow sites...... 27 6.3 Potential rehabilitation requirements ...... 28 6.4 Summary of Available Borrow Materials...... 28

Table index

Table 2-1 Qualitative Scoring Methodology...... 4 Table 2-2 Summary of surface geology in vicinity of potential borrow sites ...... 4

Table 2-3 Summary of the previous laboratory soil testing...... 6

Table 2-4 Potential Borrow Site Locations – available information...... 7 Table 2-5 Summary of additional desktop assessment completed by TasWater...... 8

Table 2-6 Preliminary borrow source assessment...... 9

Table 3-1 Test pit summary ...... 10 Table 3-2 Summary of the laboratory soil testing ...... 13

Table 4-1 Groundwater ...... 20

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | i Table 5-1 Estimated Borrow Area Material Volumes...... 25

Figure index

Figure 1 Potential Borrow Site Location Plan ...... 3

Figure 2 Atterberg Limits Chart...... 14 Figure 3 Particle Size Distribution – Borrow Area 1-A ...... 15

Figure 4 Particle Size Distribution – Borrow Area 1-C...... 16

Figure 5 Particle Size Distribution – Borrow Area 2-H and 2-I...... 17 Figure 6 Particle Size Distribution – Borrow Area 3-G...... 18

Appendices

Appendix A – Investigated Borrow Pit Investigation Plans

Appendix B – Borrow Pit Logs & Photographs Appendix C – Laboratory Test Certificates

Appendix D – Gradco Investigation Test Pit Logs and Laboratory Test Certificates

Appendix E – Borrow Pit Volume Estimate

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | ii 1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of this Report

TasWater has engaged GHD Pty Ltd (GHD) to investigate potential borrow sources to construct a clay liner at Swansea Dam.

The purpose of this report is to describe the investigations and estimate quantities of potential clay borrow sources that could be used for construction of the Swansea Dam upgrade. The earthworks materials required for the construction which have been investigated in this study comprise the following:

 Zone 1: Impermeable clay fill for use in the clay liner  Zone 1A: General fill used for foundation shaping across the site, to be suitable as a foundation for the liner

 Zone 1B: Liner capping fill to be placed over the liner to protect the liner from desiccation

1.2 Scope and Limitations

The scope of the borrow area investigation is as follows:

 Identification of potential borrow material locations.

 Preliminary qualitative assessment of the potential borrow material locations.

 Test pit investigation at select borrow areas.

 Laboratory testing of representative geotechnical samples.

 An assessment of the suitability of the materials encountered for use as clay liner

 An estimate volume of suitable material at the borrow site.

 An evaluation of the rehabilitation requirements for borrow area selection purposes. This report has been prepared by GHD for TasWater and may only be used and relied on by TasWater for the purpose agreed between GHD and the TasWater as set out in this report.

The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this report were limited to those specifically detailed in the report and are subject to the scope limitations set out in the report. The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on conditions encountered and information reviewed at the date of preparation of the report. GHD has no responsibility or obligation to update this report to account for events or changes occurring subsequent to the date that the report was prepared.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on assumptions made by GHD described in this report. GHD disclaims liability arising from any of the assumptions being incorrect.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on information obtained from, and testing undertaken at or in connection with, specific sample points. Site conditions at other parts of the site may be different from the site conditions found at the specific sample points.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 1 Investigations undertaken in respect of this report are constrained by the particular site conditions, such as the location of buildings, services and vegetation. As a result, not all relevant site features and conditions may have been identified in this report. Site conditions (including the presence of hazardous substances and/or site contamination) may change after the date of this Report. GHD does not accept responsibility arising from, or in connection with, any change to the site conditions. GHD is also not responsible for updating this report if the site conditions change.

GHD has prepared this report on the basis of information provided by TasWater and Gradco, which GHD has not independently verified or checked beyond the agreed scope of work. GHD does not accept liability in connection with such unverified information, including errors and omissions in the report which were caused by errors or omissions in that information.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 2 2. Desktop assessment of potential borrow sources

2.1 General

A preliminary desktop assessment of potential clay borrow sources was carried out at sites in close proximity to Swansea Dam. Refer to Figure 1 for a plan showing the potential borrow area locations reviewed. Sites 11 to 16 were identified and assessed by TasWater to supplement GHD’s desktop assessment and are shown in green text.

Figure 1 Potential Borrow Site Location Plan

2.2 Assessment Methodology

An assessment for each potential borrow source was made in regards to the following criteria:

 Proximity to dam site;

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 3  Likely quality / type of material as suitable for use as a clay liner (eg likely permeability, compactability, moisture content);

 Anticipated quantity;  Ease of permitting / environmental considerations (eg stakeholder issues / need to haul on public road / potential acid sulphate soil risk / landslide risk);

 Ease of rehabilitation; and  Certainty of the source based on known information and desktop information

For the qualitative comparison, each criteria was assigned a score based on the descriptors provided in Table 2-1. The score was subjectively assigned to each criteria, based on the information available on the source, as summarised in Table 2-4. Each criteria was given an even weighting. Table 2-1 Qualitative Scoring Methodology

Descriptor Score assigned

V. Good (VG) 10

Good (G) 5

Neutral (N) 0

Poor (P) -5

V. Poor (VP) -10

The criteria were all given equal weight and a total score was calculated by summing the score assigned to each criteria.

2.3 Available information

2.3.1 Surface Geology

The 1:250,000 surface geology map, available through DPIPWE’s online LISTmap services, indicates that the following units are found at the various potential borrow sites (from youngest to oldest):  Quaternary (Holocene) sediments – sand, gravel and mud of alluvial, lacustrine and littoral origin (Qh);

 Quaternary talus, vegetated and active (Qpt)

 Jurassic Dolerite (Jd).

 Tertiary ferricrete, silcrete laterite and derived lag deposits (Tf)  Tertiary lithic sandstone, siltstone and mudstone with some coal and basal quartz sandstone (TB)

 Devonian granite (Dga) Table 2-2 Summary of surface geology in vicinity of potential borrow sites

Borrow Site ID Geological units

1, 2, 3, 4, 11A, 11B, Qh, Jd

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 4 Borrow Site ID Geological units

5, 12A, 12B, 14 Jd

6, 7 Qh, Dga

13 Qh, Qpt, Jd, TB

15A Qh

15B, 15C, 15D Qh, Tf

2.3.2 Previous Reports

The following previous reports have been reviewed during the preparation of this report:  Geoton (2008). “GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed off stream storage reservoir, adjacent to Meredith River, Swansea” (Document No. GL080015Ab).

 GHD (2008). “Swansea Water Supply Upgrade, Geotechnical Investigation” (Document No. 32/14404/45225).

 GHD (2009). “Swansea Water Supply Dam, Preconstruction Report.” (Document No. 32/14404/45128).

 GHD (2017). “Swansea Dam Upgrade, Interpretive Geological Report - DRAFT.” (Document No: 3218505-33172)

In addition to the above reports, some additional test pit notes and photographs undertaken by Shaw Contracting in 2010 were reviewed and the findings included in the borrow area clay borrow assessment.

All previous test pit locations relevant to the study areas have been included on the site plans in Appendix A.

Laboratory testing undertaken on samples from the previous test pits nearby or within allocated borrow zones have been summarised in Table 2-3. Please note that a summary of test results were provided in the Geoton (2008) report, however the test certificates were not provided in that report.

2.3.1 Other information

As part of the review, existing nearby quarry licences were reviewed using information available on DPIPWE’s online LISTmap services.

A meeting with the new landowner of the adjacent private property, which was held on 1/8/2017 together with Patrick Marshall of TasWater, and the relevant information discussed has been included in the review. The findings from the desktop review are summarised in Table 2-4.

2.3.2 TasWater Desktop Assessment

TasWater completed an additional desktop assessment following the geotechnical investigation of the sites to supplement GHD’s desktop assessment. This assessment was undertaken following the completion of the geotechnical investigation, when there was a risk that there would be insufficient clay available at the sites investigated. The findings of this desktop review provided by TasWater are summarised in Table 2-5. Geotechnical investigations of these sites have not been carried out.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 5 Table 2-3 Summary of the previous laboratory soil testing

Test ID Depth (m) Relevant Soil MC (%) Emerson Plasticity (%) Linear PSD (%) SMDD OMC Permeability Borrow Area Symbol Class No. Shrinkage (%) (falling head) LL PI (%) Fines Sand Gravel t/m3 m/s TP1A 0.8-1.1 ID1-A CH 29.4 6 64 39 17 - - - 1.44 - 2.7 x 10-10 TP3A 0-1 ID1-D CH 21.6 6 69 43 18 ------TP4C 0.4-0.6 ID1-C CH 30.5 5 99 69 22 73 23 4 - - - TP5B/C 1.6-5.3 ID1-C GC 23.4 6 48 23 10 12 18 70 1.53 26 - TP5B 5.3-6.0 ID1-C CH 38.1 6 78 52 16 94 6 0 - - - TP29 B TP34B 0.8 ID1-C CH 26.3 - 94 68 5.6 81 18 1 - - - TP42B 0.3-1 ID1-B CH 12.9 - 59 33 13 65 34 1 1.39 29.0 - MC – Moisture Content; LL – Liquid Limit; PI – Plasticity Index; SMDD – Standard Maximum Dry Density; OMC – Optimum Moisture Content

A Geoton (2008)

B GHD (2008)

C GHD (2009)

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 6 Table 2-4 Potential Borrow Site Locations – available information Borrow ID Potential Borrow Area Location (haul Summary of Available Borrow Area Information distance to site) 1 Shaw Property – north-west boundary This is the preferred site for the landowner (S. Shaw) as it is situated on less agriculturally productive land than the alternative flat site (site No. 2) to the east of the hillside. (~0.1 km haul distance) There are a number of existing test pit logs available for this borrow area which indicate between 0 to 2.5 m thickness of clay is available. This provides a comparatively higher level of certainty in this borrow area. The Shaw Contracting 2010 test pit logs are rudimentary, and no test results are available, however the accompanying photographs of the test pits suggest a reasonable thickness of good quality clay. Table 2-3 summarises the previous laboratory testing relevant to this proposed borrow (obtained from Geoton 2008 & GHD 2008). This suggests that the shallow clays are of high plasticity It is understood that the landowner wishes to retain the depression created by the borrow area as a water storage which may negate the need for extensive rehabilitation. This may however require a thin clay liner to be placed or left insitu for water retention. ~100 m long access road required to site. No public roads will be impacted. Will require removal of several large trees. Initial desktop assessment suggests this will not prevent a permit being approved. Mapping of tree hollows likely to be required prior to tree removal. Borrow area extent should include buffer zone from Meredith river, and should avoid directly draining towards river. Sedimentation management will be required to avoid sediment runoff into river. Material extraction is likely to be subject to royalties from the landowner; these will need to be agreed between TasWater and the landowner before developing the borrow area. A quarry permit is likely to be required prior to development of the borrow source. 2 Shaw Property – South East corner of Open field (low environmental impact) with shallow slopes. property (2.5 km haul distance) Based on landowner knowledge there is likely to be clay in the area but there is low confidence in the quality and quantity available. There is marshy ground in area and therefore moisture content may be above optimum and materials would likely require drying to be performed prior to placement in the liner. It is understood that the landowner wishes to retain the depression created by the borrow area as a water storage which may negate the need for extensive rehabilitation. The proposed area has not been investigated previously which results in comparatively lower confidence in the quality and quantity of material available. Access to the site will require hauling via a public road (Maria Street) which may introduce additional stakeholder concerns. The site is situated in a large, open field which is likely to have a large quantity of clay available. However, the available quantity will depend on the footprint constraints imposed by the landowner. The site will require a 100-200 m long access road from the borrow location to Maria Street. The site is nearby to the adjacent landowner’s house and will therefore require additional stakeholder consultation. Material extraction is likely to be subject to royalties from the landowner; these will need to be agreed between TasWater and the landowner before developing the borrow area. A quarry permit is likely to be required prior to development of the borrow source. 3 Shaw Property – pond spoil mound It is understood that the landowner is willing to provide the spoil. (1.5 km haul distance) Only previously disturbed material would be used therefore limiting the environmental footprint of this option. There is no existing investigation/testing of material available. The material is suspected to be low plasticity and may be useful as a capping material rather than impermeable liner. Development of the site would require ~300 m access road to Maria St and haulage on via this public road with the potential to introduce stakeholder concerns. Royalties for the material is not confirmed, although the landowner indicated that removal of spoil heap would be beneficial, so they may be willing to provide the material at no cost. The site may not require a quarry permit as it is an existing stockpile. 4 North Borrow, Cranbrook (developed This borrow has been exhausted during the construction of Melrose Dam and is therefore not a viable option. for Melrose Dam – haul distance approximately 22 km) 5 Synotts Borrow, Cranbrook Undeveloped borrow area on private land that was a contingency for source for Tasmanian Irrigation’s Melrose Dam. (investigated for Melrose Dam – The quantity of available clay material is believed to be in the order of 15,000 m3 at maximum depths of up to 2 m below the current ground surface (Swan Valley Irrigation unused – 26 km) Scheme Synotts Clay Borrow: Environmental Effects Report, January 2016, available on Tasmanian EPA website) Materials are understood to be wet of optimum moisture content and may require drying operations prior to placement in the liner. Approval ‐from the permit holder (Tasmanian Irrigation) would be required prior to extraction from the borrow source. Extraction is also likely to be subject to royalties payable to the landowner, the amount would need to be negotiated between TasWater and the landowner. 6 P Whelan quarry (location unknown – There is a suite of testing available on single sample and the results appear good for use as low permeability fill. understood to be near Coles Bay No further information is available for the potential source as the landowner is uncontactable. approx. 50 km haul distance) 7 Wallaroo gravel quarry (approx. 50 km There is a suite of testing available on a single sample and the results appear good for use as low permeability fill. haul distance) The source is an existing commercial quarry but it may require changes to the existing quarry licence depending on the quantity to be extracted.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 7 Table 2-5 Summary of additional desktop assessment completed by TasWater

Site Number Exist New Road (km) Upgrade Road (km) Total Haulage (km) AHT Zoning Overlay Landowner Rating / Consider Road (km) 11A 0.9 1.5 4.3 6.7 Low Zone 26 – Rural Site is effectively covered by: L KEJING No Resource • Biodiversity Protection Area (121.BPA) • Heritage Area (121.HER) • Water Course Protection Area (121.WCP) 11B 0.9 1.5 4.3 6.7 Low Zone 26 – Rural Site is entirely covered under Biodiversity EMPEROR YUE No Resource Protection Area (121.BPA) GREEN AGRICULTURE 12A 4 0 1.9 5.9 Low Zone 26 – Rural Portion of site is covered under AC SHAW No Resource • Biodiversity Protection Area (121.BPA) • Water Course Protection Area (121.WCP) Some areas clear and available. 12B 4 0.4 0.9 5.3 Low Zone 26 – Rural Site is entirely covered under: GE BALCOMBE No Resource • Biodiversity Protection Area (121.BPA) • Heritage Area (121.HER) 13 9 2 0 11 Low Zone 27 – Significant Site largely clear of overlays. Only has: JJ COTTON Yes Agricultural • Water Course Protection Area (121.WCP) 14 6.4 0.5 0 6.9 None Zone 26 – Rural Site largely clear of overlays. Only has: NMF SHAW & A Yes Resource • Water Course Protection Area (121.WCP) SPURIO 15A 9 0.5 0 9.5 High Zone 27 – Significant Site largely clear of overlays. Only has: EMPEROR SHUN No Agricultural • Water Course Protection Area (121.WCP) AGRICULTURE • Scenic Landscape Corridor Buffer (121.SCT) WALNUTS AUSTRALIA PtyLtd 15B 12.5 0.5 0 13 None Zone 27 – Significant Site largely clear of overlays. Only has: MJ & CL GRAHAM Yes Agricultural • Water Course Protection Area (121.WCP) • Scenic Landscape Corridor Buffer (121.SCT) 15C 11.7 0.5 0 12.2 Low Zone 27 – Significant Site largely clear of overlays. Only has: AG GREENHILL Yes Agricultural • Water Course Protection Area (121.WCP) • Scenic Landscape Corridor Buffer (121.SCT) 15D 15 2 0 17 Low Zone 27 – Significant Northern half of Site is effectively covered by: CL & MJ GRAHAM No Agricultural • Heritage Area (121.HER) MR & KL • Water Course Protection Area (121.WCP) DUNBABIN Southern half of site has: • Water Course Protection Area (121.WCP) A Scenic Landscape Corridor Buffer (121.SCT) also passes through the site. 16 0.6 0 1.3 1.9 Low Zone 26 – Rural Site is entirely covered under: AC SHAW No Resource • Biodiversity Protection Area (121.BPA) • Heritage Area (121.HER)

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 8 2.4 Preliminary assessment & recommendations

The qualitative comparison between the different potential borrow sources is provided in Table 2-6, based on the information provided in Table 2-4. This preliminary comparison is based on the initial desktop assessment only and was used as a screening assessment to ascertain which sources warrant further investigation. Table 2-6 Preliminary borrow source assessment

Potential Haul Quality Quantity Ease of Ease of Certainty TOTAL Borrow Distance Permitting / Rehabilitation Pit / Access Environmental Location Considerations 1 VG (10) G (5) G (5) P (-5) N (0) G (5) 20 2 G (5) N (0) G (5) N (0) N (0) N (0) 10 3 G (5) N (0) P (-5) G (5) N (0) N (0) 5 4 - - - - - N/A – quarry exhausted 5 P (-5) P (-5) N (0) G (5) P (-5) VG (10) 0 6 VP (-10) N (0) P (-5) N (0) N (0) VP (-10) -25 7 VP (-10) N (0) P (-5) VG (10) G (5) N (0) 0

Based on the results of the qualitative assessment, the clay borrow sources within the landowner property adjacent to Swansea Dam (Borrow Sites 1, 2 and 3) received the highest scores. These sites were the focus of further intrusive investigations described in this report, to confirm if the assumed quality and quantities of material are available.

Borrow Site 1 was considered to be the most favourable site, based on the following factors:

 Very close access to site, with no need to use public roads.

 Existing test pits suggest good thickness of clay available.

A number of additional sites were investigated by TasWater, as listed in Table 2-5. These were identified following the preliminary borrow area assessment, to investigate whether there are any additional sites that could be investigated if there is deemed to be a shortfall in clay from the sites investigated. At this stage no further investigations of these sites are planned, however, Sites 13, 14, 15B and 15C are potential sites which could be investigated in the future if additional clay is required at the site.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 9 3. Test Pit Investigation

3.1 General

Based on the outcome of the desktop assessment, geotechnical test pit investigations were completed at Borrow Sites 1 “North-West Borrow”, 2 “South-East Borrow” and 3 “Spoil Mound”. The Borrow Sites have been divided into a number of smaller Borrow Areas (as shown in the Borrow Pit Location Plan presented in Appendix A). Site 1 was subdivided into 1A to 1F. However, after negotiations, the landowner of the adjacent property only permitted access to sites 1-A, 1C and 1E. Borrow Area 1C is jointly on TasWater property and the adjacent private property, while the others wholly on the private property. Borrow areas 2H and 2I are low lying areas on the adjacent private property identified as acceptable by the landowner. Borrow Area 3-G is a spoil mound from construction of the water treatment lagoons but is located wholly on the adjacent private property.

The geotechnical test pit investigation was carried out in September and October 2017, comprising of nineteen (19) test pits. The locations of the test site locations are shown in Appendix A.

Fieldwork was carried out under full time supervision of experienced engineers from GHD and in general accordance with AS 1726-2017 (Geotechnical Site Investigations) and standard GHD procedures.

Visual and tactile logging of recovered samples was undertaken in accordance with the GHD soil and rock logging procedure, which is in general accordance with Australian Standard (AS) 1726-2017 (Geotechnical Site Investigations).

The location of tests pits was surveyed with a hand held GPS with a reported accuracy of ±5 m.

Test pit logs and photographs are presented in Appendix B , and are preceded by explanatory notes summarising general nomenclature and symbols used. A summary of the test pit details is provided in Table 3-16. Table 3-1 Test pit summary

Test Coordinates (MGA 94, Depth Depth to Reason for Borrow Pit ID Zone 55) (m) Groundwater1 Termination Area ID Easting Northing BP1 587019 5335693 1.5 GNE Target depth 3-G BP2 587003 5335749 2.2 GNE Target depth 3-G BP3 586978 5335754 1.6 GNE Target depth 3-G BP4 587983 5336019 1.8 1.35 Target depth 2-I BP5 588071 5335993 1.4 0.9 Target depth 2-I BP6 588029 5335911 1.7 1.3 Target depth 2-H BP7 586316 5336406 0.1 GNE Refusal 1-E BP8 586556 5336427 3 GNE Target depth 1-A BP9 586567 5336370 2.5 GNE Target depth 1-A BP10 586438 5336415 1 GNE Refusal 1-E BP11 586414 5336453 1.05 GNE Refusal 1-E BP12 586390 5336388 1.6 GNE Refusal 1-E BP13 586494 5336423 0.9 GNE Refusal 1-A/1-E

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 10 Test Coordinates (MGA 94, Depth Depth to Reason for Borrow Pit ID Zone 55) (m) Groundwater1 Termination Area ID Easting Northing BP14 586745 5335899 1.75 GNE Refusal 1-C BP15 586692 5335977 1.75 1.35 Target depth 1-C BP16 586649 5336041 1.7 1.3 Target depth 1-C BP17 586621 5336113 1.5 1.3 Target depth 1-C BP18 586617 5335974 1.8 1.4 Target depth 1-C BP19 586595 5336046 1.6 1.4 Target depth 1-C

1 GNE – Groundwater Not Encountered

3.2 Laboratory Testing

A suite of geotechnical tests was performed on select soil samples from those collected during the test pit investigations. Geotechnical testing of selected samples was undertaken at ADG laboratories’ NATA registered laboratory in Mornington, TAS, to confirm field logging and to assess material properties. Certificates of the tests performed are contained in Appendix C.

The laboratory testing for this project included:  Particle Size Distribution

 Moisture Content

 Atterberg Limits

 Linear Shrinkage

 Emerson Class Number

 Standard Compaction Testing

 Hydrometer

 Organic Content

 Permeability testing (falling head)

Tabulated summaries of the laboratory soil test results are presented in Table 3-2.

A plot of the Atterberg Limits is presented in Figure 2.

Charts showing the grading results of the shallow clays and clayey gravels are presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively.

3.3 Gradco Screening Investigation

At the request of TasWater, Gradco undertook test pitting of Borrow Area 3-G (TP1 and TP2) and Borrow Area 1-C (TP3 and TP4). The primary aim of this investigation was to determine whether it would be possible to screen the material in Borrow Area 3-G to produce a source of clay fill.

The investigation included obtaining a bulk sample of stockpile material from Borrow Area 3-G, screening the bulk sample through a 19 mm screen, and testing the screened material and oversize material. The moisture content variance with depth was also assessed.

Gradco have supplied the test results to GHD for inclusion in this report for reference. GHD were not present to witness and validate the test pitting or sampling of the Gradco investigation. The locations of the Gradco Borrow Pits have not been confirmed.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 11 Test pit logs and laboratory test certificates for the Gradco investigation are presented in Appendix D

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 12 Table 3-2 Summary of the laboratory soil testing Test ID Depth (m) Relevant Soil Classification Soil MC (%) Emerson Plasticity (%) LS Hydrometer PSD (%) SMDD OMC Remoulded Borrow Symbol Class No. (%) (%) (%) Permeability Area (falling head) LL PI Clay Silt Fines Sand Gravel t/m3 m/s BP1 0.4-0.6 ID3-G Clayey GRAVEL with sand GC 24 - 60 32 12 - - 34 17 49 - - - BP4 0.4-0.6 ID2-I CLAY with sand trace gravel CH 37.1 4 73 51 18 - - 73 19 8 1.39 32.2 - BP4 0.8-1.0 ID2-I Clayey GRAVEL trace sand GC 24.8 4 71 48 17 - - 19 9 72 - - - BP5 0.3-0.5 ID2-I CLAY with sand trace gravel CH 42.7 4 82 60 18 - - 76 19 5 1.42 30.7 - BP5 0.6-0.9 ID2-I CLAY with sand trace gravel CH 39.8 4 71 46 9 - - 71 27 2 - - - BP6 0.3-0.6 ID2-H CLAY trace sand CH 52.8 4 109 81 24 - - 93 7 0 - - - BP08 0.5-1.0 ID1-A CLAY with sand trace gravel CH 37.2 4 86 60 17 - - 86 13 1 1.38 32 - BP08 1.5-2 m ID1-A Sandy SILT with gravel MH 20.1 4 59 23 12 - - 44 35 21 1.45 28.4 - BP09 1-1.4 m ID1-A Gravelly SILT with sand MH 22 4 64 31 17 32 22 54 20 26 N/A N/A - BP13 0.3-0.9 ID1-A/E GRAVEL with silt trace sand GP-GM 6 4 36 8 9 - - 8 14 78 1.93 9 - BP14 0.7-1.3 ID1-C Sandy CLAY CI 31.1 4 42 18 11 21 28 49 49 2 1.48 28.6 - BP15 0.4-0.7 ID1-C CLAY trace sand CH 40.7 4 69 37 17 66 19 85 15 0 1.34 35.7 5.91E-10 BP15 0.8-1.35 ID1-C Sandy SILT SM 19.5 4 36 5 9 - - 45 50 5 1.46 29.6 - BP15 1.35-1.7 ID1-C Clayey sandy GRAVEL GC 32.8 6 51 22 11 7 8 15 38 47 1.93 16.3 1.48E-9 BP16 0.5-1.0 ID1-C Sandy GRAVEL with silt GM 17.3 6 37 5 8 - - 12 33 55 2.02 12.7 1.92E-9 BP17 0.5-1.0 ID1-C CLAY with sand CH 41.8 4 57 29 13 - - 74 25 1 N/A N/A - Gradco Screening Trial TP1 3.5 ID3-G - - 12.5 ------TP1 4.5 ID3-G - - 13.3 ------TP2 1.8 ID3-G - - 10.7 ------TP01 &TP02 combined mix ID3-G - - 18.5 ------14 14 72 - - - Screen Sample ID3-G Sandy CLAY with gravel CH 17.6 5 52 26 10.5 16 17 33 39 28 1.71 20.8 4.1E-10 Oversize Screen Sample ID3-G - - 5.2 ------5 3 92 - - - “TP2 Representative” ID3-G - - 12.3 ------TP3 3.0 ID1-C ------TP4 1.2 ID1-C Sandy CLAY CH 35.0 5 60 35 11.5 - - 58 41 - - - TP4 2.2-2.3 ID1-C Sandy CLAY CI 31.6 5 49 23 10 - - 36 61 3 - -

MC – Moisture Content; LL – Liquid Limit; PI – Plasticity Index; LS – linear Shrinkage, SMDD – Standard Maximum Dry Density; OMC – Optimum Moisture Content

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 13 Figure 2 Atterberg Limits Chart

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 14 Figure 3 Particle Size Distribution – Borrow Area 1-A

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 15 Figure 4 Particle Size Distribution – Borrow Area 1-C

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 16 Figure 5 Particle Size Distribution – Borrow Area 2-H and 2-I

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 17 Figure 6 Particle Size Distribution – Borrow Area 3-G

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 18 4. Site Conditions

4.1 Subsurface Conditions

Based on the findings from the test pit investigations the subsurface conditions encountered across the site can be generalised as follows:

4.1.1 Borrow Site 1 - North-West Potential Borrow

Borrow Area 1-A:

TOPSOIL: Typically Sandy SILT/Silty SAND

Occasionally Overlying CLAY (CH): High plasticity clay typically containing minor sand. Moisture contents varied but were generally near to the plastic limit. Inferred alluvial (Holocene) origin. These are inferred to be the same as the “Low Permeability Holocene” unit in the Geological Interpretive report (GHD 2017).

Overlying WEATHERED DOLERITE (XW), extremely low to high strength; XW, typically weathered to high plasticity sandy/gravelly SILT. This is inferred to the XW Dolerite unit in the Geological Interpretive Report (GHD 2017).

Borrow Area 1-C:

TOPSOIL: Typically Sandy CLAY

Typically Overlying CLAY (CH): High plasticity clay typically containing minor sand. Moisture contents varied and were above the plastic limit. Inferred alluvial (Holocene) origin. These are inferred to be the same as the “Low Permeability Holocene” unit in the Geological Interpretive report (GHD 2017).

Occasionally Overlying

Sandy SILT/CLAY: Intermediate to low plasticity sandy SILT/CLAY. Fines are low to intermediate plasticity. Inferred alluvial (Holocene) origin. These are inferred to be the form part of the “High Permeability Holocene” unit in the Geological Interpretive report (GHD 2017).

Overlying Clayey GRAVEL: Typically coarse grained material with variable grading from sand to cobble size. Typically increasingly coarse with depth. Fines are intermediate to high plasticity. Inferred alluvial (Holocene) origin. These are inferred to be the same as the “High Permeability Holocene” unit in the Geological Interpretive report (GHD 2017).

4.1.2 ID 2 -South-East Potential Borrow Site

TOPSOIL: Typically CLAY/SILT with varying content of gravel and cobbles

Occasionally Overlying

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 19 CLAY (CH): High plasticity clay typically containing minor cobbles. Moisture contents exceeds the plastic limit. Inferred alluvial origin. These are inferred to be the same as the “Low Permeability Holocene” unit in the Geological Interpretive report (GHD 2017).

Overlying

Clayey SAND/Clayey GRAVEL/Gravelly CLAY with cobbles gravel and cobbles are dolerite origin, coarse grained material has variable grading, fines are high plasticity. Variable moisture content, exceeding the plastic limit. These are inferred to be the same as the “High Permeability Holocene” unit in the Geological Interpretive report (GHD 2017).

4.1.3 ID 3 -Spoil Mound Potential Borrow Site

FILL: Sandy SILT (topsoil)

Overlying FILL: Clayey GRAVEL. Dolerite cobbles and gravels. Very similar condition in all test pits. Moisture less than plastic limit of fines.

The Spoil Mound fill is spoil derived from the excavation of the adjacent water treatment ponds, and is inferred to comprise re-worked “High Permeability Holocene” unit as described in the Geological Interpretive report (GHD 2017).

Detailed descriptions of the subsurface materials and conditions encountered during the test pit investigations are recorded in the test pit logs attached as Appendix B of this report.

4.2 Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered in the following test pits at the specified depths during the investigation: Table 4-1 Groundwater

Test Pit Borrow Area ID Depth Encountered (m) Comment BP1 ID 3-G Groundwater not encountered BP4 ID 2-I 1.35 Rapid inflow at 1.6 m BP5 ID 2-I 0.9 Minor inflow BP6 ID 2-H 1.3 Minor inflow BP15 ID 1-C 1.35 Moderate inflow BP16 ID 1-C 1.3 Moderate inflow BP17 ID 1-C 0-0.3, 1.3 Rapid inflow at surface, moderate inflow from 1.3 m BP18 ID 1-C 1.4 Moderate inflow BP19 ID 1-C 1.4 Moderate inflow

Historical test pits were excavated prior to the construction of the dam, and are therefore not considered to be representative of current groundwater conditions.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 20 5. Clay resource quality and quantity assessment

5.1 Material resource quality

5.1.1 Zone 1 (Clay fill) Requirements

The preferred material requirements for the Zone 1 (clay lining) materials are as follows:

 PI>15%  LL<75% (this is a common limit to ensure workability of the clay material but can be removed if trials demonstrate the material can be placed and compacted).

 Fines content >20% (Ideally significantly higher but may allow use of some marginal material in one layer of the liner if required)  Moisture content: -1% OMC to +3% OMC (wetter material may be acceptable if it can be adequately compacted)

 USC classifications – GC, SC, CL, CI or CH  Low linear shrinkage and non-dispersive clay will be preferred.

 Maximum particle size 75 mm.

 Remoulded permeability < 1 x 10-9 m/s The estimated volume of clay required for construction of the lining is in the order of 40,000 m3.

5.1.2 Zone 1A (General Fill) requirements

The anticipated material requirements of the Zone 1A materials are as follows:

 At least 80% passing a 37.5 mm sieve; and

 At least 10% passing an 0.075 sieve; and

 The largest rock size will be that which can be adequately incorporated in a lift, assumed to be 200 mm for a 300 mm lift.

5.1.3 Zone 1B (Liner capping Fill) requirements

The anticipated material requirements of the Zone 1B materials are as follows:

 No unsuitable soils, such as organic or contaminated soils

 Sufficient fines content to allow the material to act as a moisture barrier  No particles larger than two thirds of the height of the lift

5.2 Quality of available materials

Low Permeability Holocene Low Permeability Holocene clays have been identified at sites I1(A ,B, C) and 2(H, I), and are inferred to be present at sites 1-D to 1-F . This unit has been classified as high plasticity clay (CH).

The test results indicate that the Low Permeability Holocene clays pass all the test criteria, with the exception of maximum Liquid Limit, with several of the tested samples having a liquid limit

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 21 >75%. The test results indicate that these clays will achieve the required permeability if properly moisture conditioned and compacted. The moisture content of samples taken from borrow site 2 indicate the samples are 5-10% wet of optimum and are likely to need to be dried out prior to placement to bring them to the specified moisture range. As the test pitting locations at borrow site 2 were restricted to low lying areas, it is possible that the moisture condition would be lower in higher relief areas if they become available within borrow site 2.

Moisture content test results for the samples from borrow site 1 are typically 3-5% wet of optimum and may require some minor drying back to achieve adequate compaction. For the clay quantity estimates, it has been assumed that all materials inferred to be Low Permeability Holocene clays are appropriate for use as Clay fill, irrespective of insitu moisture content. Laboratory testing indicates that these clays are potentially dispersive to non-dispersive (Emerson Class 4 and 6).

Based on the properties of the Low Permeability Holocene clays tested to date, the following issues for construction and long-term performance will need to be considered in the design:  Difficulty in compaction if the materials if the materials are wet of optimum.

 Additional effort and time required to moisture condition the clays (due to very low permeability, high liquid limit and high moisture content).

 Roller trials could be used to allow a relaxation of compaction and moisture content (wet of optimum) requirements.

 Propensity to desiccate and crack if allowed to dry (linear shrinkage as high as 18% has been measured).

 Low fully-softened and residual shear strength.

The Low Permeability Holocene unit was not encountered in BP16 in Borrow 1-C and may indicate a localised area of unsuitable material.

High Permeability Holocene – Sandy CLAY/Clayey SAND High Permeability Holocene sandy CLAY/Clayey SAND were identified in BP14, BP15 and BP18, and is inferred to be present in the southern portion of Borrow Area 1C. Only 2 samples of this material were obtained in the investigation.

The results of the Particle Size Distribution testing to date suggest a fines content in the range of 45% to 49%, which is suitable for Zone 1. The Liquid Limit range is 36-42, which is suitable for Zone 1 material. The Plasticity Index range is 5-18, which straddles the minimum specified limits. Based on visual and tactile assessment, it is expected that this material would meet the requirements of Zone 1. Based on visual assessment and tactile assessment of the unit, the PI value of 5 assigned to BP15 @ 0.8-1.35 appears to be lower than would be expected, and is not considered to be representative for the material. Where the material is located beneath the groundwater table, it is likely to require considerable drying to achieve the specified moisture.

High Permeability Holocene – Clayey Gravels High Permeability Holocene clayey gravels were observed at Borrow site 1 (A, B, C) and Borrow site 2, and are inferred to be present at sites 1-D to 1-F.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 22 The results of the Particle Size Distribution testing suggest a fines content in the range of 12% to 34%, straddling the minimum fines content typically required of clay fill (20%). The maximum particle size is typically less than 100 mm, however the test pit logs suggest that the maximum particle size of the cobbles are typically in the 150 mm to 180 mm range. It is expected that the largest particles observed were not sampled. This would exceed the maximum allowable particle size of 75 mm for clay fill, which is required for the soils to achieve a high level of compaction. The test pit logs indicate that there are discrete zones in the unit where cobbles are not present, where the maximum particle size is approximately 50 mm, which may have suitable grading and plasticity for use as Zone 1. Laboratory testing indicates that the fines are of high plasticity, in some instances exceeding the maximum Liquid Limit typically recommended for clay fill. Groundwater was typically observed between 1.3 to 1.4 m below the surface level and encountered within this unit. When test pits were excavated below the groundwater table, moderate inflows on the sides of the test pits in this unit were typically observed indicating that this unit has a relatively high permeability in its in-situ condition. Seepage was typically observed to be more concentrated at the top of the clayey gravel layer.

Based on the results of the screening trial conducted by Gradco, it is likely that it will be possible to screen this material to obtain a material suitable for clay fill, however significant drying of this material is likely to be required to enable the screening process.

Residual Dolerite Residual dolerite soils were observed at borrow areas 1-A and 1-E. The weathered rock can be classified as high plasticity Sandy/Gravelly SILT. The testing suggests that the material is approximately 8% dry of optimum. Depending on compaction requirements, it is likely that this material would need to be wetted to provide the required moisture content.

Soils classified as silts are not typically permitted to be used for impermeable fill. It is expected that the residual dolerite soils will not achieve the low permeability required for use as a clay fill. These materials would be useful as Zone 1A or 1B fill, but are not considered suitable for Zone 1 clay.

Spoil mound (Fill) The spoil mound, defined as borrow area 3-G, appears to have very similar properties to the High Permeability Holocene materials and is inferred to be re-worked material of that origin. The material in the spoil mound was observed to be dry in its current condition and is considered to be appropriate as Zone 1B in its current form.

The Gradco screening trial demonstrated that material suitable as Zone 1 could be produced by running the spoil mound fill over a 19 mm screen. The fines content and plasticity of the fine screened fraction were appropriate for use as Zone 1. The screening investigation suggested that screening of the fill would result in approximately 50% Zone 1 and 50% oversize (by weight). The oversize material would be suitable for use as Zone 1B. The moisture content of the screened material was approximately 3% dry of the Optimum Moisture Content, and likely to require some wetting to bring the material to the specified moisture content.

The moisture content results from the Gradco investigation indicated that there is increasing moisture content with depth within the spoil mound. There appears to be a discrepancy between the moisture content obtained in the samples from BP1, from the screened sample, and from TP1 and TP2. Visual and tactile assessment of the spoil mound fill suggest that the material is dry of the plastic limit.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 23 There is potentially additional natural clay materials suitable for Zone 1 that would be available for borrow beneath the spoil. This was not investigated, or included in the volume estimate.

5.3 Quantity Assessment

A quantity assessment has be undertaken for the designated borrow sites 1 to 3, as shown on the site plan within Appendix A. At the request of TasWater, borrow site 1 was subdivided into a series of zones (A to F) as shown on the appended plan. The available borrow area footprints used for calculation of clay quantities within borrow 1 to 3 have been reduced to suit the site conditions and landowner requirements. The main borrow area reductions are summarised below:

 Site 1 – A & E borrow area footprints were reduced to reflect the mapped dolerite outcrop.  Site 2 – This borrow area was limited to two small, low-lying areas due to landowner requirements (identified as zones I and H on the plan).  Site 3 – This borrow area is a stockpile only and as such, the footprint is reduced to the extent of the stockpile (nominally zone G).

Using the available subsurface information, estimates of material volumes were made using the average thickness of materials observed in test pits within each borrow zone, multiplied by the surface area of the borrow area. This is clearly an approximation based on limited data and the quantity estimates should be viewed as indicative only. The borrow summary and volume calculations are presented in full in Appendix E, while a summary of the volumes are presented in Table 5-1.

The only exception to this methodology was calculating the volume for Borrow site 3G, as the borrow is an existing above ground stockpile. Test pitting revealed that the stockpile consisted of topsoil overlying materials considered suitable for liner capping. The total volume of the stockpile was calculated and the volume of topsoil (calculated as above) was subtracted to determine the volume of capping fill.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 24 Table 5-1 Estimated Borrow Area Material Volumes

Borrow Location Topsoil Zone 1 Zone 1A Zone 1B Comments ID - Vol.(m3) Volume Volume (m3) Volume (m3) Zone (m3)

1 - A North- 2,000 2,800 7,400 1,300 Difficult borrow site East due to variable Borrow depth of clay available and dolerite weathering. 1 – B North- 6,400 31,000 19,000 Shaw test pits East indicate a thicker Borrow deposit of clay towards the Meredith River. No clay within TP40. No GHD TPs. Very uncertain estimate. 1 – C North- 10,500 27,300 36,400 Groundwater East encountered at 1.3 Borrow m depth. This is not taken into consideration in determining Zone 1B volume. 1 – D North- 6,700 17,500 23,400 No test pits allowed East in area – Based on Borrow Zone C material thicknesses 1 – E North- 3,700 500 6,200 Very little clay East available. Not Borrow considered suitable as borrow site. 1 – F North- 2,800 7,400 9,900 No test pits allowed East in area – Based on Borrow Zone C material thicknesses 2 – I & South- 3,500 4,500 13,300 Borrow limited to H East low-lying areas Borrow only. Insitu MC greater than OMC 3 - G Spoil 4,700 13,000 13,000 Based on 26,000 Mound m3 of fill with screening, with 50% produced by screening. TOTAL 40,000 76,000 14,000 116,000 Indicative estimate only

TOTAL (BORROW 17,000 43,000 7,000 51,000 Indicative estimate AREA 1A, 1C and only 3G only)

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 25 6. Recommendations

6.1 Suitability of investigated borrow areas

Borrow 1-A This site has variable thickness of “low permeability alluvial” clay and extremely weathered borrow material available. The variability of clay available at this site may make the site difficult to work, however this area is considered a viable borrow source for Zone 1 and Zone 1A materials. It is recommended that this borrow is only established as a backup if Borrow Area 1-C is found to have an insufficient volume of Zone 1 available.

Borrow 1-B Test pitting at this site was not permitted by the owner of Lot 2, however the available historical test pit photos and descriptions suggest that there is a significant depth of clay towards the northern extent of the area, but shallow to no clay to the south of the area. If this parcel is made available to borrow, it is recommended that this area is further investigated to improve confidence in the quality and volume of clay in this area that has been assumed in this assessment.

Borrow 1-C Borrow 1-C typically contains an average 0.5 m thick layer of Low Permeability Holocene clay which has been assessed as appropriate for use as Zone 1. The material is very high plasticity and expected to be wet of the moisture content limits typically specified for Zone 1 materials. Since the material is being used as a liner rather than an embankment, a relaxation of the specified maximum moisture content may be appropriate for this application.

The underlying High Permeability Holocene unit is divided into sandy CLAY/clayey SAND and clayey COBBLE zones. The former is assessed to be suitable for use as Zone 1, while the latter is expected to be unsuitable due to typically exceeding the maximum particle size. Below the groundwater table (approximately 1.3-1.4 m below surface level), the high permeability Holocene material is expected to require drying back. The majority of the high permeability Holocene material is assessed to only be appropriate for capping material.

It is anticipated that extending the borrow floor below the groundwater table will result in considerable inflows into the invert of the borrow. It is therefore recommended that borrow excavation be kept above the groundwater table if practical.

Borrow 1-D and 1-F Test pitting was not permitted at areas 1-D and 1-F, however there is limited historical investigation information nearby to suggest that the conditions will be similar to site 1-C. If these parcels are made available to borrow, it is recommended that this area be further investigated to improve confidence in the quality and volume of the clay in this area.

Borrow 1-E Outcropping dolerite was observed across most of this area. A limited depth of clay was encountered in a single pit. Developing a clay borrow in this area is not recommended.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 26 Borrow 2 (I and H) Approximately 4,500 m3 of high plasticity clay was estimated to be available in the allowable areas identified by the landowner. The clays are significantly wetter than optimum and will require drying back to meet the specified moisture content. Given the small volume of clay estimated to be available, the need to establish a remote borrow, it is recommended that this site is not established as a clay borrow. The areas currently permitted by the landowner are low lying, and are possibly wetter than the surrounding land with higher relief. If a larger footprint of land is made available by the landowner, then this is likely to improve the viability of this area as a clay source. It is noted that if this borrow is developed, the proximity of neighbouring properties, and traffic impacts of using public roads to deliver the borrow materials will need to be considered.

Borrow 3-G The spoil mound is considered to be a good borrow source of zone 1B fill, which will be easy to operate and rehabilitate. Screening of the spoil mound has been demonstrated to achieve approximately a 50/50 split of complying Zone 1 and Zone 1B material.

6.2 Alternative borrow sites

Site 5 (Synotts Borrow) This site has a known quantity of clay of approximately 15,000 m3. Permits for use of this site have already been prepared by Tasmanian Irrigation, which would allow the borrow to be accessed immediately. Approximately 3 km of access road would be required to access the property. Existing investigations indicate that the material is wet of optimum, and has a high plasticity, which would have similar construction issues as those discussed for the low permeability Holocene material found in Borrow Area 1-A and 1-C.

The cost of developing the site and haulage makes the site unfavourable. This site can be developed quickly, if there are delays in the program in obtaining a borrow permit for the sites adjacent to the dam.

TasWater desktop investigation sites If additional Zone 1 fill is required at the site in the future, TasWater have identified the following sites which could be investigated:

 Site 13 – J.J. Cotton Property

 Site 14 – NMF Shaw & A Spurio Property

 Site 15B – MJ & CL Graham Property  Site 15C – AG Greenhill Property

These sites are all located within 15 km of the dam. Given the timeframe required to obtain permits, these are not feasible within the overall timeframe available to complete the Swansea Dam upgrade project and further investigation of these sites for the current project have not been undertaken at this stage.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 27 6.3 Potential rehabilitation requirements

The landowner of Lot 2 has requested that where possible, the borrow pits be retained as water storage ponds. The ponds should be left entirely below the natural ground level, with no embankments retaining water above natural ground level to avoid the need for a dams permit. If “High Permeability Holocene” materials are exposed in the floor of the borrow to be used as water storage, these will need a lining in order reduce seepage losses. It is recommended that a compacted layer of reworked clayey gravels or clayey sands are reworked and compacted to create the liner. Given the low head and zero consequences of failure of the pond, stringent Zone 1 material and compaction requirements would not apply to this material.

The final slopes of the borrow should flattened back to a maximum of 3H:1V or preferably flatter. An opportunity exists to dispose of uncontaminated stripped material from the Swansea Dam upgrade works to backfill portions of the borrow prior to topsoiling.

Topsoil is to be selectively stripped and stockpiled. At completion of the borrow works, the topsoil to be is spread and seeded across all surfaces that have been disturbed by the borrow works. If there is a shortage of topsoil, there may be an opportunity to not topsoil areas which have been designated as water storages. Furthermore it is recommended to limit borrow excavation to above the groundwater table as compaction of a clay liner will likely be problematic. It is noted that the ground water tables have been raised significantly by the leakage from the dam when compared against the preconstruction ground water levels. As part of the preparation works after the dam has been emptied for the liner repairs, it is recommended that drainage trenches be dug to reduce ground water levels in the borrow areas downstream of the dam. Upon completion of borrowing from the spoil mound, the final profile should be shaped to allow drainage, and the surfaces re-capped with topsoil and grassed.

6.4 Summary of Available Borrow Materials

Currently the landowner has indicated that site 1-A and 1-C are acceptable for development as a borrow (it is noted that site 1-C is partly on TasWater land). The combination of Borrow Areas 1-C and 3-G are estimated to produce approximately 40,000 m3 of Zone 1, the amount of clay required for the construction of the liner. Draining the reservoir may result in a lower groundwater table downstream, which may increase the volume of available Zone 1 material from the high permeability Holocene unit.

Borrow Area 1-A is estimate to provide an additional 3,000 m3 of Zone 1 if there is a shortfall form Borrow Areas 1-C and 3-G.

If the landowner grants access to site 1-D and 1-F then an additional net clay volume of 10,000 – 15,000 m3 will be available. While considered unlikely, if the landowner grants access to site 1-B, an additional 15,000 – 30,000m3 may be available.

The remaining borrow sites are not considered suitable for development as clay borrow sources. Adequate quantities of Zone 1A and Zone 1B have been identified within sites 1-A, 1-C and 3- G.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 | 28 Appendices

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 Appendix A – Investigated Borrow Pit Investigation Plans

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 586,000 586,500 587,000 587,500 588,000 588,500

D" GHD 2008 Test Pit

D" Geoton 2008 Test Pits

D" Shaws 2010 Test Pits

!( Dolerite Outcrop

TP48 D" D" GHD Borrow Pits 2017 TP47 D" *# TP46 Ground very marshy 0 D" 0 0 0 5 5

, TP45 , 6 6

3 D" 3 3 !( 3 , !(!( !( , 5 !(!(!(!( !( ") 5 !( !(!( BP11 Groundwater ponding at surface D" !(!( TP44 !( !( BP!(13 TP4 D" !( !( !( BP10 BP07 D" D"TP5 D" TP2 TP43 !( D"D" TP3 TP1 D" BP12 D" D" D" E D" D" TP42 Lot 2 property boundary !( D" A BP09 D" D" !( !( B TP41 Borrow ID (Extent of NOI) TP16 D" D" TP10 TP11 D" D" TP9 TP40 D" TP1 D" 1 TP8 TP20 TP8 TP15D" D" D"D" TPD1"2 TP7 TP24 TP5 D" TP39 D" TP7 TP21 D" D" 2 TP13 TPD7" TP8 D"D" D" TP28 D" TP14 D" D" TP2 D" TP29 D" TP9 D" D" TP27 BP17 3 TP22 D" D" D" TP23 D Lot 2 TP25 TP26 TP6 ")*# D" D" D" D" Borrow Zones BP19 BP16 TP3D" TP30 D" D" D" BP04 0 TP5 0 0 D" 0 0 0 , TP6 BP05 Allocated borrow zones ,

6 D" 6 3 D" 3 3 C BP15 D" 3 , BP18 , 5 TP4 D" D" I 5 D"TP34 Borrow Area TP2 TP4 D"Lot 1 TP31 BP06 D" D" BP14 TP1 D" D" 2 D" TP32 D" TPD"3 H A - 6314 m D" F B - 21360 m2 TP33 D" BP03 2 D" D" BP02 C - 40930 m TP36 D" BP01 GD" 2 TP35 D - 26310 m D"

E - 11340 m2

TP37 D" F - 11120 m2 0 0 0 0 5 5 , , 5 5 3 3 3 3 , , 5 G - 14010 m2 5

2 TP38 H - 3840 m D"

I - 8430 m2

the LIST © State of Tasmania 586,000 586,500 587,000 587,500 588,000 588,500

TasWater Job Number 32-18505 Paper Size A3 Revision H 0 50 100 200 300 Swansea Dam Upgrade Date 09 Feb 2018 Metres

Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994 o Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55 Borrow Area Locations Appendix A1 G:\32\18505\GIS\Maps\Working\3218505_004_BorrowLocs_RevH1.mxd 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7000 Australia T 61 3 6210 0600 F 61 3 6210 0601 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com © 2018. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and other data custodians) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data source: DPIPWE, Imagery, 2017; GHD Proposed Borrow Locations, 2017, test pits, outcrops, observations, 2008-2017. Created by: wmcadam, updated by: wmcadam 586,000 586,500 587,000 587,500

TP46 D" GHD 2008 Test Pit D" 0 0 0 0 5 5 , TP45 , 6 6 3 3

3 D" 3 , ,

5 !( 5 !( !( !( D" !( !( !( !( !( Geoton 2008 Test Pits !(!( BP11 !( D" TP44 !(!( D" !( !( !( D" Shaws 2010 Test Pits !( BP08 TP4 !( !( TP6 BP13 D" D" D" D" !( BP07 D" BP10 TP5 TP2 TP43 D" E D" TP3 TP1 D" D" !( BP12 A D" D" Dolerite Outcrop D" TP42 !( BP09 D" D" D" !( GHD Borrow Pits 2017 !( B

TP41 D" *# Ground very marshy TP16 D" TP10 TP11 D" D" ") TP9 TP40 Groundwater ponding at surface D" D" TP1 TP8 TP20 TPD"8 TP15 D" D" D" Lot 2 property boundary D" TP12 TP7 D" TP24 TP5 Borrow ID (Extent of NOI) D" D" D" TP39 TP7 TP21 D" D" D" TP13 D" TP28 TP7 1 TP8 D" D" D" TP14 TP2 D" D" TP29 3 TP9 D" D" TP27 BP17 TP22 D" D" D" D Borrow Zones Lot 2 TP23 ") *# D" TP25 TP26 TP6 D" D" D" Allocated borrow zones BP19 TP3 D" BP16 D" TP30 Borrow Area D" D" TP5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 , TP6 D" A - 6314 m , 6 6

3 C 3 3 3

, D" , 5 5 BP18 BP15 D" TP4 D" 2 D" B - 21360 m TP34 D" 2 TP2 Lot 1 C - 40930 m D" TP4 D" TP31 D" BP14 TP1 D" 2 D" TP32 D - 26310 m TP3 D" F D" E - 11340 m2

F - 11120 m2

TP33 D" G - 14010 m2 BP03 BP02 D" D G"

TP36 D" the LIST © State of Tasmania 586,000 586,500 587,000 D" 587,500

TasWater Job Number 32-18505 Paper Size A3 Revision H 0 50 100 200 Swansea Dam Upgrade Date 09 Feb 2018 Metres

Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994 o Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55 Borrow Area Locations Appendix A2 G:\32\18505\GIS\Maps\Working\3218505_004_BorrowLocs_RevH2.mxd 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7000 Australia T 61 3 6210 0600 F 61 3 6210 0601 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com © 2018. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and other data custodians) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data source: DPIPWE, Imagery, 2017; GHD Proposed Borrow Locations, 2017, test pits, outcrops, observations, 2008-2017. Created by: wmcadam, updated by: wmcadam Appendix B – Borrow Pit Logs & Photographs

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 TESTPIT/EXCAVATION LOG SHEET Client : TasWater Project : Swansea Dam Upgrade LOCATION No. BP01 Location : Swansea Dam - Spoil Mound (ID 3) SHEET 1 OF 1

Position : 587019.0 E, 5335693.0 N MGA94 Surface RL : N.R Pit Width : 1.3 Processed : AO Contractor : WALLAROO (Kim) Machine : 25t Excavator Pit Length : 4 Checked : ML

Date : 12 Sep 17 Logged by : SL Date : 15 Feb 18 EXCA MATERIAL ADDITIONAL DATA

Description Soil Name (USC Symbol) Comments/Observations Other Minor Components, Plasticity or Insitu test results Particle Characteristics, Colour, Moisture Condition, Consistency, Scale (m) Water Depth / (RL) metres Graphic Log SCALE (m) Structure Group Symbol Moisture Condition Consistency / Relative Density Samples & Tests FILL: Sandy SILT, dark brown, rootlets ML- D Topsoil MH

0.40 Clayey COBBLES with sand, gravel, brown, GC D- cobbles are SW-FR dolerite, round to M D D (0.5 - 1.0m) subrounded, up to ~150mm, gravel is fine to coarse, clay is high plasticity

1 1

1.50 Test pit terminated at 1.5m (target depth) and backfilled with spoil. Groundwater not encountered.

2 2 GNE

3 3

4 4

5 5 See standard sheets for GHD Pty Ltd Job No. 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7001, Hobart details of abbreviations T: 61 3 62100 600 F: 61 3 62100601 3218505 & basis of descriptions CLIENTS | PEOPLE | PERFORMANCE TESTPIT/EXCAVATION LOG SHEET Client : TasWater Project : Swansea Dam Upgrade LOCATION No. BP02 Location : Swansea Dam - Spoil Mound (ID 3) SHEET 1 OF 1

Position : 587003.0 E, 5335749.0 N MGA94 Surface RL : N.R Pit Width : 1.3 Processed : AO Contractor : WALLAROO (Kim) Machine : 25t Excavator Pit Length : 5 Checked : ML

Date : 12 Sep 17 Logged by : SL Date : 15 Feb 18 EXCA MATERIAL ADDITIONAL DATA

0.30 FILL: Clayey COBBLES with sand, gravel & GC D- clay, brown, cobbles are SW-FR dolerite, M round to subrounded, up to ~150mm, gravel is fine to coarse, fines are high plasticity D D (0.5 - 1.0m)

1 1

2 2

2.20 Test pit terminated at 2.2m (target depth) and backfilled with spoil. Groundwater not encountered. GNE

3 3

4 4

5 5 See standard sheets for GHD Pty Ltd Job No. 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7001, Hobart details of abbreviations T: 61 3 62100 600 F: 61 3 62100601 3218505 & basis of descriptions CLIENTS | PEOPLE | PERFORMANCE TESTPIT/EXCAVATION LOG SHEET Client : TasWater Project : Swansea Dam Upgrade LOCATION No. BP03 Location : Swansea Dam - Spoil Mound (ID 3) SHEET 1 OF 1

Position : 586978.0 E, 5335754.0 N MGA94 Surface RL : N.R Pit Width : 1.3 Processed : AO Contractor : WALLAROO (Kim) Machine : 25t Excavator Pit Length : 4 Checked : ML

Date : 12 Sep 17 Logged by : SL Date : 15 Feb 18 EXCA MATERIAL ADDITIONAL DATA

0.30 FILL: Clayey COBBLES with sand and gravel, GC D- brown, cobbles are SW-FR dolerite, round to M subrounded, up to ~150mm, gravel is fine to coarse, fines are high plasticity D D (0.5 - 1.0m)

1 1

1.60 Test pit terminated at 1.6m (target depth) and backfilled with spoil. Groundwater not encountered.

2 2 GNE

3 3

4 4

5 5 See standard sheets for GHD Pty Ltd Job No. 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7001, Hobart details of abbreviations T: 61 3 62100 600 F: 61 3 62100601 3218505 & basis of descriptions CLIENTS | PEOPLE | PERFORMANCE TESTPIT/EXCAVATION LOG SHEET Client : TasWater Project : Swansea Dam Upgrade LOCATION No. BP04 Location : Swansea Dam - Southeast Borrow (ID 2) SHEET 1 OF 1

Position : 587983.0 E, 5336019.0 N MGA94 Surface RL : N.R Pit Width : 0.7 Processed : ASH Contractor : WALLAROO (Rob) Machine : 5.5t Excavator Pit Length : 4 Checked : ML

Date : 29 Sep 17 Logged by : ASH Date : 15 Feb 18 EXCA MATERIAL ADDITIONAL DATA

Description Soil Name (USC Symbol) Comments/Observations Other Minor Components, Plasticity or Insitu test results Particle Characteristics, Colour, Moisture Condition, Consistency, Scale (m) Water Depth / (RL) metres Graphic Log SCALE (m) Structure Group Symbol Moisture Condition Consistency / Relative Density Samples & Tests Topsoil: SILT/CLAY, dark grey-brown, MH/ M- F MC>PL, rootlets CH W

0.30 CLAY with gravel and cobbles, orange-brown, CH M F Quaternary Alluvium MC>PL, gravel is fine to coarse, subrounded, Variable gravel/cobble content within clay matrix dolerite, cobbles up to 170mm D D (0.4 - 0.6m) - Sample does not contain cobbles and represents the finer portion of the material.

0.60 Gravelly CLAY with cobbles, orange-brown, CH M F- Estimated to be 35-60% clay (variable) MC>PL, gravel is fine to coarse, subrounded, St dolerite

0.80 Clayey GRAVEL with cobbles, orange-brown, GC M MD D D (0.8 - 1.0m) MC>PL, gravel is fine to coarse, subrounded Some pockets of wet material. Estimated 25-35% Clay. to rounded, dolerite, clay is high plasticity

1 1.00 1 Trace boulder, up to 280mm Increased cobble content

1.20 With sand, fine to medium grained M- Reduced Clay content - sandy clay matrix W

Groundwater at 1.35m. Moderate to rapid inflow at 1.6m.

1.80 Test pit terminated at 1.8m (target depth) and backfilled with spoil

2 2 See standard sheets for GHD Pty Ltd Job No. 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7001, Hobart details of abbreviations T: 61 3 62100 600 F: 61 3 62100601 3218505 & basis of descriptions CLIENTS | PEOPLE | PERFORMANCE TESTPIT/EXCAVATION LOG SHEET Client : TasWater Project : Swansea Dam Upgrade LOCATION No. BP05 Location : Swansea Dam - Southeast Borrow (ID 2) SHEET 1 OF 1

Position : 588071.0 E, 5335993.0 N MGA94 Surface RL : N.R Pit Width : 0.7 Processed : ASH Contractor : WALLAROO (Rob) Machine : 5.5t Excavator Pit Length : 3.5 Checked : ML

Date : 29 Sep 17 Logged by : ASH Date : 15 Feb 18 EXCA MATERIAL ADDITIONAL DATA

0.25 CLAY with sand, trace gravel, orange-brown, CH M- F fissured, MC>PL, gravel is fine to coarse, W subrounded to rounded, dolerite, sand is fine D D (0.3 - 0.5m) to medium grained

0.50 Trace lense of white silt and gravel Variable moisture content. Clay is quite 'silty'.

D D (0.6 - 0.9m)

Groundwater encountered at 0.9m

1 1.00 1 CLAY with sand, trace gravel, fine to medium SC M- L- Variable composition. Fine grained sand with variable grained, typically fine, brown, trace orange, W MD clay content with pockets of Sandy CLAY

1.30 With gravel

1.40 Test pit terminated at 1.40m (target depth) and backfilled with spoil

2 2 See standard sheets for GHD Pty Ltd Job No. 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7001, Hobart details of abbreviations T: 61 3 62100 600 F: 61 3 62100601 3218505 & basis of descriptions CLIENTS | PEOPLE | PERFORMANCE TESTPIT/EXCAVATION LOG SHEET Client : TasWater Project : Swansea Dam Upgrade LOCATION No. BP06 Location : Swansea Dam - Southeast Borrow (ID 2) SHEET 1 OF 1

Position : 588029.0 E, 5335911.0 N MGA94 Surface RL : N.R Pit Width : 0.7 Processed : ASH Contractor : WALLAROO (Rob) Machine : 5.5t Excavator Pit Length : 3.3 Checked : ML

Date : 29 Sep 17 Logged by : ASH Date : 15 Feb 18 EXCA MATERIAL ADDITIONAL DATA

Description Soil Name (USC Symbol) Comments/Observations Other Minor Components, Plasticity or Insitu test results Particle Characteristics, Colour, Moisture Condition, Consistency, Scale (m) Water Depth / (RL) metres Graphic Log SCALE (m) Structure Group Symbol Moisture Condition Consistency / Relative Density Samples & Tests Topsoil: CLAY/SILT, trace cobble, dark MH/ M- F grey-black, fissured, rootlets, MC>PL CH W

0.30 CLAY, trace sand, grey, yellow-brown, CH M F D D (0.3 - 0.6m), PP @ 0.3-0.4m = 60-80kPa fissured, MC>PL PP

0.50 Yellow-brown with grey, trace cobbles, M F MC>PL

0.65 Clayey GRAVEL/Gravelly CLAY with cobbles, GC/ M F/ Minor seepage (trickle) at change in layer. orange-brown, fine to coarse, subrounded to CH MD Variable composition - estimated 20-40% Clay. High rounded, dolerite, cobbles up to 200mm, cobble content. MC>PL

1 1.00 1 Clayey GRAVEL with cobbles, orange-brown, GC M MD fine to coarse, subrounded to rounded, dolerite, cobbles up to 200mm, MC>PL

1.30 GRAVEL/COBBLES with sand and clay, GP- W MD orange-brown, fine to coarse, subrounded to GC rounded, dolerite

1.70 Test pit terminated at 1.7m (target depth) and backfilled with spoil

2 2 See standard sheets for GHD Pty Ltd Job No. 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7001, Hobart details of abbreviations T: 61 3 62100 600 F: 61 3 62100601 3218505 & basis of descriptions CLIENTS | PEOPLE | PERFORMANCE TESTPIT/EXCAVATION LOG SHEET Client : TasWater Project : Swansea Dam Upgrade LOCATION No. BP07 Location : Swansea Dam - Borrow Site E (ID 1) SHEET 1 OF 1

Position : 586316.0 E, 5336406.0 N MGA94 Surface RL : N.R Pit Width : 0.6 Processed : AO Contractor : WALLAROO (Rob) Machine : 5.5t Excavator Pit Length : 4 Checked : ML

Date : 10 Oct 17 Logged by : SL Date : 15 Feb 18 EXCA MATERIAL ADDITIONAL DATA

0.10 Refusal on dolerite. Pit backfilled with spoil, groundwater not encountered

1 1

2 2 See standard sheets for GHD Pty Ltd Job No. 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7001, Hobart details of abbreviations T: 61 3 62100 600 F: 61 3 62100601 3218505 & basis of descriptions CLIENTS | PEOPLE | PERFORMANCE TESTPIT/EXCAVATION LOG SHEET Client : TasWater Project : Swansea Dam Upgrade LOCATION No. BP08 Location : Swansea Dam - Borrow Site A (ID 1) SHEET 1 OF 1

Position : 586556.0 E, 5336427.0 N MGA94 Surface RL : N.R Pit Width : 0.6 Processed : AO Contractor : WALLAROO (Rob) Machine : 5.5t Excavator Pit Length : 4 Checked : ML

Date : 10 Oct 17 Logged by : SL Date : 15 Feb 18 EXCA MATERIAL ADDITIONAL DATA

0.35 CLAY with sand, trace gravel, dark CH M St Trace relict rootlets yellow-grey, slickensided, sand is fine grained Trace carbonaceous nodules D D (0.5 - 1.0m)

1 1.00 1 Sandy SILT with gravel, yellow, fine to MH D Fr Inferred RESIDUAL medium grained sand, fine grained gravel

D D (1.5 - 2.0m)

2 2 GNE

3 3.00 3 Test pit terminated at 3m (target depth) and backfilled with spoil. Groundwater not encountered.

4 4

5 5 See standard sheets for GHD Pty Ltd Job No. 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7001, Hobart details of abbreviations T: 61 3 62100 600 F: 61 3 62100601 3218505 & basis of descriptions CLIENTS | PEOPLE | PERFORMANCE TESTPIT/EXCAVATION LOG SHEET Client : TasWater Project : Swansea Dam Upgrade LOCATION No. BP09 Location : Swansea Dam - Borrow Site A (ID 1) SHEET 1 OF 1

Position : 586567.0 E, 5336370.0 N MGA94 Surface RL : N.R Pit Width : 0.6 Processed : AO Contractor : WALLAROO (Rob) Machine : 5.5t Excavator Pit Length : 4 Checked : ML

Date : 10 Oct 17 Logged by : SL Date : 15 Feb 18 EXCA MATERIAL ADDITIONAL DATA

Description Soil Name (USC Symbol) Comments/Observations Other Minor Components, Plasticity or Insitu test results Particle Characteristics, Colour, Moisture Condition, Consistency, Scale (m) Water Depth / (RL) metres Graphic Log SCALE (m) Structure Group Symbol Moisture Condition Consistency / Relative Density Samples & Tests Topsoil: Sandy SILT, brown, rootlets ML D St Abundant roots to ~0.5m

0.30 GRAVEL with silt, sand and cobbles, dark GP- grey, cobbles to 500mm GM

0.85 Gravelly SILT with sand, brown with white MH D- St/Fr Inferred RESIDUAL pockets, fine to medium grained sand, fine White pockets are silt (ML) 1 M 1 gravel D D (1.0 - 1.4m)

2 2

2.50 Test pit terminated at 2.5m (target depth) and GNE backfilled with spoil. Groundwater not encountered.

3 3

4 4

5 5 See standard sheets for GHD Pty Ltd Job No. 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7001, Hobart details of abbreviations T: 61 3 62100 600 F: 61 3 62100601 3218505 & basis of descriptions CLIENTS | PEOPLE | PERFORMANCE TESTPIT/EXCAVATION LOG SHEET Client : TasWater Project : Swansea Dam Upgrade LOCATION No. BP10 Location : Swansea Dam - Borrow Site E (ID 1) SHEET 1 OF 1

Position : 586438.0 E, 5336415.0 N MGA94 Surface RL : N.R Pit Width : 0.6 Processed : AO Contractor : WALLAROO (Rob) Machine : 5.5t Excavator Pit Length : 4 Checked : ML

Date : 10 Oct 17 Logged by : SL Date : 15 Feb 18 EXCA MATERIAL ADDITIONAL DATA

0.35 CLAY with sand, dark grey mottled brown CI D- St Inferred ALLUVIAL M Organics, fissured

0.60 GRAVEL with clay, yellow, angular with MW GP- D Inferred RESIDUAL gravel GC

1 1.00 1 Refusal at 1.0m. Pit backfilled with spoil. Groundwater not encountered

2 2

3 3 See standard sheets for GHD Pty Ltd Job No. 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7001, Hobart details of abbreviations T: 61 3 62100 600 F: 61 3 62100601 3218505 & basis of descriptions CLIENTS | PEOPLE | PERFORMANCE TESTPIT/EXCAVATION LOG SHEET Client : TasWater Project : Swansea Dam Upgrade LOCATION No. BP11 Location : Swansea Dam - Borrow Site E (ID 1) SHEET 1 OF 1

Position : 586414.0 E, 5336453.0 N MGA94 Surface RL : N.R Pit Width : 0.6 Processed : AO Contractor : WALLAROO (Rob) Machine : 5.5t Excavator Pit Length : 4 Checked : ML

Date : 10 Oct 17 Logged by : SL Date : 15 Feb 18 EXCA MATERIAL ADDITIONAL DATA

Description Soil Name (USC Symbol) Comments/Observations Other Minor Components, Plasticity or Insitu test results Particle Characteristics, Colour, Moisture Condition, Consistency, Scale (m) Water Depth / (RL) metres Graphic Log SCALE (m) Structure Group Symbol Moisture Condition Consistency / Relative Density Samples & Tests Topsoil: Silty SAND, brown, rootlets and roots SM D Abundant roots & rootlets

0.50 Clayey COBBLES, yellow-brown, cobbles up GC D D Inferred COLLUVIUM to 100mm, angular, HW-MW dolerite, clay is D (0.5 - 1.0) low plasticity

1 1 1.05 Refusal on dolerite. Pit backfilled with spoil. Groundwater not encountered. GNE

2 2

3 3 See standard sheets for GHD Pty Ltd Job No. 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7001, Hobart details of abbreviations T: 61 3 62100 600 F: 61 3 62100601 3218505 & basis of descriptions CLIENTS | PEOPLE | PERFORMANCE TESTPIT/EXCAVATION LOG SHEET Client : TasWater Project : Swansea Dam Upgrade LOCATION No. BP12 Location : Swansea Dam - Borrow Site E (ID 1) SHEET 1 OF 1

Position : 586390.0 E, 5336388.0 N MGA94 Surface RL : N.R Pit Width : 0.6 Processed : AO Contractor : WALLAROO (Rob) Machine : 5.5t Excavator Pit Length : 4 Checked : ML

Date : 10 Oct 17 Logged by : SL Date : 15 Feb 18 EXCA MATERIAL ADDITIONAL DATA

0.40 Sandy SILT trace gravel, orange-brown, fine MH D Fr INFERRED RESIDUAL DOLERITE to medium grained sand

1 1 D D (1.0 - 1.5m)

1.60 Refusal on weathered dolerite. Pit backfilled with spoil. Groundwater not encountered.

2 2 GNE

3 3

4 4 See standard sheets for GHD Pty Ltd Job No. 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7001, Hobart details of abbreviations T: 61 3 62100 600 F: 61 3 62100601 3218505 & basis of descriptions CLIENTS | PEOPLE | PERFORMANCE TESTPIT/EXCAVATION LOG SHEET Client : TasWater Project : Swansea Dam Upgrade LOCATION No. BP13 Location : Swansea Dam - Borrow Site E/A (ID 1) SHEET 1 OF 1

Position : 586494.0 E, 5336423.0 N MGA94 Surface RL : N.R Pit Width : 0.6 Processed : AO Contractor : WALLAROO (Rob) Machine : 5.5t Excavator Pit Length : 4 Checked : ML

Date : 10 Oct 17 Logged by : SL Date : 15 Feb 18 EXCA MATERIAL ADDITIONAL DATA

0.30 GRAVEL with silt trace sand, pale brown, fine GP - D D Inferred RESIDUAL DOLERITE to coarse (up to 50mm), angular, MW dolerite, GM D (0.3 - 0.9m) fines are low plasticity

0.90 Refusal on dolerite. Pit backfilled with spoil. Groundwater not encountered. 1 1 GNE

2 2

3 3 See standard sheets for GHD Pty Ltd Job No. 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7001, Hobart details of abbreviations T: 61 3 62100 600 F: 61 3 62100601 3218505 & basis of descriptions CLIENTS | PEOPLE | PERFORMANCE TESTPIT/EXCAVATION LOG SHEET Client : TasWater Project : Swansea Dam Upgrade LOCATION No. BP14 Location : Swansea Dam - Borrow Site C (ID 1) SHEET 1 OF 1

Position : 586745.0 E, 5335899.0 N MGA94 Surface RL : N.R Pit Width : 0.6 Processed : AO Contractor : WALLAROO (Rob) Machine : 5.5t Excavator Pit Length : 4 Checked : ML

Date : 10 Oct 17 Logged by : SL Date : 15 Feb 18 EXCA MATERIAL ADDITIONAL DATA

Description Soil Name (USC Symbol) Comments/Observations Other Minor Components, Plasticity or Insitu test results Particle Characteristics, Colour, Moisture Condition, Consistency, Scale (m) Water Depth / (RL) metres Graphic Log SCALE (m) Structure Group Symbol Moisture Condition Consistency / Relative Density Samples & Tests Topsoil: Sandy CLAY, dark brown, rootlets CI D- F M

0.20 CLAY with sand, brown mottled, dark grey CH M St Trace relict roots Inferred ALLUVIAL

0.70 Sandy CLAY, brown, fine to coarse grained CI M F - D D (0.7 - 1.3m) St

1 1

1.30 Clayey COBBLES with gravel, brown, fine and GC W coarse gravel, up to ~100mm, round GNE

1.75 Refusal on dolerite, pit backfilled with spoil

2 2

3 3 See standard sheets for GHD Pty Ltd Job No. 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7001, Hobart details of abbreviations T: 61 3 62100 600 F: 61 3 62100601 3218505 & basis of descriptions CLIENTS | PEOPLE | PERFORMANCE TESTPIT/EXCAVATION LOG SHEET Client : TasWater Project : Swansea Dam Upgrade LOCATION No. BP15 Location : Swansea Dam - Borrow Site C (ID 1) SHEET 1 OF 1

Position : 586692.0 E, 5335977.0 N MGA94 Surface RL : N.R Pit Width : 0.6 Processed : AO Contractor : WALLAROO (Rob) Machine : 5.5t Excavator Pit Length : 4 Checked : ML

Date : 10 Oct 17 Logged by : SL Date : 15 Feb 18 EXCA MATERIAL ADDITIONAL DATA

0.20 CLAY with sand, brown, mottled grey CH M Fissured

D D (0.4 - 0.7)

0.80 Clayey SAND, brown, fine to medium grained, SC M D D (0.8 - 1.35) fines are intermediate plasticity

1 1

1.35 Clayey sandy GRAVEL GC M- D D (1.35 - 1.7) W

1.70 1.75 Sandy CLAY, blue grey CL M St Inferred TERTIARY ALLUVIAL Test pit terminated at 1.75m (target depth) and backfilled with spoil

2 2

3 3 See standard sheets for GHD Pty Ltd Job No. 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7001, Hobart details of abbreviations T: 61 3 62100 600 F: 61 3 62100601 3218505 & basis of descriptions CLIENTS | PEOPLE | PERFORMANCE TESTPIT/EXCAVATION LOG SHEET Client : TasWater Project : Swansea Dam Upgrade LOCATION No. BP16 Location : Swansea Dam - Borrow Site C (ID 1) SHEET 1 OF 1

Position : 586649.0 E, 5336041.0 N MGA94 Surface RL : N.R Pit Width : 0.6 Processed : AO Contractor : WALLAROO (Rob) Machine : 5.5t Excavator Pit Length : 4 Checked : ML

Date : 10 Oct 17 Logged by : SL Date : 15 Feb 18 EXCA MATERIAL ADDITIONAL DATA

Description Soil Name (USC Symbol) Comments/Observations Other Minor Components, Plasticity or Insitu test results Particle Characteristics, Colour, Moisture Condition, Consistency, Scale (m) Water Depth / (RL) metres Graphic Log SCALE (m) Structure Group Symbol Moisture Condition Consistency / Relative Density Samples & Tests Topsoil: Sandy CLAY, brown, rootlets CI D 0.15 Sandy GRAVEL with silt, brown, round gravel, GM M Inferred ALLUVIAL up to 75mm diameter, fines are low plasticity

D D (0.5 - 1.0m)

1 1

W Inflow into Pit

1.70 Test pit terminated at 1.7m (target depth) and backfilled with spoil

2 2

3 3

4 4 See standard sheets for GHD Pty Ltd Job No. 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7001, Hobart details of abbreviations T: 61 3 62100 600 F: 61 3 62100601 3218505 & basis of descriptions CLIENTS | PEOPLE | PERFORMANCE TESTPIT/EXCAVATION LOG SHEET Client : TasWater Project : Swansea Dam Upgrade LOCATION No. BP17 Location : Swansea Dam - Borrow Site C (ID 1) SHEET 1 OF 1

Position : 586621.0 E, 5336113.0 N MGA94 Surface RL : N.R Pit Width : 0.6 Processed : AO Contractor : WALLAROO (Rob) Machine : 5.5t Excavator Pit Length : 4 Checked : ML

Date : 10 Oct 17 Logged by : SL Date : 15 Feb 18 EXCA MATERIAL ADDITIONAL DATA

Description Soil Name (USC Symbol) Comments/Observations Other Minor Components, Plasticity or Insitu test results Particle Characteristics, Colour, Moisture Condition, Consistency, Scale (m) Water Depth / (RL) metres Graphic Log SCALE (m) Structure Group Symbol Moisture Condition Consistency / Relative Density Samples & Tests Topsoil: Sandy CLAY, brown, rootlets CI W Perched water table above 0.3m

0.30 CLAY with sand, brown, sand is fine grained CH M- F Inferred ALLUVIAL W Trace relic roots clay sticking to bucket

D D (0.5 - 1.0m)

1 1.00 1 Clayey GRAVEL with sand, brown, medium to GC M- coarse (up to 50mm), round, MW-SW W dolerite, fines are intermediate plasticity

W 1.50 Test pit terminated at 1.5m (target depth) and backfilled with spoil

2 2

3 3 See standard sheets for GHD Pty Ltd Job No. 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7001, Hobart details of abbreviations T: 61 3 62100 600 F: 61 3 62100601 3218505 & basis of descriptions CLIENTS | PEOPLE | PERFORMANCE TESTPIT/EXCAVATION LOG SHEET Client : TasWater Project : Swansea Dam Upgrade LOCATION No. BP18 Location : Swansea Dam - Borrow Site C (ID 1) SHEET 1 OF 1

Position : 586617.0 E, 5335974.0 N MGA94 Surface RL : N.R Pit Width : 0.6 Processed : AO Contractor : WALLAROO (Rob) Machine : 5.5t Excavator Pit Length : 4 Checked : ML

Date : 10 Oct 17 Logged by : SL Date : 15 Feb 18 EXCA MATERIAL ADDITIONAL DATA

0.25 CLAY, trace sand. grey-brown, sand is fine CH M- F - Inferred ALLUVIAL grained W St

0.90 Clayey SAND, brown, fine to medium grained, SC clay is intermediate plasticity 1 1

Inflow on sides of pit

1.80 Test pit terminated at 1.8m (target depth) and backfilled with spoil

2 2

3 3 See standard sheets for GHD Pty Ltd Job No. 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7001, Hobart details of abbreviations T: 61 3 62100 600 F: 61 3 62100601 3218505 & basis of descriptions CLIENTS | PEOPLE | PERFORMANCE TESTPIT/EXCAVATION LOG SHEET Client : TasWater Project : Swansea Dam Upgrade LOCATION No. BP19 Location : Swansea Dam - Borrow Site C (ID 1) SHEET 1 OF 1

Position : 586595.0 E, 5336046.0 N MGA94 Surface RL : N.R Pit Width : 0.6 Processed : AO Contractor : WALLAROO (Rob) Machine : 5.5t Excavator Pit Length : 4 Checked : ML

Date : 10 Oct 17 Logged by : SL Date : 15 Feb 18 EXCA MATERIAL ADDITIONAL DATA

0.30 CLAY, trace sand, grey-brown, sand is fine CH M- F - Inferred ALLUVIAL grained W St

0.90 Clayey Sandy GRAVEL, brown, coarse gravel, GC M up to 50mm, round, fines are intermediate 1 plasticity, sand is fine to coarse grained 1

Inflow on sides of pit

1.60 Test pit terminated at 1.5m (target depth) and backfilled with spoil

2 2

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 ADG LABORATORIES Materials Testing Laboratories Unit 8A 121 Mornington Rd, Mornington TAS 7018 Ph (03) 62446884 Fax (03) 62451498 ACN 117 593 254 Client GHD Project Material Evaluation Location Swansea Dam Project No. 0047/17/6H Sample No. H17/770 Date Received 19/9/17 Date Tested 4/10/17 Sample Identification BP1 0.5 - 1.0m Sampled By Client Sample Description Brown Sandy Clay ey Gravel Test Report No. 0047/17/6H/AU

Test Description Test Method Results Units Remarks AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 60 % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 28 %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 32 %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 12 % curling y cracking Y n crumbling n

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 - deionised water used

Maximum dry density 5.1.1 - t/m3

Optimum moisture content 5.1.1 - %

Moisture Content 2.1.1 24.0 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm

finer than 100 100 %

75 93 %

53 93 % 37.5 95 % 26.5 77 % 19 68 % 13.2 66 % 9.5 62 % 6.7 59 % 4.75 56 % 2.36 51 % 1.18 47 % 0.600 43 % 0.425 41 % 0.300 38 % 0.150 35 % 0.075 34 % Preliminary Report Issued? yes If Yes, Replaces Preliminary Report No. P 0047/17/6H/AU

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - testing 13/10/17

Approved Signatory Date of issue LABORATORY ACCREDITATION No 16752 D L Maundrill

1289-psd-0617 ADG LABORATORIES Materials Testing Laboratories Unit 8A 121 Mornington Rd, Mornington TAS 7018 Ph (03) 62446884 Fax (03) 62451498 ACN 117 593 254 Client GHD Project Material Evaluation Location Swansea Dam Project No. 0047/17/6H Sample No. H17/784 Date Received 29/9/17 Date Tested 9/10/17 Sample Identification BP4 0.4 - 0.6m Sampled By Client Sample Description Brown Sandy Clayey Gravel Test Report No. 0047/17/6H/AV

Test Description Test Method Results Units Remarks AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 73 % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 22 %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 51 %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 18 % curling y cracking Y n crumbling n

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 4 deionised water used

Maximum dry density 5.1.1 1.39 t/m3

Optimum moisture content 5.1.1 32.2 %

Moisture Content 2.1.1 37.1 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm

finer than 100 %

75 %

53 100 % 37.5 95 % 26.5 96 % 19 95 % 13.2 95 % 9.5 95 % 6.7 93 % 4.75 93 % 2.36 92 % 1.18 92 % 0.600 91 % 0.425 90 % 0.300 88 % 0.150 78 % 0.075 73 % Preliminary Report Issued? yes If Yes, Replaces Preliminary Report No. P 0047/17/6H/AV

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - testing 13/10/17

Approved Signatory Date of issue LABORATORY ACCREDITATION No 16752 D L Maundrill

1289-psd-0617 ADG LABORATORIES Materials Testing Laboratories Unit 8A 121 Mornington Rd, Mornington TAS 7018 Ph (03) 62446884 Fax (03) 62451498 ACN 117 593 254 Client GHD Project Material Evaluation Location Swansea Dam Project No. 0047/17/6H Sample No. H17/785 Date Received 29/9/17 Date Tested 9/10/17 Sample Identification BP4 0.8 - 1.0m Sampled By Client Sample Description Brown Sandy Clayey Gravel Test Report No. 0047/17/6H/AW

Test Description Test Method Results Units Remarks AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 71 % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 23 %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 48 %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 17 % curling y cracking Y n crumbling n

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 4 deionised water used

Maximum dry density 5.1.1 - t/m3

Optimum moisture content 5.1.1 - %

Moisture Content 2.1.1 24.8 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm

finer than 100 %

75 100 %

53 93 % 37.5 95 % 26.5 62 % 19 50 % 13.2 42 % 9.5 38 % 6.7 34 % 4.75 31 % 2.36 28 % 1.18 27 % 0.600 26 % 0.425 25 % 0.300 24 % 0.150 22 % 0.075 19 % Preliminary Report Issued? yes If Yes, Replaces Preliminary Report No. P 0047/17/6H/AW

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - testing 13/10/17

Approved Signatory Date of issue LABORATORY ACCREDITATION No 16752 D L Maundrill

1289-psd-0617 ADG LABORATORIES Materials Testing Laboratories Unit 8A 121 Mornington Rd, Mornington TAS 7018 Ph (03) 62446884 Fax (03) 62451498 ACN 117 593 254 Client GHD Project Material Evaluation Location Swansea Dam Project No. 0047/17/6H Sample No. H17/786 Date Received 29/9/17 Date Tested 9/10/17 Sample Identification BP5 0.3 - 0.5m Sampled By Client Sample Description Brown Sandy Clay Test Report No. 0047/17/6H/AX

Test Description Test Method Results Units Remarks AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 82 % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 22 %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 60 %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 18 % curling y cracking Y n crumbling n

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 4 deionised water used

Maximum dry density 5.1.1 1.42 t/m3

Optimum moisture content 5.1.1 30.7 %

Moisture Content 2.1.1 42.7 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm

finer than 100 %

75 %

53 %

37.5 100 % 26.5 99 % 19 98 % 13.2 98 % 9.5 97 % 6.7 96 % 4.75 96 % 2.36 95 % 1.18 93 % 0.600 92 % 0.425 90 % 0.300 87 % 0.150 80 % 0.075 76 % Preliminary Report Issued? yes If Yes, Replaces Preliminary Report No. P 0047/17/6H/AX

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - testing 13/10/17

Approved Signatory Date of issue LABORATORY ACCREDITATION No 16752 D L Maundrill

1289-psd-0617 ADG LABORATORIES Materials Testing Laboratories Unit 8A 121 Mornington Rd, Mornington TAS 7018 Ph (03) 62446884 Fax (03) 62451498 ACN 117 593 254 Client GHD Project Material Evaluation Location Swansea Dam Project No. 0047/17/6H Sample No. H17/787 Date Received 29/9/17 Date Tested 9/10/17 Sample Identification BP5 0.6 - 0.9m Sampled By Client Sample Description Brown Sandy Clay Test Report No. 0047/17/6H/AY

Test Description Test Method Results Units Remarks AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 71 % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 25 %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 46 %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 9 % curling y cracking Y n crumbling n

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 4 deionised water used

Maximum dry density 5.1.1 - t/m3

Optimum moisture content 5.1.1 - %

Moisture Content 2.1.1 39.8 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm

finer than 100 %

75 %

53 %

37.5 100 % 26.5 100 % 19 100 % 13.2 100 % 9.5 99 % 6.7 99 % 4.75 98 % 2.36 98 % 1.18 97 % 0.600 97 % 0.425 96 % 0.300 93 % 0.150 79 % 0.075 71 % Preliminary Report Issued? yes If Yes, Replaces Preliminary Report No. P 0047/17/6H/AY

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - testing 13/10/17

Approved Signatory Date of issue LABORATORY ACCREDITATION No 16752 D L Maundrill

1289-psd-0617 ADG LABORATORIES Materials Testing Laboratories Unit 8A 121 Mornington Rd, Mornington TAS 7018 Ph (03) 62446884 Fax (03) 62451498 ACN 117 593 254 Client GHD Project Material Evaluation Location Swansea Dam Project No. 0047/17/6H Sample No. H17/788 Date Received 29/9/17 Date Tested 9/10/17 Sample Identification BP6 0.3 - 0.6m Sampled By Client Sample Description Brown SiltyClay Test Report No. 0047/17/6H/AZ

Test Description Test Method Results Units Remarks AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 109 % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 28 %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 81 %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 24 % curling y cracking Y n crumbling n

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 4 deionised water used

Maximum dry density 5.1.1 - t/m3

Optimum moisture content 5.1.1 - %

Moisture Content 2.1.1 52.8 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm

finer than 100 %

75 %

53 %

37.5 %

26.5 %

19 %

13.2 %

9.5 %

6.7 %

4.75 %

2.36 100 % 1.18 99 % 0.600 99 % 0.425 99 % 0.300 99 % 0.150 97 % 0.075 93 % Preliminary Report Issued? yes If Yes, Replaces Preliminary Report No. P 0047/17/6H/AZ

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - testing 13/10/17

Approved Signatory Date of issue LABORATORY ACCREDITATION No 16752 D L Maundrill

1289-psd-0617 ADG LABORATORIES Materials Testing Laboratories Unit 8A 121 Mornington Rd, Mornington TAS 7018 Ph (03) 62446884 Fax (03) 62451498 ACN 117 593 254 Client GHD Project Material Evaluation Location Swansea Dam Project No. 0047/17/6H Sample No. H17/860 Date Received 12/10/17 Date Tested 26/10/17 Sample Identification BP08 0.5 - 1.0m Sampled By Client Sample Description Grey/Brown SiltyClay Test Report No. 0047/17/6H/BA

Test Description Test Method Results Units Remarks AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 86 % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 26 %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 60 %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 17 % curling y cracking Y n crumbling n

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 4 deionised water used

Maximum dry density 5.1.1 1.38 t/m3

Optimum moisture content 5.1.1 32.0 %

Moisture Content 2.1.1 37.2 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm

finer than 100 %

75 %

53 %

37.5 %

26.5 %

19 %

13.2 %

9.5 %

6.7 %

4.75 100 % 2.36 99 % 1.18 97 % 0.600 95 % 0.425 94 % 0.300 92 % 0.150 89 % 0.075 86 % Preliminary Report Issued? yes If Yes, Replaces Preliminary Report No. P 0047/17/6H/BA

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - testing 2/11/17

Approved Signatory Date of issue LABORATORY ACCREDITATION No 16752 D L Maundrill

1289-psd-0617 ADG LABORATORIES Materials Testing Laboratories Unit 8A 121 Mornington Rd, Mornington TAS 7018 Ph (03) 62446884 Fax (03) 62451498 ACN 117 593 254 Client GHD Project Material Evaluation Location Swansea Dam Project No. 0047/17/6H Sample No. H17/861 Date Received 12/10/17 Date Tested 26/10/17 Sample Identification BP08 1.5 - 2.0m Sampled By Client Sample Description Light Brown Sandy Clay Test Report No. 0047/17/6H/BB

Test Description Test Method Results Units Remarks AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 59 % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 36 %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 23 %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 12 % curling n cracking Y y crumbling n

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 4 deionised water used

Maximum dry density 5.1.1 1.45 t/m3

Optimum moisture content 5.1.1 28.4 %

Moisture Content 2.1.1 20.1 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm

finer than 100 %

75 %

53 %

37.5 %

26.5 %

19 100 % 13.2 97 % 9.5 94 % 6.7 89 % 4.75 85 % 2.36 79 % 1.18 72 % 0.600 66 % 0.425 61 % 0.300 56 % 0.150 48 % 0.075 44 % Preliminary Report Issued? yes If Yes, Replaces Preliminary Report No. P 0047/17/6H/BB

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - testing 2/11/17

Approved Signatory Date of issue LABORATORY ACCREDITATION No 16752 D L Maundrill

1289-psd-0617 ADG LABORATORIES Materials Testing Laboratories Unit 8A 121 Mornington Rd, Mornington TAS 7018 Ph (03) 62446884 Fax (03) 62451498 ACN 117 593 254 Client GHD Project Material Evaluation Location Swansea Dam Project No. 0047/17/6H Sample No. H17/862 Date Received 12/10/17 Date Tested 26/10/17 Sample Identification BP09 1.0 - 1.4m Sampled By Client Sample Description Mottled Brown Sandy Clay Test Report No. 0047/17/6H/BC

Test Description Test Method Results Units Remarks AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 64 % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 33 %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 31 %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 17 % curling y cracking Y n crumbling n

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 4 deionised water used

Maximum dry density 5.1.1 - t/m3

Optimum moisture content 5.1.1 - %

Moisture Content 2.1.1 22.0 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm

finer than 100 %

75 %

53 %

37.5 100 % 26.5 98 % 19 96 % 13.2 92 % 9.5 88 % 6.7 85 % 4.75 80 % 2.36 74 % 1.18 69 % 0.600 65 % 0.425 63 % 0.300 60 % 0.150 56 % 0.075 54 % Preliminary Report Issued? yes If Yes, Replaces Preliminary Report No. P 0047/17/6H/BC

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - testing 2/11/17

Approved Signatory Date of issue LABORATORY ACCREDITATION No 16752 D L Maundrill

1289-psd-0617 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Job No 17071 CIVIL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Report No 17071/R046 6 - 8 Rose Avenue, Croydon 3136 Date of Issue 15/11/17 Client ADG LABORATORIES (ULVERSTONE) Tested by ANR Project JOB No 0047/17/64 SWANSEA Date tested 02/11/17 Location SWANSEA Checked by PJF Sample Identification H17/862 BP09 1.0 - 1.4m Sample No 17071040 Sample Description Mottled Brown Sandy Clay AS 1289.3.6.1*- Particle Size Distribution performed by Client. See Report No 0047/17/6H/BC

Assumed soil particle density 2.65 g/cm³ AS 1289.3.6.1* and 3.6.3 - Particle Size Distribution - Sieve and Hydrometer Method of dispersion Mechanical Loss in pretreatment 0% Hydrometer type g/l Variation to method -

Particle Percent AS SIEVE (mm)

Size Passing

1.18

2.36 4.75 13.2 53.0 26.5 37.5 75.0

0.075 0.300 0.425 9.5 0.600 6.7 19.0 (mm) 0.150 100 100.0 100 75.0 100 53.0 100 90 37.5 100 26.5 98 19.0 96 80 13.2 92 9.5 88 70 6.7 85 4.75 80 2.36 74 60 1.18 69 0.600 65 50 0.425 63 0.300 60 Passing Percent 0.150 56 40 0.075 54 0.067 53 30 0.049 51 0.035 50 0.025 47 20 0.017 47 0.013 44 10 0.0090 42 0.0064 40 0.0046 37 0 0.0030 34 fine medium coarse fine medium coarse fine medium coarse

0.0023 33 CLAY SAND GRAVEL 0.0014 31 SILT COBBLES 0.002 0.060 2.0 60.0 Particle Size (mm) Gravel Sand Silt Cobbles 0.0% coarse 3.7% coarse 7.8% coarse 5.6% Gravel 27.2% medium 12.9% medium 7.3% medium 7.2% Sand 20.4% fine 10.6% fine 5.3% fine 7.2% Silt 20.0% Total 27.2% Total 20.4% Total 20.0% Clay 32.4% Total 100.0%

A362 V1.15 MAR 13 ADG LABORATORIES Materials Testing Laboratories Unit 8A 121 Mornington Rd, Mornington TAS 7018 Ph (03) 62446884 Fax (03) 62451498 ACN 117 593 254 Client GHD Project Material Evaluation Location Swansea Dam Project No. 0047/17/6H Sample No. H17/863 Date Received 12/10/17 Date Tested 26/10/17 Sample Identification BP13 0.3 - 0.9m Sampled By Client Sample Description Brown Sandy Gravel Test Report No. 0047/17/6H/BD

Test Description Test Method Results Units Remarks AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 36 % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 28 %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 8 %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 9 % curling n cracking Y y crumbling n

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 4 deionised water used

Maximum dry density 5.1.1 1.93 t/m3

Optimum moisture content 5.1.1 9.0 %

Moisture Content 2.1.1 6.0 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm

finer than 100 %

75 100 %

53 99 % 37.5 93 % 26.5 76 % 19 61 % 13.2 52 % 9.5 44 % 6.7 38 % 4.75 32 % 2.36 22 % 1.18 15 % 0.600 12 % 0.425 11 % 0.300 10 % 0.150 8 % 0.075 8 % Preliminary Report Issued? yes If Yes, Replaces Preliminary Report No. P 0047/17/6H/BD

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - testing 2/11/17

Approved Signatory Date of issue LABORATORY ACCREDITATION No 16752 D L Maundrill

1289-psd-0617 ADG LABORATORIES Materials Testing Laboratories Unit 8A 121 Mornington Rd, Mornington TAS 7018 Ph (03) 62446884 Fax (03) 62451498 ACN 117 593 254 Client GHD Project Material Evaluation Location Swansea Dam Project No. 0047/17/6H Sample No. H17/864 Date Received 12/10/17 Date Tested 26/10/17 Sample Identification BP14 0.7 - 1.3m Sampled By Client Sample Description Brown Clayey Sand Test Report No. 0047/17/6H/BE

Test Description Test Method Results Units Remarks AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 42 % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 24 %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 18 %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 11 % curling n cracking Y y crumbling n

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 4 deionised water used

Maximum dry density 5.1.1 1.48 t/m3

Optimum moisture content 5.1.1 28.6 %

Moisture Content 2.1.1 31.1 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm

finer than 100 %

75 %

53 %

37.5 %

26.5 %

19 %

13.2 100 % 9.5 99 % 6.7 99 % 4.75 99 % 2.36 98 % 1.18 96 % 0.600 93 % 0.425 87 % 0.300 76 % 0.150 58 % 0.075 49 % Preliminary Report Issued? yes If Yes, Replaces Preliminary Report No. P 0047/17/6H/BE

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - testing 2/11/17

Approved Signatory Date of issue LABORATORY ACCREDITATION No 16752 D L Maundrill

1289-psd-0617 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Job No 17071 CIVIL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Report No 17071/R047 6 - 8 Rose Avenue, Croydon 3136 Date of Issue 15/11/17 Client ADG LABORATORIES (ULVERSTONE) Tested by ANR Project JOB No 0047/17/64 SWANSEA Date tested 02/11/17 Location SWANSEA Checked by PJF Sample Identification H17/864 BP14 0.7 - 1.3m Sample No 17071041 Sample Description Brown Clayey Sand AS 1289.3.6.1*- Particle Size Distribution performed by Client. See Report No 0047/17/6H/BE

2.65 g/cm³

AS 1289.3.6.1* and 3.6.3 - Particle MechanicalSize Distribution - SieveLoss and in pretreatment Hydrometer 0% Hydrometer type g/l Variation to method -

Particle Percent AS SIEVE (mm)

Size Passing

1.18

2.36 4.75 13.2 53.0 26.5 37.5 75.0

0.075 0.300 0.425 9.5 0.600 6.7 19.0 (mm) 0.150 100 100.0 100 75.0 100 53.0 100 90 37.5 100 26.5 100 19.0 100 80 13.2 100 9.5 99 70 6.7 99 4.75 99 2.36 98 60 1.18 96 0.600 93 50 0.425 87 0.300 76 Passing Percent 0.150 58 40 0.075 49 0.071 48 30 0.051 45 0.037 42 0.026 40 20 0.018 37 0.013 34 10 0.0095 32 0.0068 28 0.0048 26 0 0.0031 24 fine medium coarse fine medium coarse fine medium coarse

0.0024 22 CLAY SAND GRAVEL 0.0014 19 SILT COBBLES 0.002 0.060 2.0 60.0 Particle Size (mm) Gravel Sand Silt Cobbles 0.0% coarse 0.0% coarse 4.5% coarse 5.2% Gravel 2.5% medium 1.0% medium 27.5% medium 10.4% Sand 54.6% fine 1.5% fine 22.6% fine 6.1% Silt 21.7% Total 2.5% Total 54.6% Total 21.7% Clay 21.2% Total 100.0%

A362 V1.15 MAR 13 ADG LABORATORIES Materials Testing Laboratories Unit 8A 121 Mornington Rd, Mornington TAS 7018 Ph (03) 62446884 Fax (03) 62451498 ACN 117 593 254 Client GHD Project Material Evaluation Location Swansea Dam Project No. 0047/17/6H Sample No. H17/865 Date Received 12/10/17 Date Tested 26/10/17 Sample Identification BP15 0.4 - 0.7m Sampled By Client Sample Description Mottled Brown Sandy Clay Test Report No. 0047/17/6H/BF

Test Description Test Method Results Units Remarks AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 69 % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 32 %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 37 %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 17 % curling y cracking Y n crumbling n

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 4 deionised water used

3 Maximum dry density 5.1.1 1.34 t/m3 4% over OMC = 1.27 t/m

Optimum moisture content 5.1.1 35.7 % 8% over OMC = 1.21 t/m

Moisture Content 2.1.1 40.7 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm

finer than 100 %

75 %

53 %

37.5 %

26.5 %

19 %

13.2 %

9.5 %

6.7 %

4.75 %

2.36 100 % 1.18 99 % 0.600 98 % 0.425 98 % 0.300 97 % 0.150 92 % 0.075 85 % Preliminary Report Issued? yes If Yes, Replaces Preliminary Report No. P 0047/17/6H/BF

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - testing 2/11/17

Approved Signatory Date of issue LABORATORY ACCREDITATION No 16752 D L Maundrill

1289-psd-0617 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Job No 17071 CIVIL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Report No 17071/R048 6 - 8 Rose Avenue, Croydon 3136 Date of Issue 15/11/17 Client ADG LABORATORIES (ULVERSTONE) Tested by ANR Project JOB No 0047/17/64 SWANSEA Date tested 02/11/17 Location SWANSEA Checked by ANR Sample Identification H17/865 BP15 0.4 - 0.7m Sample No 17071042 Sample Description Mottled Brown Sandy Clay AS 1289.3.6.1*- Particle Size Distribution performed by Client. See Report No 0047/17/6H/BF

Assumed Soil Particle Density 2.65 g/cm³ AS 1289.3.6.1* and 3.6.3 - Particle Size Distribution - Sieve and Hydrometer Method of dispersion Mechanical Loss in pretreatment 0% Hydrometer type g/l Variation to method -

Particle Percent AS SIEVE (mm)

Size Passing

1.18

2.36 4.75 13.2 53.0 26.5 37.5 75.0

0.075 0.300 0.425 9.5 0.600 6.7 19.0 (mm) 0.150 100 100.0 100 75.0 100 53.0 100 90 37.5 100 26.5 100 19.0 100 80 13.2 100 9.5 100 70 6.7 100 4.75 100 2.36 100 60 1.18 99 0.600 98 50 0.425 98 0.300 97 Passing Percent 0.150 92 40 0.075 85 0.064 83 30 0.047 81 0.033 78 0.023 76 20 0.016 74 0.012 73 10 0.0086 72 0.0061 70 0.0043 69 0 0.0028 68 fine medium coarse fine medium coarse fine medium coarse

0.0022 67 CLAY SAND GRAVEL 0.0013 65 SILT COBBLES 0.002 0.060 2.0 60.0 Particle Size (mm) Gravel Sand Silt Cobbles 0.0% coarse 0.0% coarse 1.8% coarse 7.3% Gravel 0.2% medium 0.0% medium 3.9% medium 5.2% Sand 17.0% fine 0.2% fine 11.3% fine 4.0% Silt 16.5% Total 0.2% Total 17.0% Total 16.5% Clay 66.3% Total 100.0%

A362 V1.15 MAR 13 ADG LABORATORIES Materials Testing Laboratories Unit 8A 121 Mornington Rd, Mornington TAS 7018 Ph (03) 62446884 Fax (03) 62451498 ACN 117 593 254 Client GHD Project Material Evaluation Location Swansea Dam Project No. 0047/17/6H Sample No. H17/866 Date Received 12/10/17 Date Tested 26/10/17 Sample Identification BP15 0.8 - 1.35m Sampled By Client Sample Description Mottled Brown Clayey Sandy Gravel Test Report No. 0047/17/6H/BG

Test Description Test Method Results Units Remarks AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 51 % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 29 %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 22 %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 11 % curling n cracking Y n crumbling n

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 6 deionised water used

Maximum dry density 5.1.1 1.93 t/m3

Optimum moisture content 5.1.1 16.3 %

Moisture Content 2.1.1 19.5 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm

finer than 100 %

75 %

53 100 % 37.5 99 % 26.5 92 % 19 83 % 13.2 79 % 9.5 72 % 6.7 66 % 4.75 62 % 2.36 53 % 1.18 39 % 0.600 27 % 0.425 24 % 0.300 20 % 0.150 16 % 0.075 15 % Preliminary Report Issued? yes If Yes, Replaces Preliminary Report No. P 0047/17/6H/BG

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - testing 2/11/17

Approved Signatory Date of issue LABORATORY ACCREDITATION No 16752 D L Maundrill

1289-psd-0617 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Job No 17071 CIVIL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Report No 17071/R049 6 - 8 Rose Avenue, Croydon 3136 Date of Issue 15/11/17 Client ADG LABORATORIES (ULVERSTONE) Tested by ANR Project JOB No 0047/17/64 SWANSEA Date tested 02/11/17 Location SWANSEA Checked by ANR Sample Identification H17/866 BP15 0.8 - 1.35m Sample No 17071043 Sample Description Mottled Brown Clayey Sandy Gravel AS 1289.3.6.1*- Particle Size Distribution performed by Client. See Report No 0047/17/6H/BG

Particle Percent AS SIEVE (mm)

Size Passing

1.18

2.36 4.75 13.2 53.0 26.5 37.5 75.0

0.075 0.300 0.425 9.5 0.600 6.7 19.0 (mm) 0.150 100 100.0 100 75.0 100 53.0 100 90 37.5 99 26.5 92 19.0 83 80 13.2 79 9.5 72 70 6.7 66 4.75 62 2.36 53 60 1.18 39 0.600 27 50 0.425 24 0.300 20 Passing Percent 0.150 16 40 0.075 15 0.072 15 30 0.052 14 0.037 13 0.026 13 20 0.018 12 0.013 12 10 0.0096 10 0.0068 10 0.0048 9 0 0.0032 8 fine medium coarse fine medium coarse fine medium coarse

0.0024 8 CLAY SAND GRAVEL 0.0014 7 SILT COBBLES 0.002 0.060 2.0 60.0 Particle Size (mm) Gravel Sand Silt Cobbles 0.0% coarse 15.6% coarse 22.7% coarse 1.9% Gravel 50.4% medium 19.7% medium 9.3% medium 3.0% Sand 35.3% fine 15.1% fine 3.3% fine 2.0% Silt 6.9% Total 50.4% Total 35.3% Total 6.9% Clay 7.4% Total 100.0%

A362 V1.15 MAR 13 ADG LABORATORIES Materials Testing Laboratories Unit 8A 121 Mornington Rd, Mornington TAS 7018 Ph (03) 62446884 Fax (03) 62451498 ACN 117 593 254 Client GHD Project Material Evaluation Location Swansea Dam Project No. 0047/17/6H Sample No. H17/867 Date Received 12/10/17 Date Tested 26/10/17 Sample Identification BP15 1.35 - 1.70m Sampled By Client Sample Description Mottled Brown Clayey Sand Test Report No. 0047/17/6H/BH

Test Description Test Method Results Units Remarks AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 36 % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 31 %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 5 %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 9 % curling n cracking Y y crumbling n

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 4 deionised water used

Maximum dry density 5.1.1 1.46 t/m3

Optimum moisture content 5.1.1 29.6 %

Moisture Content 2.1.1 32.8 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm

finer than 100 %

75 %

53 100 % 37.5 98 % 26.5 98 % 19 98 % 13.2 98 % 9.5 97 % 6.7 96 % 4.75 96 % 2.36 95 % 1.18 93 % 0.600 89 % 0.425 83 % 0.300 72 % 0.150 53 % 0.075 45 % Preliminary Report Issued? yes If Yes, Replaces Preliminary Report No. P 0047/17/6H/BH

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - testing 2/11/17

Approved Signatory Date of issue LABORATORY ACCREDITATION No 16752 D L Maundrill

1289-psd-0617 ADG LABORATORIES Materials Testing Laboratories Unit 8A 121 Mornington Rd, Mornington TAS 7018 Ph (03) 62446884 Fax (03) 62451498 ACN 117 593 254 Client GHD Project Material Evaluation Location Swansea Dam Project No. 0047/17/6H Sample No. H17/868 Date Received 12/10/17 Date Tested 26/10/17 Sample Identification BP16 0.5 - 1.0m Sampled By Client Sample Description Brown Silty Sandy Gravel Test Report No. 0047/17/6H/BI

Test Description Test Method Results Units Remarks AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 37 % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 32 %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 5 %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 8 % curling n cracking Y n crumbling n

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 6 deionised water used

Maximum dry density 5.1.1 2.02 t/m3

Optimum moisture content 5.1.1 12.7 %

Moisture Content 2.1.1 17.3 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm

finer than 100 %

75 100 %

53 99 % 37.5 97 % 26.5 86 % 19 76 % 13.2 70 % 9.5 61 % 6.7 55 % 4.75 50 % 2.36 45 % 1.18 40 % 0.600 32 % 0.425 24 % 0.300 18 % 0.150 14 % 0.075 12 % Preliminary Report Issued? yes If Yes, Replaces Preliminary Report No. P 0047/17/6H/BI

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - testing 2/11/17

Approved Signatory Date of issue LABORATORY ACCREDITATION No 16752 D L Maundrill

1289-psd-0617 ADG LABORATORIES Materials Testing Laboratories Unit 8A 121 Mornington Rd, Mornington TAS 7018 Ph (03) 62446884 Fax (03) 62451498 ACN 117 593 254 Client GHD Project Material Evaluation Location Swansea Dam Project No. 0047/17/6H Sample No. H17/869 Date Received 12/10/17 Date Tested 26/10/17 Sample Identification BP17 0.5 - 4.0m Sampled By Client Sample Description Brown Silty Sandy Clay Test Report No. 0047/17/6H/BJ

Test Description Test Method Results Units Remarks AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 57 % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 28 %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 29 %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 13 % curling y cracking Y n crumbling n

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 - deionised water used

Maximum dry density 5.1.1 - t/m3

Optimum moisture content 5.1.1 - %

Moisture Content 2.1.1 41.8 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm

finer than 100 %

75 %

53 %

37.5 %

26.5 %

19 %

13.2 %

9.5 %

6.7 %

4.75 100 % 2.36 99 % 1.18 99 % 0.600 97 % 0.425 96 % 0.300 93 % 0.150 84 % 0.075 74 % Preliminary Report Issued? yes If Yes, Replaces Preliminary Report No. P 0047/17/6H/BJ

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - testing 2/11/17

Approved Signatory Date of issue LABORATORY ACCREDITATION No 16752 D L Maundrill

1289-psd-0617 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Job No 17071 CIVIL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Report No 17071/R050 6 - 8 Rose Avenue, Croydon 3136 Date of Issue 15/11/17 Client ADG LABORATORIES (ULVERSTONE) Tested by ANR Project JOB No 0047/17/64 SWANSEA Date tested 02/11/17 Location SWANSEA Checked by ANR Sample Identification H17/869 BP17 0.5 - 1.0m Sample No 17071044 Sample Description Brown Silty Sandy Clay AS 1289.3.6.1*- Particle Size Distribution performed by Client. See Report No 0047/17/6H/BJ

Particle Percent AS SIEVE (mm)

Size Passing

1.18

2.36 4.75 13.2 53.0 26.5 37.5 75.0

0.075 0.300 0.425 9.5 0.600 6.7 19.0 (mm) 0.150 100 100.0 100 75.0 100 53.0 100 90 37.5 100 26.5 100 19.0 100 80 13.2 100 9.5 100 70 6.7 100 4.75 100 2.36 99 60 1.18 99 0.600 97 50 0.425 96 0.300 93 Passing Percent 0.150 84 40 0.075 74 0.066 71 30 0.048 69 0.034 66 0.024 65 20 0.017 62 0.012 59 10 0.0088 58 0.0063 56 0.0045 53 0 0.0030 53 fine medium coarse fine medium coarse fine medium coarse

0.0023 51 CLAY SAND GRAVEL 0.0013 48 SILT COBBLES 0.002 0.060 2.0 60.0 Particle Size (mm) Gravel Sand Silt Cobbles 0.0% coarse 0.0% coarse 2.0% coarse 5.4% Gravel 1.0% medium 0.0% medium 9.3% medium 7.9% Sand 30.2% fine 1.0% fine 18.9% fine 5.3% Silt 18.6% Total 1.0% Total 30.2% Total 18.6% Clay 50.2% Total 100.0%

A362 V1.15 MAR 13 ADG LABORATORIES materials testing laboratories FALLING HEAD PERMEABILITY

Unit 8A 121 Mornington Rd Mornington Ph (03) 62446884 Fax (03) 62451498 ACN 117 593 254 job No 0047/17/6H client GHD date tested 1 - 6/11/17 project Material Evaluation cert No 0047/17/6H/BK location Swansea sampled by: Client date received 24/10/17

Sample Sample coefficient of initial dry field moisture Identification Description permeability density content m/sec t/m3 %

H17/865 Maximum Dry Density 1.34 t/m3 5.91 x 10-10 1.33 40.1 BP15 Optimum Moisture Content 35.7% 0.4 - 0.7m

H17/866 Maximum Dry Density 1.83 t/m3 1.48 x 10-9 1.79 23.8 BP15 Optimum Moisture Content 19.4% 0.8 - 1.35m

H17/868 Maximum Dry Density 1.87 t/m3 1.92 x 10-9 1.86 21.1 BP16 Optimum Moisture Content 16.2% 0.5 - 1.0m

Note: 1 Hobart tap water used. Mean temperature 150 C.

2 Specimen remoulded to a target density of 98% Standard Compaction

Appendix D – Gradco Investigation Test Pit Logs and Laboratory Test Certificates

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 ADG LABORATORIES TEST RESULTS materials testing laboratories AS 1289 2.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.4.1,3.8.1 7 Derby Street Mowbray ph 63 261266 fax 63261566 ACN 117 593 254 client Gradco job No 0050/17/15M project Material Evaluation Report No 0050/17/15M/AA location Swansea sampled by: Client date received 22/11/2017 date tested 22/11/2017

Sample Sample Description Moisture Liquid Plastic Plasticity Linear Emerson Number & client sample ID Content Limit Limit Index Shrinkage Crumb L17/701 % % % % % No

A Red / Brown Silty Clay / Rock 12.5 - - - - - TP 1 3.5m

B Red / Brown Silty Clay / Rock 13.3 - - - - - TP1 4.5m

C Red / Brown Silty Clay / Rock 10.7 - - - - - TP2 1.8m

D Red / Brown Silty Clay / Rock 12.3 - - - - - TP2 Representative

E Red / Brown Silty Clay 33.2 - - - - - TP 3 3.0m

F Red / Brown Silty Clay / Rock 35.0 - - - - - TP 4 1.2m

G Red / Brown Silty Clay / Rock 31.6 - - - - - TP4 2.2-2.3m

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 - Testing

Approved Signatory date of issue Laboratory Accreditation No 15466 A Thompson 01/12/2017 ADG LABORATORIES materials testing laboratories 7 Derby Street, Mowbray Ph (03) 6326 1266 Fax (03) 6326 1566 ACN 117 593 254 client Gradco project Material Evaluation location Swansea project no 0050/17/15M sample no L17/701a date received 22/11/2017 date tested 28/11/2017 sample identification TP01 & TP02 Combined Mix sampled by Client sample description Red / Brown Silty Clay / Rock test report No 0050/17/15M/AB

Test description Test Method Results units remarks

AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 Not Tested % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 Not Tested %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 - %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 - % Cracking Curling Crumbling

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 Not Tested deionised water used

Moisture Content 2.1.1 18.5 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm 150 100 % finer than 100 94 % 75 91 % 53 83 % 37.5 72 % 26.5 61 % 19 49 % 13.2 42 % 9.5 37 % 6.7 33 % 4.75 31 % 2.36 28 % 1.18 26 % 0.600 23 % 0.425 21 % 0.300 19 % 0.150 16 % 0.075 14 %

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. 01/12/2017 Laboratory Accreditation No 15466 Approved Signatory date of issue

A Thompson

1289-psd-0206 ADG LABORATORIES materials testing laboratories 7 Derby Street, Mowbray Ph (03) 6326 1266 Fax (03) 6326 1566 ACN 117 593 254 client Gradco project Material Evaluation location Swansea project no 0050/17/15M sample no L17/701b date received 22/11/2017 date tested 29/11/2017 sample identification TP 4 1.2m sampled by Client sample description Red / Brown Silty Clay test report No 0050/17/15M/AC

Test description Test Method Results units remarks

AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 60 % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 25 %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 35 %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 11.5 % Cracking No Curling Yes Crumbling No

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 5 deionised water used

Moisture Content 2.1.1 35.0 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm 150 %

finer than 100 %

75 %

53 %

37.5 %

26.5 %

19 %

13.2 %

9.5 %

6.7 %

4.75 100 % 2.36 99 % 1.18 97 % 0.600 96 % 0.425 94 % 0.300 86 % 0.150 68 % 0.075 58 %

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. 03/12/2017 Laboratory Accreditation No 15466 Approved Signatory date of issue

A Thompson

1289-psd-0206 ADG LABORATORIES materials testing laboratories 7 Derby Street, Mowbray Ph (03) 6326 1266 Fax (03) 6326 1566 ACN 117 593 254 client Gradco project Material Evaluation location Swansea project no 0050/17/15M sample no L17/701c date received 22/11/2017 date tested 29/11/2017 sample identification TP 4 2.2-2.3m sampled by Client sample description Brown Silty Clay test report No 0050/17/15M/AD

Test description Test Method Results units remarks

AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 49 % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 26 %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 23 %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 10 % Cracking No Curling Yes Crumbling No

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 5 deionised water used

Moisture Content 2.1.1 31.6 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm 150 %

finer than 100 %

75 %

53 %

37.5 %

26.5 %

19 %

13.2 %

9.5 100 % 6.7 99 % 4.75 98 % 2.36 97 % 1.18 93 % 0.600 85 % 0.425 74 % 0.300 60 % 0.150 44 % 0.075 36 %

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. 03/12/2017 Laboratory Accreditation No 15466 Approved Signatory date of issue

A Thompson

1289-psd-0206 ADG LABORATORIES materials testing laboratories 7 Derby Street, Mowbray Ph (03) 6326 1266 Fax (03) 6326 1566 ACN 117 593 254 client Gradco project Material Evaluation location Swansea project no 0050/17/15M sample no L17/701d date received 22/11/2017 date tested 04/12/2017 sample identification Screen Sample sampled by Client sample description Red / Brown Silty Clay test report No 0050/17/15M/AE

Test description Test Method Results units remarks

AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 52 % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 26 %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 26 %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 10.5 % Cracking No Curling Yes Crumbling No

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 5 deionised water used

Moisture Content 2.1.1 17.6 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm 150 %

finer than 100 %

75 %

53 %

37.5 %

26.5 %

19 100 % 13.2 92 % 9.5 86 % 6.7 81 % 4.75 78 % 2.36 72 % 1.18 66 % 0.600 59 % 0.425 55 % 0.300 51 % 0.150 42 % 0.075 33 %

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. 05/12/2017 Laboratory Accreditation No 15466 Approved Signatory date of issue

A Thompson

1289-psd-0206 ADG LABORATORIES materials testing laboratories 7 Derby Street, Mowbray Ph (03) 6326 1266 Fax (03) 6326 1566 ACN 117 593 254 client Gradco project Material Evaluation location Swansea project no 0050/17/15M sample no L17/722 date received 30/11/2017 date tested 04/12/2017 sample identification Oversize Screen Sample sampled by Client sample description Red / Brown Silty Clay / Rock test report No 0050/17/15M/AF

Test description Test Method Results units remarks

AS 1289

Liquid Limit 3.1.2 Not Tested % Air dried dry sieved

Plastic Limit 3.2.1 Not Tested %

Plasticity Index 3.3.1 - %

Linear Shrinkage 3.4.1 - % Cracking No Curling Yes Crumbling No

Emerson Class Number 3.8.1 Not Tested deionised water used

Moisture Content 2.1.1 5.2 % as received

Particle Size Distribution 3.6.1 mm 150 %

finer than 100 %

75 100 % 53 97 % 37.5 64 % 26.5 29 % 19 11 % 13.2 9 % 9.5 9 % 6.7 8 % 4.75 8 % 2.36 8 % 1.18 7 % 0.600 7 % 0.425 6 % 0.300 6 % 0.150 5 % 0.075 5 %

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. 05/12/2017 Laboratory Accreditation No 15466 Approved Signatory date of issue

A Thompson

1289-psd-0206 ADG LABORATORIES materials testing laboratories FALLING HEAD PERMEABILITY

7 Derby Street Mowbray ph 63 261266 fax 63261566 ACN 117 593 254 job No 0050/17/15M/AH client Gradco date tested 10/12/2017 project Material Evaluation location Swansea sampled by: Client date received 21/11/2017

Sample Sample coefficient of initial dry field moisture Identification Description permeability density content m/sec t/m3 %

L17/710d Red / Brown Silty Gravelly Clay -10 Screen Sample Maximum Dry Density 1.71 t/m3 4.1 x 10 1.623 17.1 Optimum Moisture Content 20.8%

Note: 1 Launceston tap water used. Mean temperature 12 C.

2 Specimen remoulded to a target density of 95% Standard Compaction.

3 Specimen saturated 4 days prior to test under a head equivalent to 1.5m. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Job No 17071 CIVIL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Report No 17071/R079 6 - 8 Rose Avenue, Croydon 3136 Date of Issue 15/12/17 Client ADG LABORATORIES (ULVERSTONE) Tested by ANR Project Job No 0050/17/15M - SWANSEA Date tested 12/12/17 Location TASMANIA Checked by ANR Sample Identification L17/701 - Screen Sample Sample No 17071067 Sample Description Red / Brown Silty Clay AS 1289.3.6.1* - Particle Size Distribution performed by Client See report No 0050/17/15M/AE

Particle Percent AS SIEVE (mm)

Size Passing

1.18

9.5 6.7

2.36 4.75 13.2 53.0 75.0 26.5 37.5

0.075 0.300 0.425 0.600 19.0 (mm) 0.150 100 100.0 100 75.0 100 53.0 100 90 37.5 100 26.5 100 19.0 100 80 13.2 92 9.5 86 70

6.7 81

4.75 78 2.36 72 60 1.18 66 0.600 59 50 0.425 55 0.300 51 PassingPercent 0.150 42 40 0.075 33 0.062 31 30 0.045 30 0.032 28 0.023 26 20 0.017 24 0.012 22 10 0.0088 21 0.0062 20

0.0040 19 0

0.0032 17 fine medium coarse fine medium coarse fine medium coarse

0.0023 16 CLAY SAND GRAVEL 0.0013 15 SILT COBBLES 0.002 0.060 2.0 60.0 Particle Size (mm) Gravel Sand Silt Cobbles 0.0% coarse 0.0% coarse 11.6% coarse 5.7% Gravel 29.5% medium 20.0% medium 13.3% medium 5.0% Sand 39.6% fine 9.5% fine 14.7% fine 4.1% Silt 14.8% Total 29.5% Total 39.6% Total 14.8% Clay 16.1% Total 100.0%

A362 V1.15 MAR 13

Appendix E – Borrow Pit Volume Estimate

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade, 3218505 TASWATER - SWANSEA DAM UPGRADE Note: 10/02/2018 Relatively high uncertainty in estimated volume, due to variability between borrow Borrow Pit Summary and Volume Estimate pits

Groundwater Available Borrow Topsoil Ave. Topsoil Volume Zone 1 Ave. Zone 1 Volume Zone 1A Ave. Zone 1A Volume Zone 1B Ave. Zone 1B Volume Borrow ID Zone TP ID Test Pit Depth (m) Topsoil Thickness (m) Clay Thickness (m) Zone 1A Thickness Zone 1B Thickness Depth (m) Area (m2) Thickness (m3) Thickness (m) (m3) Thickness (m) (m3) Thickness (m) (m3) 1 A BP08 3 0.35 0.65 2 0 GNE 6,314 0.31 1,957.34 0.45 2,841 1.17 7,387.38 0.21 1,325.94 1 A BP09 2.5 0.3 0 1.65 0.55 GNE 1 A Shaws TP5 1.9 0.3 1.6 0 0 GNE - 2008 1 A BP13 0.9 0.3 0 0.6 0 GNE 1 A TP40 2.4 0.3 0 1.6 0.5 GNE - 2008 1 B TP 40 2.4 0.3 0 0 2.1 GNE - 2008 21,360 0.30 6,408.00 1.45 30,972 - - 0.88 18,868.00 1 B Shaws TP1 1.6 0.3 1.1 0 0.2 GNE - 2008 1 B Shaws TP2 3.1 0.3 2.2 0 0.6 GNE - 2008 1 B Shaws TP3 3.1 0.3 2.2 0 0.6 GNE - 2008 1 B Shaws TP4 2.8 0.3 2.5 0 0 GNE - 2008 1 B TP 41 2.8 0.3 0.7 0 1.8 GNE - 2008 1 C BP16 1.7 0.15 0 0 1.3 1.3 40,930 0.26 10,459.89 0.67 27,287 - - 0.89 36,382.22 1 C BP17 1.5 0.3 0.7 0 0.5 1.3 Note: 1 C TP29 2.3 0.3 0.5 0 1.5 GNE - 2008 Clayey gravels for Zone 1B material were 1 C TP30 2.3 0.3 0.4 0 1.6 GNE - 2008 below groundwater table during 1 C TP31 3 0.3 0.4 0 2.3 GNE - 2008 investigation (with exception of BP16 0.15 -1.3 m). 1 C BP18 1.8 0.25 1.15 0 0 1.4 The clayey gravels can be dried and 1 C BP14 1.75 0.2 1.1 0 0 1.3 screened to produce additional Zone 1 if 1 C BP15 1.75 0.2 1.15 0 0 1.35 required. 1 C BP19 1.6 0.3 0.6 0 0.8 1.4 1 D Based on C 0.26 0.67 - 0.89 26,310 0.26 6,723.67 0.67 17,540 - - 0.89 23,386.67 1 E BP07 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 GNE 11,340 0.33 3,742.20 0.05 567 0.55 6,237.00 - - 1 E BP10 1 0.35 0.25 0.4 0 GNE 1 E Shaws TP6 1.2 0.3 0 0.6 0 GNE - 2008 1 E BP11 1.05 0.5 0 0.55 0 GNE 1 E BP12 1.6 0.4 0 1.2 0 GNE 1 F Based on C 0.26 0.67 - 0.89 11,120 0.26 2,841.78 0.67 7,413 - - 0.89 9,884.44 2 I- SE Borrow BP04 1.8 0.3 0 0 1.8 1.35 12,270 0.28 3,476.50 0.37 4,499 - - 1.08 13,292.50 2 I- SE Borrow BP05 1.4 0.25 0.75 0 0.4 0.9 2 H- SE Borrow BP06 1.7 0.3 0.35 0 1.05 1.3 3 G - Spoil Mound BP01 1.5 0.4 0 0 1.1 GNE 14,010 0.33 4,670.00 - 13,015.00 - - 1.43 13,015.00 3 G - Spoil Mound BP02 2.2 0.3 0 0 1.9 GNE 3 G - Spoil Mound BP03 1.6 0.3 0 0 1.3 GNE Subtotal (all Borrow IDs) 40,279 104,134 13,624.38 116,154.77 Subtotal (Borrow IDs 1A, 1C and G- Spoil Mound only) 17,087 43,143 7,387.38 50,723.16

Note: Spoil mound volume - 30,700 m3. =26,000 m3 without topsoil. Assume screening results in 50% Zone 1. GHD

2 Salamanca Square T: 61 3 6210 0600 F: 61 3 6210 0601 E: [email protected]

© GHD 2018 This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited. 3218505- 33172/https://projects.ghd.com/oc/Tasmania/swanseadamupgrade/Delivery/Documents/Borrow Pit Investigation.docx Document Status Revision Author Reviewer Approved for Issue Name Signature Name Signature Date 0 A. Hedge M. Locke M Locke 15/2/2018 S.Ladiges www.ghd.com

Appendix B – Flora & Fauna Study

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505

TasWater Swansea Dam Upgrade Ecological Survey

November 2017

Table of contents

1. Introduction...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Project Description ...... 1 1.3 Study Area ...... 1 1.1 Potential Impact Area...... 3 1.2 Purpose of this Report ...... 3 1.3 Scope and Limitations...... 3 1.4 Acknowledgements ...... 4 2. Methods...... 5 2.1 Background Research ...... 5 2.2 Field Survey ...... 5 2.3 Nomenclature and Assessment of Significance ...... 5 3. Ecological Values ...... 6 3.1 Vegetation Communities ...... 6 3.2 Results of the field survey ...... 6 3.3 Threatened Flora ...... 12 3.4 Threatened Fauna ...... 12 3.5 Raptor Nest Records ...... 16 3.6 Introduced Plants and Pathogens ...... 16 3.7 Geoconservation ...... 16 3.8 Reserves ...... 16 3.9 Nationally Important and RAMSAR Wetlands ...... 17 4. Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 18 4.1 Vegetation Communities ...... 18 4.2 Significant Flora ...... 18 4.3 Threatened Fauna ...... 18 4.4 Management Measures ...... 18 4.5 Approvals ...... 19 5. References ...... 20

Table index

Table 1 Threatened Flora Recorded within 500 m of study area (NVA 2017) ...... 12 Table 2 Threatened Fauna potentially within 500 meters of study area (NVA 2017) ...... 13 Table 3 Listed weeds within 500 metres of study area (NV 2017) ...... 16

This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document. GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505 | i

Figure index

Figure 1 Study Area ...... 2 Figure 2 Ecological Values - Vegetation Map ...... 10 Figure 3 Proposed Works in Relation to Ecological Values ...... 11

Appendices

Appendix A - Natural Values Atlas Report Appendix B - Protected Matter Search Report

Appendix C – Species List

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

TasWater engaged GHD Pty Ltd (GHD) to undertake a flora and fauna habitat assessment of the proposed Swansea (Meredith) Dam upgrade works on the East Coast of Tasmania.

1.2 Project Description

Meredith Dam is a 470 ML off-stream earth and rock fill dam located near the town of Swansea. The storage provides water to the town of Swansea. The dam comprises two embankments, a main embankment to the south-east of the storage and a smaller saddle dam to the north west of the storage. When the dam was initially filled, seepage and mud boils were observed downstream. Further investigations into the foundations of the dam concluded that the risk of dam failure would lie above the ANCOLD limit of tolerability (LoT) if the dam was operated to Full Supply Level (FSL). The dam was subsequently run with a lower TWL(RL 18 m), with an active storage of approximately 70 ML. TasWater engaged GHD to provide investigation, design and construction support for the remediation and upgrade of Meredith Dam. The primary purpose of the upgrade works would be to allow the dam to be safely operated to the design FSL n(RL 24.5 m). The secondary purpose of the upgrade is reducing the seepage losses from the reservoir, if the capital cost of seepage reduction works are found to offset the cost of water losses.

A flora, fauna and weed survey was required as part of the assessment of the impact of the proposed works.

1.3 Study Area

Meredith Dam is located in agricultural land, approximately 2.5 km to the north-west of Swansea. The study area considered four proposed footprint areas for construction of the pump station, reservoir, borrow pits and the dam remediation works. Refer to Figure 1 for locations.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505 | 1 585,500 586,000 586,500 587,000 587,500 588,000

Study Area 0 0 0 0 5 5 , , 6 6 3 3 3 3 , , 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 6 6 3 3 3 3 , , 5 5

Swansea 0 0 0 0 5 5 , , 5 5 3 3 3 3 , , 5 5

TasWater Job Number 32-18505 Paper Size A3 Revision E 0 25 50 100 150 200 250 Swansea Dam Upgrade Date 27 Nov 2017 Metres

Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994 o Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55 Study Area Figure 1 G:\32\18505\GIS\Maps\PDF\3218505_003_StudyArea_RevE.mxd 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7000 Australia T 61 3 6210 0600 F 61 3 6210 0601 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com © 2017. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and other data custodians) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data source: GHD Study Sites, 2017. Created by: drockliff

1.1 Potential Impact Area

Outside of the dam itself, the majority of the potential upgrade works are limited to the area around the toe of the dam (50 meters wide), a small area adjacent to the existing water treatment plant (where several storage tanks will be placed) and a pipeline connection in the north east of the site. Up to three borrow locations may be developed on the neighbouring property to supply the materials needed to complete the upgrade, these have been included in the study area.

1.2 Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this assessment was to:  Describe the vegetation, flora and fauna of the study area;

 Identify listed ecological values of the study area;

 Identify any key threatening processes within the study area;  Outline potential impacts of the proposed upgrade works on ecological values;

 Evaluate the proposed upgrade works against relevant ecological policy and legislation;  Provide recommendations to minimise impacts of the proposed upgrade works on ecological values.

1.3 Scope and Limitations

This report: has been prepared by GHD Pty Ltd (GHD) for TasWater and may only be used and relied on by TasWater for the purpose agreed between GHD and TasWater as set out in Section 1.2 of this report.

The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this report:  were limited to those specifically detailed in the report and are subject to the scope limitations set out in the report;

 were limited to an ecological assessment of vascular plant species (ferns, conifers and flowering plants), terrestrial and migratory vertebrate fauna;

 did not include non-vascular flora (e.g. mosses, liverworts, lichens, and fungi), marine fauna habitat and invertebrate habitat, which were not formally surveyed as part of this assessment;  included field surveys during winter, which is a sub-optimal time of year to survey for most herbaceous annuals and grass species. Therefore, it is considered possible that threatened plant species were overlooked during the survey. A follow-up spring survey should be conducted if disturbance of areas identified as containing possible habitat for threatened flora are to be disturbed;

 did not include a detailed fauna field survey (i.e. trapping or camera survey, or targeted bird utilisation surveys) at the study area. The fauna investigation instead focussed on fauna habitat, and evidence of animals (e.g. scats, tracks, feathers); and

 did not include an aquatic assessment, with aquatic environment(s) not formally surveyed as part of this assessment.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505 | 3

GHD has prepared this report on the basis of information provided by TasWater and others who provided information to GHD (including Government authorities), which GHD has not independently verified or checked beyond the agreed scope of work. GHD does not accept liability in connection with such unverified information, including errors and omissions in the report which were caused by errors or omissions in that information. The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on conditions encountered, observations made and information reviewed at the date of preparation of the report. Due to the fact that GHD was only present at specific points within the relevant site(s) on specific dates and certain time periods, this report is only indicative (and not definitive) of flora and fauna present on the site(s). Flora and fauna (whether in type or quantity) can also change and fluctuate at different times throughout the year (due to factors including seasonal changes, external events or third party intervention), where it is not possible to observe such changes or fluctuations where only discrete site(s) visits have taken place. GHD has no responsibility or obligation to update this report to account for events or changes occurring subsequent to the date that the report was prepared.

1.4 Acknowledgements

 The Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) for access to its Natural Values Atlas (NVA) database;

 The Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy (DOTEE) for access to its Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST).

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505 | 4

2. Methods 2.1 Background Research A desktop review of available information was conducted to identify potential impacts of the upgrade of the dam on known ecological values.

The primary data sources accessed during the background research included;  The Natural Values Atlas which includes information on ecological communities as well as threatened plants and animals listed on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

 The Commonwealth Government Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBCA) 1999 Protected Matters Search Tool, which contains information on Nationally listed ecological values; and  The Land Information System of Tasmania (THE LIST) which includes aerial photography as well as additional information on ecological values within Tasmania.

The information collected from desktop review was used to identify areas of potential ecological significance to be targeted during the field survey. 2.2 Field Survey

2.2.1 Botanical Survey and Fauna Habitat Assessment The survey was conducted on 6 July 2017 and a follow-up survey on 25 August 2017 by James Hill (Senior Ecologist). The study area was surveyed on foot utilising the random meander technique and areas pin pointed as potentially supporting significant flora and fauna values investigated thoroughly.

The survey was not conducted at the optimum time of year, as the majority of plant species were not in a reproductive phase, making identification of potential threatened species difficult. However, given the vegetation types recorded at the site, the likelihood of having overlooked threatened flora is considered to be low.

All flora and fauna species observed (and/or heard) were recorded, along with fauna habitat values, native vegetation communities and weed infestations (refer Appendix C for species list).

2.2.2 Statement of Compliance Plant species were collected in accordance with the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment’s Plant Collection Permit Number DA 17108 (expiry: 30/06/2020). 2.3 Nomenclature and Assessment of Significance All plants were identified in accordance with A Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania (Baker & de Salas 2017). Flora and fauna conservation significance was determined in accordance with the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection (TSP) Act 1995 and the Commonwealth EPBCA. Conservation significance of vegetation communities was assessed in accordance with the TASVEG 2013 and Regional Forestry Agreement (RFA) classification and associated criteria (DPIPWE 2014). Conservation significance of other ecological communities was determined in accordance with the Commonwealth EPBCA.

Significance of impacts on Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) were assessed in accordance with the Australian Government’s Significant Impact Guidelines (DOTE 2013).

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505 | 5

3. Ecological Values

3.1 Vegetation Communities A search of the Natural Values Atlas and EPBCA Protected Matters Search Tool identified the following threatened vegetation communities. The communities presented are listed under schedule 3A of the Nature Conservation Act 2002 (NCA) or the EPBCA, and predicted to occur within 1000 meters of Meredith Dam.

 Eucalyptus viminalis – Eucalytpus globulus coastal forest and woodland (DVC)

 Eastern riparian scrub (SRE) Vegetation communities as mapped by TASVEG 3.0 are also included in Figure 2. The mapping has included a buffer area of 1000 m around the proposed infrastructure. This mapping was ground truthed and refined during the field survey in July and August 2017. The proposed dam upgrade footprint falls predominantly within the vegetation community of agricultural land (FAG). There is also a small area of Eucalyptus viminalis grassy forest and woodland (DVG) which is likely to be impacted. The Eastern Riparian Scrub along the Meredith River is unlikely to be impacted as it is not within the works area (Figure 3). 3.2 Results of the field survey

3.2.1 Vegetation Communities

The field survey identified the following three vegetation types within the study area, none of which are threatened. Agricultural land (FAG)

This vegetation type generally includes improved pastures, cropland and orchards, with numerous exotic species dominating, although minor occurrences of native species such as those in the genera Austrodanthonia (wallabygrass) and Austrostipa (speargrass) may also be present.

In general the areas mapped as FAG are highly impacted by heavy grazing pressure consequently reducing the species diversity and native flora component. The area is highly variable with the lower sections being relatively water logged (dam seepage and/or surface rainfall runoff) and the more elevated areas typically dry. Species identification at times was difficult due to the survey time (winter) and the grazing pressure reducing the occurrence of reproductive material. However the general composition was introduced grass species including Holcus lanatus (yorkshire fog), Lolium perenne (perennial ryegrass), Agrostis capillaris (bentgrass), Bromus catharticus (prairie grass) and Dactylis glomerata (cocksfoot). Native grass species included Poa labillardierei (tussockgrass), Poa rodwayi (velvet tussockgrass), Pentapogon quadrifidus (five-awned speargrass) and occasional Themeda triandra (kangaroo grass). Weed species present within the vegetation unit included Ulex europaeus (gorse), Rosa rubiginosa (sweet briar) and Rubus fruticosus (blackberry).

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505 | 6

Photo 1 Agricultural land bordering the toe of the dam

Photo 2 Gorse within the agricultural community

Eucalyptus viminalis grassy forest and woodland (DVG) This vegetation community is generally a low to medium height open forest dominated by Eucalyptus viminalis subsp. viminalis (white gum), E. rubida (candlebark) and sometimes E. dalrympleana (mountain white gum). Low shrubs may form a sparse layer, but the understorey is generally grassy.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505 | 7

Within the study area this vegetation was characterised by Eucalyptus viminalis subsp. viminalis (white gum) being the dominant eucalypt with some Eucalyptus ovata var. ovata present in the wetter areas and Eucalyptus pulchella sub-dominant in the dryer areas. Shrubs and smaller tree species included Bursaria spinosa subsp. spinosa (prickly box), Exocarpos cupressiformis (common native-cherry), Acacia dealbata subsp. dealbata (silver wattle), Acacia verticillata (prickly moses) and Banksia marginata (silver banksia). Smaller shrub species included Epacris impressa (common heath) and Pultenaea juniperina (prickly beauty). Grasses and sedges included Agrostis capillaris (bentgrass), Dianella tasmanica (forest flaxlily), Poa labillardierei (tussockgrass), Lomandra longifolia (sagg) and Austrostipa mollis (soft speargrass). In general the area mapped as DVG is in good condition increasing in quality with distance from the area mapped as agricultural land and the current dam.

Photo 3 Eucalyptus viminalis grassy forest and woodland

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505 | 8

Eastern Riparian Scrub (SRE) - Threatened Eastern riparian scrub is found along creeks and rivers of the Tasmanian mainland from sea level to 600 m within the Northern Midlands, Ben Lomond, Flinders and Tasmanian South East Bioregions. The structure and floristics of SRE are variable depending on hydrological and other disturbance regimes, however indicative species include Micrantheum hexandrum, Leptospermum lanigerum, Grevillea australis and Spyridium lawrencei. This is the appropriate benchmark to use in assessing the condition of the eastern distribution of the listed Riparian scrub community. Within the study area this community boarders the Meredith River. The community is in relatively good condition with low representation of weeds and exotic species. Eucalyptus species included Eucalyptus viminalis and E. ovata. Shrubs and understory species were represented by Acacia dealbata subsp. dealbata, Allocasuarina verticillata and Banksia marginata. Sedges and grasses included Lepidosperma inops and Poa labillardierei.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505 | 9 586,000 586,500 587,000 587,500 588,000 588,500

Declared Weeds " Gorse " Blackberry Threatened Species # Melaleuca pustulata Dry eucalypt forest and woodland DPU

DVG

DVC

Scrub, heathland and coastal complexes SRE

Native grassland GCL

5,336,500 # Agricultural, urban and exotic vegetation 5,336,500 FAG

FUM

FUR

FWU

" Other natural environments """ " OAQ "" ""

5,336,000 " 5,336,000 " ""

Swansea ##

5,335,500 # 5,335,500 # # ### # #

586,000 586,500 587,000 587,500 588,000 588,500

TasWater Job Number 32-18505 Paper Size A3 Legend Revision E 0 25 50 100 150 200 250 Swansea Dam Upgrade Date 27 Nov 2017 Metres Study Area Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994 o Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55 Ecological Values Figure 2 G:\32\18505\GIS\Maps\Working\3218505_002_EcologicalValues_RevD.mxd 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7000 Australia T 61 3 6210 0600 F 61 3 6210 0601 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com © 2017. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and other data custodians) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data source: DPIPWE, TasVeg3, 2017; GHD, observed vegetation, 2017, GHD Ecological Observations. Created by: drockliff 586,000 586,500 587,000 587,500 588,000 588,500

Declared Weeds " Gorse

" Blackberry Threatened Species

# Melaleuca pustulata

Dry eucalypt forest and woodland

DPU

DVG

DVC

0 Scrub, heathland and coastal complexes 0 0 0 5 5 , , 6 6 3 3 3 3 , SRE , 5 # 5 Native grassland

GCL

Agricultural, urban and exotic vegetation " FAG """ " FUM "" FUR "" FWU " Other natural environments OAQ 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 6 6 3 3 3 3 , , 5 " 5 " ""

Swansea 0 0

0 # 0 5 5 , # , 5 5 3 3 3 3 , , 5 # 5 # # ### # #

TasWater Job Number 32-18505 Paper Size A3 Legend Revision C 0 25 50 100 150 200 250 Swansea Dam Upgrade Date 28 Nov 2017 Metres Study Area Dam Works Area

Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994 o Borrow Works Area Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55 Proposed Works in Relation to Ecological Values Figure 3 G:\32\18505\GIS\Maps\Working\3218505_002_Eco_Val_Borrow_RevA.mxd 2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7000 Australia T 61 3 6210 0600 F 61 3 6210 0601 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com © 2017. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and other data custodians) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data source: DPIPWE, TasVeg3, 2017; GHD, observed vegetation, 2017, GHD Ecological Observations. Created by: drockliff

3.3 Threatened Flora

The Natural Values Atlas and EPBCA Protected Matters Search Tool identified a range of flora species listed under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA) and EPBCA which have been previously recorded or are predicted to occur within the dam upgrade footprint. The following threatened flora species have previously been recorded within 500 m of the dam wall. The accuracy of the record has been gauged via the age of the record, the observer and allocated a likelihood of reliability of low, medium and high.

Table 1 Threatened Flora Recorded within 500 m of study area (NVA 2017)

Species EPBC TSPA Likelihood of reliability Callitris oblonga subsp. Oblonga (south esk pine) Endangered Vulnerable High Damanonium minus (starfruit) Rare Moderate Melaleuca pustulata (warty paperbark) Rare High Haloragis heterophylla (variable raspwort) Rare Moderate Vittadinia gracilis (wooly new-holland daisy) Rare Low Vittadinia burbidgeae (smooth new-holland daisy) Rare Low

Additional species previously recorded within 5 km or predicted to occur based on habitat mapping are included in Appendix C

3.3.1 Flora recorded during the field survey

A total of 58 flora species were recorded during the field survey with 40 native and 18 introduced species. A flora species list is included as Appendix C.

Melaleuca pustulata (warty paperbark) occurs within the study area boundary within the Eastern Riparian Scrub (SRE) along the Meredith River and along the road on Maria Street near the spoil mound area. No other threatened flora species were recorded during this field assessment. However the survey was not conducted at an optimum time of year to identify many of the potential threatened species that may occur within the study area. It is considered possible that herbaceous annuals and orchids may have been overlooked due to the survey timing, however due to the habitat types recorded, the probability is low.

3.4 Threatened Fauna

The Natural Values Atlas and EPBCA Protected Matters Search Tool identified a range of fauna species listed under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA) and EPBCA which have been observed or are likely to occur within 500m of the dam wall based on range boundaries.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505 | 12

Table 2 Threatened Fauna potentially within 500 meters of study area (NVA 2017)

Species TSPA EPBC Brief habitat description & Likelihood of occurrence within study area

Prototroctes Vulnerable Vulnerable Occurs in middle to lower reaches of

maraena rivers and streams. Unlikely, however, Australian may occur nearby in the Meredith grayling River.

Sarcophilus Endangered Endangered May occur in a variety of forest types harrisii including coastal heath, open dry Tasmanian devil sclerophyll forest, and mixed sclerophyll rainforest. Possible, some suitable foraging habitat.

Tyto Endangered Vulnerable Usually found in lowland dry sclerophyll novaehollandiae forest; however, can occur in wet subsp. castanops sclerophyll forest, non-eucalypt masked owl dominated forest, scrub and urban (Tasmanian) environments. Possible some suitable habitat. Potential hollows in the larger E. viminalis trees.

Litoria raniformis Vulnerable Vulnerable Occurs in permanent or temporary (green and gold water bodies, generally dominated by frog) Triglochin or a species of Juncus or sedge. Possible, some suitable habitat. Not recorded during the field survey, field survey timing not appropriate to detect.

Pseudomys Endangered Vulnerable Known to inhabit open heathlands, novaehollandiae open woodlands with a heathland New Holland understorey, and vegetated sand mouse dunes. Unlikely, little suitable habitat.

Pseudemoia Vulnerable The available habitat of this species pagenstecheri has been very much reduced since tussock skink European settlement, (99.5% of native grasslands already lost) and suitable habitat is very poorly represented in reserves. Unlikely, no suitable habitat.

Dasyurus Rare Vulnerable Most commonly inhabit cool temperate subsp maculatus . rainforest, wet sclerophyll forest, and maculatus coastal scrub. Unlikely, little suitable spotted-tailed habitat. quoll

Aquila audax Endangered Endangered Nest in old growth trees, and common subsp. fleayi in areas with a mosaic of forest,

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505 | 13

Species TSPA EPBC Brief habitat description & Likelihood of occurrence within study area wedge-tailed farmland and waterways. Possible for eagle foraging, however no suitable nesting habitat.

Pardalotus Endangered Endangered Occurs in dry eucalypt forests and quadragintus woodlands, only where Eucalyptus forty-spotted viminalis occurs. Unlikely, some pardalote possible foraging habitat however the site is not in the core range of the species. Nearest known colony location is Maria Island.

Antipodia Endangered Endangered Occurs in dry sclerophyll forest at low subsp. chaostola altitudes in eastern Tasmania. The leucophaea flight season is October and November, chaostola skipper and larvae live and feed in looped leaves of the sedge Gahnia radula. Unlikely, no suitable habitat and Gahnia radula not present. Galaxias fontanus Endangered Endangered Known only from the Swan and swan galaxias Macquarie River catchments of eastern Tasmania, and not found within the distribution of the introduced brown trout (Salmo trutta). Unlikely, no suitable habitat.

Perameles gunnii Not Listed (but Vulnerable Usually occurs in open habitats, eastern barred of high including woodlands, open forests with bandicoot conservation a grassy understorey, and native and significance) exotic grasslands, with some form of thick ground cover/understorey for shelter and nesting. Possible, however marginal habitat and no diggings observed during the field survey.

Dasyurus Endangered The species, fortunately, is widespread viverrinus eastern and locally common in Tasmania. It is quoll found in a variety of habitats including rainforest, heathland, alpine areas and scrub. However, it seems to prefer dry grassland and forest mosaics which are bounded by agricultural land, particularly where pasture grubs are common. Likely, some suitable habitat.

Lathamus Endangered Critically Feed on the nectar of Eucalyptus discolor endangered globulus and E. ovata. Nest in tree swift parrot hollows in eastern Tasmania, usually

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505 | 14

Species TSPA EPBC Brief habitat description & Likelihood of occurrence within study area near the coast in dry forests. Possible, some feed trees (E. ovata) present. Accipiter Endangered Not Listed Occurs in closed forests, with high novaehollandiae priority nesting habitat along grey goshawk watercourses with blackwoods. May otherwise nest in melaleuca, myrtle, teatree and eucalypt species, occasionally up to 100 metres from a watercourse. Possible, may overfly and/or forage within the study area, which is in close proximity to the Meredith River.

Haliaeetus Vulnerable Migratory Generally nest and forage near the

leucogaster coast; however, also occur near large white-bellied sea- rivers and inland lakes. Require old eagle growth trees for nesting. Possible foraging habitat, the study area is relatively close to the coast and the Meredith River. Current nest records within 3 kms.

Additional threatened fauna species have previously been recorded within 5 km of the proposed infrastructure and/or are predicted to occur based on habitat mapping these are detailed in Appendix C.

3.4.1 General Fauna Habitat Values General habitat values of the area include potential hollow bearing trees in a mosaic of agricultural land, woodland forest and riparian forest which provides foraging and potential nesting habitat for bird species. No potential denning sites were observed during the survey however dens may occur in the surrounding area. With the location being away from the township of Swansea the area does provide some opportunities for the species identified in Table 2 as possibly occurring.

3.4.2 Threatened Fauna Habitat Values As the majority of the proposed upgrade works are situated in agricultural land the habitat values in these locations are marginal. It is considered unlikely that the proposed works areas provide key habitat for threatened fauna species. However, there are several potential habitat trees located in the Eucalyptus viminalis -grassy forest and woodland community which may be impacted by works. It is recommended that a pre-clearance survey is undertaken for any individuals that may have the potential to provide nesting for arboreal mammals or bird species, if those trees are to be felled.

Several species such as the White Bellied Sea Eagle and the Grey Goshawk may utilise the general area, in particular the remaining woodland and riparian vegetation for foraging, roosting and nesting.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505 | 15

The site does not provide potential denning habitat for species such as the Tasmanian devil, spotted tail quoll and the eastern quoll, however it is possible that these species occassionaly utilise the area for foraging due to the presence of open agricultural land and grassy woodland and water bodies such as the current dam and Meredith River.

3.5 Raptor Nest Records

There has been one sighting of Tyto novaehollandiae (masked owl) within 500 metres of the study area. There are several nest locations and sightings of raptors within 5000 m of the study area identified by the Natural Values Atlas. There are no eagle nest records within 2 km of the study area.

3.6 Introduced Plants and Pathogens

The Natural Values Atlas identified no known biosecurity risk within 1000 metres of the proposed infrastructure.

Seven weed species listed as a declared weed under the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 has been recorded within 500 metres of Swansea (Meredith) Dam. Five of these are also listed as a weed of national significance.

Table 3 Listed weeds within 500 metres of study area (NV 2017)

Species Tasmanian Weed Weeds of National Management Act Significance

Asparagus asparagoides (bridal creeper) Yes Yes

Echium platagineum (pattersons curse) Yes

Eragrostis curvula (african lovegrass) Yes

Lycium ferocissimum (African boxthorn) Yes Yes

Nassella trichotoma (serrated tussock) Yes Yes

Rubus fruticosus (blackberry) Yes Yes

Ulex europaeus (gorse) Yes Yes

The field survey identified gorse (Ulex europaeus) and blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) within the study area, refer to Figure 2.

3.7 Geoconservation The Natural Values Atlas identified the following geoconservation site within 1 km of Swansea (Meredith) Dam:

 Moulting Lagoon- Great Oyster Bay Note that this site is not located within the proposed infrastructure footprint and is considered unlikely to be impacted by the upgrade of the dam.

3.8 Reserves

The Natural Values Atlas identified three conservation covenant (NCA) within 1 km of the proposed infrastructure. Note that these sites are not located within the proposed infrastructure footprint and are considered unlikely to be impacted by the upgrade of the dam.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505 | 16

3.9 Nationally Important and RAMSAR Wetlands

The EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool identified Moulting lagoon as RAMSAR Wetlands or Wetlands of National Importance within 10 km of the Swansea (Meredith) Dam. Note that this site is not located within the proposed infrastructure footprint and is considered unlikely to be impacted by the upgrade of the dam.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505 | 17

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

4.1 Vegetation Communities No threatened vegetation communities will be impacted by the proposed remediation works. The dam upgrade works will be conducted in predominantly agricultural land. The areas of Eucalyptus viminalis grassy forest and woodland (DVG) are located in the north western corner of the site. It is recommended that this habitat is maintained where practicable as it has the potential to provide habitat for threatened fauna. If trees are to be removed it is recommended that a pre-clearance survey is undertaken to confirm whether hollows are providing habitat for fauna species. If hollows are present, and in use, approvals may be required before tree clearance can occur. The area of Eastern Riparian Scrub (SRE) is recommended to be avoided as clearance will require approval under the Nature Conservation Act 2002 (through the Dam Works Permit approval process) and potentially under the EPBCA as it is likely to provide nesting and foraging habitat for a number of threatened fauna species.

4.2 Significant Flora

Threatened flora identified within the survey area included three Melaleuca pustulata (warty paperbark) individuals.

The Melaleuca pustulata (warty paperbark) along the bank of the Meredith River (NVA data) should not be impacted by the dam upgrade works as they are located outside the works footprint. The individuals along the road verge on Maria Street should also not be impacted by the works as a 5 m buffer will be maintained during the works on site, including the construction of the access roads to the works site from Maria Street. If contractors are unsure of the trees that are required to be avoided it is suggested that an appropriately qualified botanist clearly identifies and marks the individuals.

The majority of the dam upgrade works footprint does not provide appropriate habitat for threatened flora, and in particular threatened orchid species, as it is situated in suboptimal agricultural land.

4.3 Threatened Fauna

The potential impacts to fauna habitat values are considered low. However, if trees are to be removed it is recommended that a pre-clearance survey is undertaken for any individuals that may have the potential to provide nesting habitat for arboreal mammals or bird species.

4.4 Management Measures

It is recommended that the following provisions are implemented to minimise impacts to ecological values during the construction phase:  Avoid any unnecessary clearance and/or disturbance of native vegetation, including both trees and understorey vegetation where possible. In particular the stand of E. viminalis var. viminalis (which provides potential habitat for a number of listed threatened fauna species).  Where clearance of eucalypt trees is required, a pre-clearance survey for birds and other native arboreal fauna is recommended to ensure no direct impacts to these species.

 Sediment and erosion control measures such as silt fencing should be in place on the downslope side of the works, to minimise the risk of runoff during rain events.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505 | 18

 No open trenches or holes should be left uncovered at the end of each day unless the appropriate camber is incorporated in the trench sides to provide egress of fauna species. Open trenches and/or holes may cause impacts to wildlife such as bandicoots, quolls and devils.

 Topsoil from the immediate works area should be scalped (top horizon) and carefully stockpiled for replacement after the proposed construction works, to facilitate natural regeneration of native vegetation. In the areas identified as native vegetation, woody debris cleared as part of the work should also be retained and re-laid once works are complete. This is not required for areas mapped as agricultural land (FAG).  Consider engaging a suitably qualified ecologist to mark trees to be protected on site (such as the Melaleuca pustulata) if vegetation clearance is required.  A 5 m buffer is required around the Melaleuca pustulata (warty paperbark) located along the road verge on Maria Street.

4.4.1 Preparation of a Weed Management/Hygiene Plan It is recommended that weed, disease and pest control be considered in the detailed project planning either through incorporation of control measures in a site specific Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) or preparation of a Weed Management/Hygiene Plan. This documentation should include:

 Control of weeds prior to construction where appropriate.

 Washdown and inspection of vehicles, machinery and boots before leaving any site where declared weeds are present to ensure no viable plant materials or large clods of soil are transported. Washdown to be conducted in accordance with the Tasmanian Weed and Disease Planning and Hygiene Guidelines (DPIPWE 2015).

 Control of material brought onto the site, to ensure it is free from weed seeds or diseases.

4.5 Approvals

Current design plans indicate approvals under the Tasmanian TSPA or Commonwealth EPBCA are unlikely to be required. No threatened flora or fauna species are proposed to be impacted within the planned works areas, and impacts to potential threatened fauna habitat are not expected to be significant. However if the area mapped as Eastern Riparian Scrub (SRE) is to be impacted or removed then approvals under the Nature Conservation Act 2002 and the EPBCA may be required.

As discussed above, where clearance of eucalypt trees is required, a pre-clearance survey for birds and other native arboreal fauna is recommended. Additionally, if work plans alter and impacts to any Melaleuca pustulata individuals are likely then an application for a Permit to Take will be required, seeking approval for their removal under the TSPA.

The above recommendations are based on current plans for the proposed dam upgrade works and may need to be revised if the development plans change.

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505 | 19

5. References

 Australian Government, 2017: Protected Matters Search Tool. Department of the Environment (DOTEE). Available online at: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/pmst/index.html.

 Biodiversity Conservation Branch (cited as BCB), 2017: Natural Values Atlas. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE). Available online at: https://www.naturalvaluesatlas.tas.gov.au.

 Bryant, S. & Jackson, J., 1999: Tasmania’s Threatened Fauna Handbook: what, where and how to protect. Threatened Species Unit, Parks & Wildlife, Hobart.

 de Salas, M.F. & Baker, M.L., (2017): A Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania, including Macquarie Island. Tasmanian Herbarium, Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart) www.tmag.tas.gov.au  DPIPWE (2015): Survey Guidelines and Management Advice for Development Proposals that May Impact on the Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus Harrisii). Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment  Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (2015). Weed and Disease Planning and Hygiene Guidelines - Preventing the spread of weeds and diseases in Tasmania. (Eds.) Karen Stewart and Michael Askey-Doran. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart, Tasmania. Available online at: http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/Weed%20%20Management%20and%20Hygiene%2 0Guidelines.pdf.

 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (cited as DPIPWE), 2014: Threatened Native Vegetation Communities. Available online at: http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/conservation/development-planning-conservation- assessment/tools/monitoring-and-mapping-tasmanias-vegetation-(tasveg)/tasveg-the- digital-vegetation-map-of-tasmania/threatened-vegetation-communities-list.

 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, 2014: Threatened Species List – Vascular Plants. Notesheets and Listing Statements available online at: http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/conservation/threatened-species/lists-of-threatened- species/threatened-species-vascular-plants/threatened-species-list-vascular-plants-a-b.

 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, 2014: Threatened Species List – Vertebrate Animals. Recovery Plans and Listing Statements available online at: http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/conservation/threatened-species/lists-of-threatened- species/threatened-species-vertebrates.

 Department of the Environment (cited as DOTE), 2013: Matters of National Environmental Significance, Significant impact guidelines 1.1 – Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Available online at: http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/significant-impact-guidelines-11-matters- national-environmental-significance.

 Department of the Environment, 2009: EPBC Act List of Threatened Fauna. Species Profiles available online at: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna.

 Kitchener, A. & Harris, S., 2013: From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s Vegetation, Edition 2. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment,

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505 | 20

Hobart. Available online at: http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/conservation/flora-of-tasmania/from- forest-to-fjaedlmark-descriptions-of-tasmanias-vegetation-(edition-2).

 Richardson, F.J., Richardson, R.G. & Shepherd, R.C.H., 2007: Weeds of the South-East – An Identification Guide for Australia. R.G. and F.J. Richardson, Victoria, Australia.

 Wapstra, H., Wapstra, A. & Gilfedder, L., 2005: The Little Book of Common Names for Tasmanian Plants. Available online at: http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/Common_names_booklet.pdf .

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505 | 21

Appendices

Appendix A - Natural Values Atlas Report

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505 Natural Values Atlas Report Authoritative, comprehensive information on Tasmania's natural values.

Reference: Requested For: Swansea Dam study areas Report Type: Summary Report Timestamp: 10:22:09 AM Wednesday 04 October 2017 Threatened Flora: buffers Min: 500m Max: 5000m Threatened Fauna: buffers Min: 500m Max: 5000m Raptors: buffers Min: 500m Max: 5000m Tasmanian Weed Management Act Weeds: buffers Min: 500m Max: 5000m Priority Weeds: buffers Min: 500m Max: 5000m Geoconservation: buffer 1000m Acid Sulfate Soils: buffer 1000m TASVEG: buffer 1000m Threatened Communities: buffer 1000m Fire History: buffer 1000m Tasmanian Reserve Estate: buffer 1000m Biosecurity Risks: buffer 1000m

The centroid for this query GDA94: 586821.0, 5336100.0 falls within:

Property: 3016155

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 1 of 48 Threatened flora within 500 metres 588757, 5337271

585514, 5334708 Please note that some layers may not display at all requested map scales

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 2 of 48 Threatened flora within 500 metres Legend: Verified and Unverified observations

Legend: Cadastral Parcels

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 3 of 48 Threatened flora within 500 metres Verified Records Species Common Name SS NS Bio Observation Count Last Recorded Callitris oblonga subsp. oblonga south esk pine v EN e 1 12-Nov-2014 Damasonium minus starfruit r n 1 01-Oct-1978 Haloragis heterophylla variable raspwort r n 2 18-Jan-2010 Melaleuca pustulata warty paperbark r e 11 12-Nov-2014 Vittadinia burbidgeae smooth new-holland-daisy r e 3 11-Dec-2007 Vittadinia gracilis woolly new-holland-daisy r n 1 01-Jan-1993

Unverified Records No unverified records were found!

For more information about threatened species, please Threatened Species Enquiries. Telephone: (03) 6165 4340 Email: [email protected] Address: GPO Box 44, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 7000

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 4 of 48 Threatened flora within 5000 metres 592164, 5341809

582127, 5330175 Please note that some layers may not display at all requested map scales

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 5 of 48 Threatened flora within 5000 metres Legend: Verified and Unverified observations

Legend: Cadastral Parcels

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 6 of 48 Threatened flora within 5000 metres Verified Records Species Common Name SS NS Bio Observation Count Last Recorded Acacia siculiformis dagger wattle r n 1 01-Jan-1882 Austrostipa scabra rough speargrass r n 27 03-Dec-2013 Callitris oblonga subsp. oblonga south esk pine v EN e 2 12-Nov-2014 Calocephalus lacteus milky beautyheads r n 1 19-Jan-1928 Calystegia soldanella sea bindweed r n 13 25-Oct-2013 Cryptandra amara pretty pearlflower e n 1 01-Jan-1896 Damasonium minus starfruit r n 1 01-Oct-1978 Eucalyptus barberi barbers gum r e 1 15-Aug-1900 Haloragis heterophylla variable raspwort r n 2 18-Jan-2010 Hyalosperma demissum moss sunray e n 3 28-Oct-2007 Lasiopetalum micranthum tasmanian velvetbush r e 13 04-Oct-2005 Lobelia pratioides poison lobelia v n 2 16-Nov-2006 Melaleuca pustulata warty paperbark r e 119 08-Jun-2017 Ozothamnus lycopodioides clubmoss everlastingbush r e 8 27-May-2010 Phyllangium divergens wiry mitrewort v n 1 01-Jan-1881 Pterostylis ziegeleri grassland greenhood v VU e 333 30-Oct-2016 Rytidosperma indutum tall wallabygrass r n 1 01-Jan-1993 Scaevola aemula fairy fanflower e n 1 01-Dec-1892 Stenanthemum pimeleoides propeller plant v VU e 2 01-Jan-1946 Stenopetalum lineare narrow threadpetal e n 84 02-Sep-2016 Vittadinia burbidgeae smooth new-holland-daisy r e 5 02-Jan-2011 Vittadinia cuneata var. cuneata fuzzy new-holland-daisy r n 1 01-Oct-1881 Vittadinia gracilis woolly new-holland-daisy r n 1 01-Jan-1993

Unverified Records No unverified records were found!

For more information about threatened species, please Threatened Species Enquiries. Telephone: (03) 6165 4340 Email: [email protected] Address: GPO Box 44, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 7000

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 7 of 48 Threatened fauna within 500 metres 588757, 5337271

585514, 5334708 Please note that some layers may not display at all requested map scales

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 8 of 48 Threatened fauna within 500 metres Legend: Verified and Unverified observations

Legend: Cadastral Parcels

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 9 of 48 Threatened fauna within 500 metres Verified Records Species Common Name SS NS Bio Observation Count Last Recorded Prototroctes maraena australian grayling v VU n 3 29-Mar-1979 Sarcophilus harrisii tasmanian devil e EN e 2 15-Feb-2013 Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl pe PVU n 2 29-Jun-1974

Unverified Records No unverified records were found! Threatened fauna within 500 metres (based on Range Boundaries) Species Common Name SS NS BO Potential Known Core Litoria raniformis green and gold frog v VU n 1 0 0 Pseudomys novaehollandiae new holland mouse e VU n 1 0 0 Pseudemoia pagenstecheri tussock skink v n 1 0 0 Dasyurus maculatus spotted-tailed quoll r VU n 1 0 0 Aquila audax subsp. fleayi tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle e EN e 1 0 0 Pardalotus quadragintus forty-spotted pardalote e EN e 1 0 0 Aquila audax wedge-tailed eagle pe PEN n 1 0 0 Antipodia chaostola chaostola skipper e EN 1 0 0 Galaxias fontanus swan galaxias e EN e 1 0 0 Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl pe PVU n 1 0 1 Perameles gunnii eastern barred bandicoot VU n 1 0 1 Dasyurus viverrinus eastern quoll EN n 0 0 1 Lathamus discolor swift parrot e CR mbe 1 0 1 Prototroctes maraena australian grayling v VU n 1 0 0 Sarcophilus harrisii tasmanian devil e EN e 1 0 0 Accipiter novaehollandiae grey goshawk e n 1 0 0 Haliaeetus leucogaster white-bellied sea-eagle v n 2 0 0

For more information about threatened species, please Threatened Species Enquiries. Telephone: (03) 6165 4340 Email: [email protected] Address: GPO Box 44, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 7000

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 10 of 48 Threatened fauna within 5000 metres 592164, 5341809

582127, 5330175 Please note that some layers may not display at all requested map scales

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 11 of 48 Threatened fauna within 5000 metres Legend: Verified and Unverified observations

Legend: Cadastral Parcels

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 12 of 48 Threatened fauna within 5000 metres Verified Records Species Common Name SS NS Bio Observation Count Last Recorded Accipiter novaehollandiae grey goshawk e n 1 26-Dec-1976 Aquila audax subsp. fleayi tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle e EN e 10 19-Sep-2007 Arctocephalus tropicalis sub-antarctic fur seal e VU n 4 09-Jun-2008 Botaurus poiciloptilus australasian bittern EN n 1 01-Nov-1977 Calidris ferruginea curlew sandpiper CR n 2 30-Sep-1981 Diomedea melanophrys subsp. melanophrys black-browed albatross pe PVU 1 29-Feb-1980 Eagle sp. Eagle e EN n 1 04-Oct-2005 Eubalaena australis southern right whale e EN m 21 14-Sep-2010 Haliaeetus leucogaster white-bellied sea-eagle v n 12 24-Mar-2017 Lathamus discolor swift parrot e CR mbe 7 29-Sep-2008 Megaptera novaeangliae humpback whale e VU m 3 16-Jul-2010 Pachyptila turtur subantarctica southern fairy prion e VU 1 22-Feb-1981 Perameles gunnii eastern barred bandicoot VU n 6 13-Jan-1993 Poliocephalus cristatus subsp. australis great crested grebe pv 1 30-Sep-1981 Prototroctes maraena australian grayling v VU n 4 29-Mar-1979 Sarcophilus harrisii tasmanian devil e EN e 20 20-Dec-2016 Sterna nereis subsp. nereis fairy tern pv PVU 3 31-Aug-1980 Sternula nereis subsp. nereis fairy tern v VU n 2 24-Nov-1998 Theclinesthes serpentata subsp. lavara Chequered Blue r e 1 28-Mar-2012 Thinornis rubricollis hooded plover VU n 29 20-Mar-2015 Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl pe PVU n 6 09-Aug-1995

Unverified Records No unverified records were found! Threatened fauna within 5000 metres (based on Range Boundaries) Species Common Name SS NS BO Potential Known Core Litoria raniformis green and gold frog v VU n 1 0 0 Pseudomys novaehollandiae new holland mouse e VU n 1 0 0 Pseudemoia pagenstecheri tussock skink v n 1 0 0 Dasyurus maculatus spotted-tailed quoll r VU n 1 0 0 Aquila audax subsp. fleayi tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle e EN e 1 0 0 Pardalotus quadragintus forty-spotted pardalote e EN e 1 0 0 Aquila audax wedge-tailed eagle pe PEN n 1 0 0 Antipodia chaostola chaostola skipper e EN 1 0 0 Galaxias fontanus swan galaxias e EN e 1 0 1 Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl pe PVU n 1 0 1 Perameles gunnii eastern barred bandicoot VU n 1 0 1 Dasyurus viverrinus eastern quoll EN n 0 0 1 Lathamus discolor swift parrot e CR mbe 1 0 1 Prototroctes maraena australian grayling v VU n 1 0 0 Sarcophilus harrisii tasmanian devil e EN e 1 0 0 Accipiter novaehollandiae grey goshawk e n 1 0 0 Brachiopsilus ziebelli Ziebells Handfish e VU e 1 0 0 Haliaeetus leucogaster white-bellied sea-eagle v n 2 0 0

For more information about threatened species, please Threatened Species Enquiries. Telephone: (03) 6165 4340 Email: [email protected] Address: GPO Box 44, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 7000

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 13 of 48 Raptor nests and sightings within 500 metres 588757, 5337271

585514, 5334708 Please note that some layers may not display at all requested map scales

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 14 of 48 Raptor nests and sightings within 500 metres Legend: Verified and Unverified observations

Legend: Cadastral Parcels

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 15 of 48 Raptor nests and sightings within 500 metres Verified Records Nest Species Common Name Obs Type Observation Count Last Recorded Id/Loca tion Foreign Id Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl Sighting 2 29-Jun-1974

Unverified Records No unverified records were found! Raptor nests and sightings within 500 metres (based on Range Boundaries) Species Common Name SS NS Potential Known Core Aquila audax wedge-tailed eagle pe PEN 1 0 0 Aquila audax subsp. fleayi tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle e EN 1 0 0 Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl pe PVU 1 0 1 Haliaeetus leucogaster white-bellied sea-eagle v 2 0 0 Accipiter novaehollandiae grey goshawk e 1 0 0

For more information about raptor nests, please contact Threatened Species Enquiries. Telephone: (03) 6165 4340 Email: [email protected] Address: GPO Box 44, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 7000

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 16 of 48 Raptor nests and sightings within 5000 metres 592164, 5341809

582127, 5330175 Please note that some layers may not display at all requested map scales

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 17 of 48 Raptor nests and sightings within 5000 metres Legend: Verified and Unverified observations

Legend: Cadastral Parcels

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 18 of 48 Raptor nests and sightings within 5000 metres Verified Records Nest Species Common Name Obs Type Observation Count Last Recorded Id/Loca tion Foreign Id 1062 Aquila audax subsp. fleayi tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle Nest 2 19-Sep-2007 1271 Haliaeetus leucogaster white-bellied sea-eagle Nest 3 24-Mar-2017 1392 Eagle sp. Eagle Nest 1 04-Oct-2005 610 Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl Nest 1 01-Jan-1985 757 Haliaeetus leucogaster white-bellied sea-eagle Nest 1 01-Jan-1985 Accipiter novaehollandiae grey goshawk Sighting 1 26-Dec-1976 Aquila audax subsp. fleayi tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle Sighting 8 30-Sep-1981 Falco cenchroides nankeen kestrel Sighting 1 03-Sep-1980 Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon Sighting 1 01-Mar-1981 Haliaeetus leucogaster white-bellied sea-eagle Sighting 8 30-Sep-1981 Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl Sighting 5 09-Aug-1995

Unverified Records No unverified records were found! Raptor nests and sightings within 5000 metres (based on Range Boundaries) Species Common Name SS NS Potential Known Core Aquila audax wedge-tailed eagle pe PEN 1 0 0 Aquila audax subsp. fleayi tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle e EN 1 0 0 Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl pe PVU 1 0 1 Haliaeetus leucogaster white-bellied sea-eagle v 2 0 0 Accipiter novaehollandiae grey goshawk e 1 0 0

For more information about raptor nests, please contact Threatened Species Enquiries. Telephone: (03) 6165 4340 Email: [email protected] Address: GPO Box 44, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 7000

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 19 of 48 Tas Management Act Weeds within 500 m 588757, 5337271

585514, 5334708 Please note that some layers may not display at all requested map scales

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 20 of 48 Tas Management Act Weeds within 500 m Legend: Verified and Unverified observations

Legend: Cadastral Parcels

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 21 of 48 Tas Management Act Weeds within 500 m Verified Records Species Common Name Observation Count Last Recorded Asparagus asparagoides bridal creeper 169 09-May-2014 Echium plantagineum patersons curse 18 01-Nov-2016 Eragrostis curvula african lovegrass 1 22-Mar-2016 Lycium ferocissimum african boxthorn 16 14-Oct-2016 Nassella trichotoma serrated tussock 18 01-Nov-2016 Rubus fruticosus blackberry 2 08-Jan-1995 Ulex europaeus gorse 6 15-Feb-2003

Unverified Records

For more information about introduced weed species, please visit the following URL for contact details in your area: http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/invasive-species/weeds

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 22 of 48 Tas Management Act Weeds within 5000 m 592164, 5341809

582127, 5330175 Please note that some layers may not display at all requested map scales

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 23 of 48 Tas Management Act Weeds within 5000 m Legend: Verified and Unverified observations

Legend: Cadastral Parcels

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 24 of 48 Tas Management Act Weeds within 5000 m Verified Records Species Common Name Observation Count Last Recorded Asparagus asparagoides bridal creeper 211 13-May-2014 Carduus pycnocephalus slender thistle 1 16-Nov-2011 Cenchrus longisetus feathertop 2 01-Mar-2010 Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. monilifera boneseed 31 30-Jun-2012 Cirsium arvense var. arvense creeping thistle 6 03-Jan-2011 Cortaderia sp. pampas grass 1 01-Jun-2008 Cytisus scoparius english broom 1 02-Nov-2011 Echium plantagineum patersons curse 26 02-Nov-2016 Eragrostis curvula african lovegrass 5 13-Apr-2017 Foeniculum vulgare fennel 6 30-Dec-2011 Genista monspessulana montpellier broom 2 25-Sep-2013 Lepidium draba hoary cress 2 24-Jan-2012 Lycium ferocissimum african boxthorn 140 14-Oct-2016 Marrubium vulgare white horehound 14 25-Sep-2013 Nassella trichotoma serrated tussock 648 02-Nov-2016 Onopordum acanthium scotch thistle 1 01-Jan-1993 Rubus fruticosus blackberry 10 15-Nov-2011 Ulex europaeus gorse 235 24-Jan-2017

Unverified Records

For more information about introduced weed species, please visit the following URL for contact details in your area: http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/invasive-species/weeds

*** No Priority Weeds found within 500 metres ***

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 25 of 48 Priority Weeds within 5000 m 592164, 5341809

582127, 5330175 Please note that some layers may not display at all requested map scales

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 26 of 48 Priority Weeds within 5000 m Legend: Verified and Unverified observations

Legend: Cadastral Parcels

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 27 of 48 Priority Weeds within 5000 m Verified Records Species Common Name Observation Count Last Recorded Acacia howittii sticky wattle 1 06-Nov-2011 Billardiera heterophylla bluebell creeper 1 06-Nov-2011 Echium candicans pride-of-madeira 1 06-Nov-2011 Juncus acutus sharp rush 1 27-Feb-2009 Pittosporum undulatum sweet pittosporum 1 06-Nov-2011 Polygala myrtifolia myrtleleaf milkwort 1 06-Nov-2011 Verbascum thapsus great mullein 2 17-Mar-1993

Unverified Records

For more information about introduced weed species, please visit the following URL for contact details in your area: http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/invasive-species/weeds

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 28 of 48 Geoconservation sites within 1000 metres 589135, 5337775

585138, 5334204 Please note that some layers may not display at all requested map scales

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 29 of 48 Geoconservation sites within 1000 metres Legend: Geoconservation (NVA)

Legend: Cadastral Parcels

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 30 of 48 Geoconservation sites within 1000 metres Id Name Statement of Significance Geographical Significance Status 2410 Moulting Lagoon - Notable example of type. Sub-Region Listed Great Oyster Bay

For more information about the Geoconservation Database, please visit the website: http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/conservation/geoconservation or contact the Geoconservation Officer:

Telephone: (03) 6165 4401 Email: [email protected] Address: GPO Box 44, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 7000

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 31 of 48 Acid Sulfate Soils within 1000 metres 589135, 5337775

585138, 5334204 Please note that some layers may not display at all requested map scales

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 32 of 48 Acid Sulfate Soils within 1000 metres Legend: Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils (0 - 20m AHD)

Legend: Inland Acid Sulfate Soils (>20m AHD)

Legend: Marine Subaqueous/Intertidal Acid Sulfate Soil

Legend: Cadastral Parcels

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 33 of 48 Acid Sulfate Soils within 1000 metres Dataset Name Acid Sulfate Acid Sulfate Description Soil Soil Atlas Probability Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils Extremely Low Ci(p3) Extremely low probability of occurance (1-5% of mapping unit). with occurences in small areas. Sandplains and dunes 2-10m AHD, ASS generally below 1m from the surface. Heath, forests. Holocene or Pleistocene. Potential acid sulfate soil (PASS) = sulfidic material (Isbell 1996 p.122). No necessary analytical data are available but confidence is fair, based on a knowledge of similar soils in similar environments. Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils Extremely Low Cj(p3) Extremely low probability of occurance (1-5% of mapping unit). with occurences in small areas. Sandplains and dunes >10m AHD, ASS generally below 1m from the surface. Heath, forests. Mainly Pleistocene. Potential acid sulfate soil (PASS) = sulfidic material (Isbell 1996 p.122). No necessary analytical data are available but confidence is fair, based on a knowledge of similar soils in similar environments. Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils High Ae(p3) High probability of occurance (>70% chance of occurrence in mapping unit). Floodplains <2m AHD, ASS generally within upper 1m. Grasslands, reedlands and wetland forests. (e.g Melaleuca, Casuarina). Includes backplains. Potential acid sulfate soil (PASS) = sulfidic material (Isbell 1996 p.122). No necessary analytical data are available but confidence is fair, based on a knowledge of similar soils in similar environments. Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils High Am(p3) High probability of occurance (>70% chance of occurrence in mapping unit). Hydrosols, ASS generally within upper 1m in wet/riparian areas with Hydrosols (Isbell 1996). Potential acid sulfate soil (PASS) = sulfidic material (Isbell 1996 p.122). No necessary analytical data are available but confidence is fair, based on a knowledge of similar soils in similar environments. Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils Low Bh(p2) Low probability of occurance (6-70% chance of occurrence in mapping unit). Sandplains and dunes <2m AHD, ASS generally within 1m of the surface. Often wet heath. Holocene or Pleistocene. Potential acid sulfate soil (PASS) = sulfidic material (Isbell 1996 p.122). Analytical data are incomplete but are sufficient to classify the soil with a reasonable degree of confidence. Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils Low Bh(p3) Low probability of occurance (6-70% chance of occurrence in mapping unit). Sandplains and dunes <2m AHD, ASS generally within 1m of the surface. Often wet heath. Holocene or Pleistocene. Potential acid sulfate soil (PASS) = sulfidic material (Isbell 1996 p.122). No necessary analytical data are available but confidence is fair, based on a knowledge of similar soils in similar environments. Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils Low Bi(p2) Low probability of occurance (6-70% chance of occurrence in mapping unit). Sandplains and dunes 2- 10m AHD, ASS generally below 1m from the surface. Heath, forests. Holocene or Pleistocene. Potential acid sulfate soil (PASS) = sulfidic material (Isbell 1996 p.122). Analytical data are incomplete but are sufficient to classify the soil with a reasonable degree of confidence. Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils Low Bi(p3) Low probability of occurance (6-70% chance of occurrence in mapping unit). Sandplains and dunes 2- 10m AHD, ASS generally below 1m from the surface. Heath, forests. Holocene or Pleistocene. Potential acid sulfate soil (PASS) = sulfidic material (Isbell 1996 p.122). No necessary analytical data are available but confidence is fair, based on a knowledge of similar soils in similar environments. Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils Low Bu(p3) Low probability of occurance (6-70% chance of occurrence in mapping unit). Unclassified - Insufficient landscape information available to classify map unit. Potential acid sulfate soil (PASS) = sulfidic material (Isbell 1996 p.122). No necessary analytical data are available but confidence is fair, based on a knowledge of similar soils in similar environments.

For more information about Acid Sulfate Soils, please contact Land Management Enquiries. Telephone: (03) 6777 2227 Fax: (03) 6336 5111 Email: [email protected] Address: 171 Westbury Road, Prospect, Tasmania, Australia, 7250

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 34 of 48 TASVEG 3.0 Communities within 1000 metres 589135, 5337775

585138, 5334204 Please note that some layers may not display at all requested map scales

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 35 of 48 TASVEG 3.0 Communities within 1000 metres Legend: TASVEG 3.0

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 36 of 48 TASVEG 3.0 Communities within 1000 metres

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 37 of 48 TASVEG 3.0 Communities within 1000 metres

Legend: Cadastral Parcels

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 38 of 48 TASVEG 3.0 Communities within 1000 metres Code Community Emergent Species ARS (ARS) Saline sedgeland/rushland DAD (DAD) Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and woodland on dolerite DPU (DPU) Eucalyptus pulchella forest and woodland DVC (DVC) Eucalyptus viminalis - Eucalyptus globulus coastal forest and woodland DVG (DVG) Eucalyptus viminalis grassy forest and woodland FAG (FAG) Agricultural land EM FAG (FAG) Agricultural land FPF (FPF) Pteridium esculentum fernland FUM (FUM) Extra-urban miscellaneous FUR (FUR) Urban areas FWU (FWU) Weed infestation GCL (GCL) Lowland grassland complex EM GCL (GCL) Lowland grassland complex OAQ (OAQ) Water, sea SRE (SRE) Eastern riparian scrub

For more information contact: Coordinator, Tasmanian Vegetation Monitoring and Mapping Program. Telephone: (03) 6165 4320 Email: [email protected] Address: GPO Box 44, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 7000

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 39 of 48 Threatened Communities (TNVC 2014) within 1000 metres 589135, 5337775

585138, 5334204 Please note that some layers may not display at all requested map scales

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 40 of 48 Threatened Communities (TNVC 2014) within 1000 metres Legend: Threatened Communities

Legend: Cadastral Parcels

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 41 of 48 Threatened Communities (TNVC 2014) within 1000 metres Scheduled Community Id Scheduled Community Name 23 Eucalyptus viminalis - Eucalyptus globulus coastal forest and woodland 34 Riparian scrub

*** No Fire History (All) found within 1000 metres ***

*** No Fire History (Last Burnt) found within 1000 metres ***

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 42 of 48 Reserves within 1000 metres 589135, 5337775

585138, 5334204 Please note that some layers may not display at all requested map scales

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 43 of 48 Reserves within 1000 metres Legend: Tasmanian Reserve Estate

Legend: Cadastral Parcels

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 44 of 48 Reserves within 1000 metres Name Classification Status Area (HA) Swansea Conservation Area Conservation Area Other Formal Reserve 9.533000000 000001 Conservation Covenant (NCA) Private Reserve (Perpetual) 44.451 Informal Reserve on other public land Informal Reserve 2.114000000 0000003

For more information about the Tasmanian Reserve Estate, please contact the Sustainable Land Use and Information Management Branch. Telephone: (03) 6777 2224 Email: [email protected] Address: GPO Box 44, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 7000

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 45 of 48 Known biosecurity risks within 1000 meters 589135, 5337775

585138, 5334204 Please note that some layers may not display at all requested map scales

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 46 of 48 Known biosecurity risks within 1000 meters Legend: Biosecurity Risk Species

Legend: Hygiene infrastructure

Legend: Cadastral Parcels

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 47 of 48 Known biosecurity risks within 1000 meters Verified Species of biosecurity risk No verified species of biosecurity risk found within 1000 metres Unverified Species of biosecurity risk No unverified species of biosecurity risk found within 1000 metres Generic Biosecurity Guidelines The level and type of hygiene protocols required will vary depending on the tenure, activity and land use of the area. In all cases adhere to the land manager's biosecurity (hygiene) protocols. As a minimum always Check / Clean / Dry (Disinfect) clothing and equipment before trips and between sites within a trip as needed http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/invasive-species/weeds/weed-hygiene/keeping-it-clean-a-tasmanian-field-hygiene-manual

On Reserved land, the more remote, infrequently visited and undisturbed areas require tighter biosecurity measures.

In addition, where susceptible species and communities are known to occur, tighter biosecurity measures are required.

Apply controls relevant to the area / activity: - Don't access sites infested with pathogen or weed species unless absolutely necessary. If it is necessary to visit, adopt high level hygiene protocols. - Consider not accessing non-infested sites containing known susceptible species / communities. If it is necessary to visit, adopt high level hygiene protocols. - Don't undertake activities that might spread pest / pathogen / weed species such as deliberately moving soil or water between areas. - Modify / restrict activities to reduce the chance of spreading pest / pathogen / weed species e.g. avoid periods when weeds are seeding, avoid clothing/equipment that excessively collects soil and plant material e.g. Velcro, excessive tread on boots. - Plan routes to visit clean (uninfested) sites prior to dirty (infested) sites. Do not travel through infested areas when moving between sites. - Minimise the movement of soil, water, plant material and hitchhiking wildlife between areas by using the Check / Clean / Dry (Disinfect when drying is not possible) procedure for all clothing, footwear, equipment, hand tools and vehicles http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/invasive-species/weeds/weed-hygiene - Neoprene and netting can take 48 hours to dry, use non-porous gear wherever possible. - Use walking track boot wash stations where available. - Keep a hygiene kit in the vehicle that includes a scrubbing brush, boot pick, and disinfectant http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/invasive-species/weeds/weed-hygiene/keeping-it- clean-a-tasmanian-field-hygiene-manual - Dispose of all freshwater away from natural water bodies e.g. do not empty water into streams or ponds. - Dispose of used disinfectant ideally in town though a treatment or septic system. Always keep disinfectant well away from natural water systems.

- Securely contain any high risk pest / pathogen / weed species that must be collected and moved e.g. biological samples. Hygiene Infrastructure No known hygiene infrastructure found within 1000 metres

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Page 48 of 48

Appendix B - Protected Matter Search Report

EPBC Act Protected Matters Report

This report provides general guidance on matters of national environmental significance and other matters protected by the EPBC Act in the area you have selected.

Information on the coverage of this report and qualifications on data supporting this report are contained in the caveat at the end of the report.

Information is available about Environment Assessments and the EPBC Act including significance guidelines, forms and application process details.

Report created: 11/07/17 11:00:38

Summary Details Matters of NES Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act Extra Information Caveat Acknowledgements

Coordinates Buffer: 1.0Km

Summary

Matters of National Environmental Significance

This part of the report summarises the matters of national environmental significance that may occur in, or may relate to, the area you nominated. Further information is available in the detail part of the report, which can be accessed by scrolling or following the links below. If you are proposing to undertake an activity that may have a significant impact on one or more matters of national environmental significance then you should consider the Administrative Guidelines on Significance.

World Heritage Properties: None National Heritage Places: None Wetlands of International Importance: 1 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: None Commonwealth Marine Area: None Listed Threatened Ecological Communities: None Listed Threatened Species: 23 Listed Migratory Species: 11

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act

This part of the report summarises other matters protected under the Act that may relate to the area you nominated. Approval may be required for a proposed activity that significantly affects the environment on Commonwealth land, when the action is outside the Commonwealth land, or the environment anywhere when the action is taken on Commonwealth land. Approval may also be required for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth agencies proposing to take an action that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment anywhere.

The EPBC Act protects the environment on Commonwealth land, the environment from the actions taken on Commonwealth land, and the environment from actions taken by Commonwealth agencies. As heritage values of a place are part of the 'environment', these aspects of the EPBC Act protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place. Information on the new heritage laws can be found at http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage

A permit may be required for activities in or on a Commonwealth area that may affect a member of a listed threatened species or ecological community, a member of a listed migratory species, whales and other cetaceans, or a member of a listed marine species.

Commonwealth Land: None Commonwealth Heritage Places: None Listed Marine Species: 15 Whales and Other Cetaceans: None Critical Habitats: None Commonwealth Reserves Terrestrial: None Commonwealth Reserves Marine: None

Extra Information

This part of the report provides information that may also be relevant to the area you have nominated.

State and Territory Reserves: 1 Regional Forest Agreements: 1 Invasive Species: 23 Nationally Important Wetlands: None Key Ecological Features (Marine) None

Details

Matters of National Environmental Significance Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar) [ Resource Information ] Name Proximity Moulting lagoon Within 10km of Ramsar

Listed Threatened Species [ Resource Information ] Name Status Type of Presence Birds Aquila audax fleayi Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle, Wedge-tailed Eagle Endangered Breeding likely to occur (Tasmanian) [64435] within area Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasian Bittern [1001] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Calidris canutus Red Knot, Knot [855] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper [856] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot [744] Critically Endangered Breeding likely to occur within area Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew, Far Eastern Curlew [847] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Pterodroma leucoptera leucoptera Gould's Petrel, Australian Gould's Petrel [26033] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Tyto novaehollandiae castanops (Tasmanian population) Masked Owl (Tasmanian) [67051] Vulnerable Breeding known to occur within area Fish Prototroctes maraena Australian Grayling [26179] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Frogs Litoria raniformis Growling Grass Frog, Southern Bell Frog, Green and Vulnerable Species or species habitat Golden Frog, Warty Swamp Frog [1828] may occur within area

Mammals Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Tasmanian population) Spotted-tail Quoll, Spot-tailed Quoll, Tiger Quoll Vulnerable Species or species habitat (Tasmanian population) [75183] likely to occur within area

Dasyurus viverrinus Eastern Quoll, Luaner [333] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur

Name Status Type of Presence within area Perameles gunnii gunnii Eastern Barred Bandicoot (Tasmania) [66651] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Sarcophilus harrisii Tasmanian Devil [299] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Plants Acacia axillaris Midlands Mimosa, Midlands Wattle [13563] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Boronia gunnii Gunn's Boronia, Cataract Gorge Boronia [29394] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Boronia hippopala Velvet Boronia [78925] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Caladenia caudata Tailed Spider-orchid [17067] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Dianella amoena Matted Flax-lily [64886] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Glycine latrobeana Clover Glycine, Purple Clover [13910] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Lepidium hyssopifolium Basalt Pepper-cress, Peppercress, Rubble Pepper- Endangered Species or species habitat cress, Pepperweed [16542] likely to occur within area

Pterostylis ziegeleri Grassland Greenhood, Cape Portland Greenhood Vulnerable Species or species habitat [64971] likely to occur within area

Stenanthemum pimeleoides Spreading Stenanthemum, Propellor Plant [15450] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Listed Migratory Species [ Resource Information ] * Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list. Name Threatened Type of Presence Migratory Marine Birds Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Migratory Terrestrial Species Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail [682] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Migratory Wetlands Species Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper [59309] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Sandpiper [874] Species or species habitat may occur within

Name Threatened Type of Presence area Calidris canutus Red Knot, Knot [855] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper [856] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper [858] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew, Far Eastern Curlew [847] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank, Greenshank [832] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act Listed Marine Species [ Resource Information ] * Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list. Name Threatened Type of Presence Birds Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper [59309] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Ardea alba Great Egret, White Egret [59541] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Ardea ibis Cattle Egret [59542] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Sandpiper [874] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Calidris canutus Red Knot, Knot [855] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper [856] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper [858] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Name Threatened Type of Presence Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle [943] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail [682] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot [744] Critically Endangered Breeding likely to occur within area Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew, Far Eastern Curlew [847] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank, Greenshank [832] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Extra Information State and Territory Reserves [ Resource Information ] Name State Redbanks TAS

Regional Forest Agreements [ Resource Information ] Note that all areas with completed RFAs have been included. Name State Tasmania RFA Tasmania

Invasive Species [ Resource Information ] Weeds reported here are the 20 species of national significance (WoNS), along with other introduced plants that are considered by the States and Territories to pose a particularly significant threat to biodiversity. The following feral animals are reported: Goat, Red Fox, Cat, Rabbit, Pig, Water Buffalo and Cane Toad. Maps from Landscape Health Project, National Land and Water Resouces Audit, 2001.

Name Status Type of Presence Birds Alauda arvensis Skylark [656] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard [974] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Carduelis carduelis European Goldfinch [403] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Carduelis chloris European Greenfinch [404] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Columba livia Rock Pigeon, Rock Dove, Domestic Pigeon [803] Species or species habitat likely to occur

Name Status Type of Presence within area Passer domesticus House Sparrow [405] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling [389] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Turdus merula Common Blackbird, Eurasian Blackbird [596] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Mammals Canis lupus familiaris Domestic Dog [82654] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Felis catus Cat, House Cat, Domestic Cat [19] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Lepus capensis Brown Hare [127] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Mus musculus House Mouse [120] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Oryctolagus cuniculus Rabbit, European Rabbit [128] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Rattus rattus Black Rat, Ship Rat [84] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Sus scrofa Pig [6] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Plants Asparagus asparagoides Bridal Creeper, Bridal Veil Creeper, Smilax, Florist's Species or species habitat Smilax, Smilax Asparagus [22473] likely to occur within area

Chrysanthemoides monilifera Bitou Bush, Boneseed [18983] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. monilifera Boneseed [16905] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Lycium ferocissimum African Boxthorn, Boxthorn [19235] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Nassella trichotoma Serrated Tussock, Yass River Tussock, Yass Tussock, Species or species habitat Nassella Tussock (NZ) [18884] likely to occur within area

Rubus fruticosus aggregate Blackberry, European Blackberry [68406] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Salix spp. except S.babylonica, S.x calodendron & S.x reichardtii Willows except Weeping Willow, Pussy Willow and Species or species habitat Sterile Pussy Willow [68497] likely to occur within area

Ulex europaeus Gorse, Furze [7693] Species or species

Name Status Type of Presence habitat likely to occur within area

Caveat The information presented in this report has been provided by a range of data sources as acknowledged at the end of the report.

This report is designed to assist in identifying the locations of places which may be relevant in determining obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It holds mapped locations of World and National Heritage properties, Wetlands of International and National Importance, Commonwealth and State/Territory reserves, listed threatened, migratory and marine species and listed threatened ecological communities. Mapping of Commonwealth land is not complete at this stage. Maps have been collated from a range of sources at various resolutions.

Not all species listed under the EPBC Act have been mapped (see below) and therefore a report is a general guide only. Where available data supports mapping, the type of presence that can be determined from the data is indicated in general terms. People using this information in making a referral may need to consider the qualifications below and may need to seek and consider other information sources.

For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from recovery plans, State vegetation maps, remote sensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened ecological community distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and point location data are used to produce indicative distribution maps.

Threatened, migratory and marine species distributions have been derived through a variety of methods. Where distributions are well known and if time permits, maps are derived using either thematic spatial data (i.e. vegetation, soils, geology, elevation, aspect, terrain, etc) together with point locations and described habitat; or environmental modelling (MAXENT or BIOCLIM habitat modelling) using point locations and environmental data layers.

Where very little information is available for species or large number of maps are required in a short time-frame, maps are derived either from 0.04 or 0.02 decimal degree cells; by an automated process using polygon capture techniques (static two kilometre grid cells, alpha-hull and convex hull); or captured manually or by using topographic features (national park boundaries, islands, etc). In the early stages of the distribution mapping process (1999-early 2000s) distributions were defined by degree blocks, 100K or 250K map sheets to rapidly create distribution maps. More reliable distribution mapping methods are used to update these distributions as time permits.

Only selected species covered by the following provisions of the EPBC Act have been mapped: - migratory and - marine The following species and ecological communities have not been mapped and do not appear in reports produced from this database:

- threatened species listed as extinct or considered as vagrants - some species and ecological communities that have only recently been listed - some terrestrial species that overfly the Commonwealth marine area - migratory species that are very widespread, vagrant, or only occur in small numbers The following groups have been mapped, but may not cover the complete distribution of the species: - non-threatened seabirds which have only been mapped for recorded breeding sites - seals which have only been mapped for breeding sites near the Australian continent Such breeding sites may be important for the protection of the Commonwealth Marine environment.

Coordinates

-42.12194 148.04494

Acknowledgements This database has been compiled from a range of data sources. The department acknowledges the following custodians who have contributed valuable data and advice: -Office of Environment and Heritage, New South Wales -Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Victoria -Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania -Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia -Department of Land and Resource Management, Northern Territory -Department of Environmental and Heritage Protection, Queensland -Department of Parks and Wildlife, Western Australia -Environment and Planning Directorate, ACT -Birdlife Australia -Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme -Australian National Wildlife Collection -Natural history museums of Australia -Museum Victoria -Australian Museum -South Australian Museum -Queensland Museum -Online Zoological Collections of Australian Museums -Queensland Herbarium -National Herbarium of NSW -Royal Botanic Gardens and National Herbarium of Victoria -Tasmanian Herbarium -State Herbarium of South Australia -Northern Territory Herbarium -Western Australian Herbarium -Australian National Herbarium, Canberra -University of New England -Ocean Biogeographic Information System -Australian Government, Department of Defence Forestry Corporation, NSW -Geoscience Australia -CSIRO -Australian Tropical Herbarium, Cairns -eBird Australia -Australian Government – Australian Antarctic Data Centre -Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory -Australian Government National Environmental Science Program -Australian Institute of Marine Science -Reef Life Survey Australia -American Museum of Natural History -Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Inveresk, Tasmania -Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart, Tasmania -Other groups and individuals

The Department is extremely grateful to the many organisations and individuals who provided expert advice and information on numerous draft distributions.

Please feel free to provide feedback via the Contact Us page.

Appendix C – Species List

Job No 3218505

Project Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey

Client TasWater

Site Refer Figure 1

Area 61.32 ha

Grid Reference Midpoint of the outer boundaries of the study areas: 587132E 5335995N GDA94 MGA Zone 55,

Surveyed By James Hill, Senior Ecologist GHD Hobart

Date of Survey 06/07/2017 and 25/08/2017

Plant Collection DA 17108 (expiry: 30/06/2020) Permit No.

Table 1 Key to tables 2-5

Key

State Legislation

r rare – Tasmanian TSPA

v vulnerable – Tasmanian TSPA

e endangered - Tasmanian TSPA

Commonwealth Legislation

VU vulnerable – Commonwealth EPBCA

EN endangered – Commonwealth EPBCA

CR critically endangered – Commonwealth EPBCA

Introduced Species

i Introduced

P Planted

D Declared weed – Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999

Suggestions of Native Species for us in Revegetation Project/s on site (REVEG)

DVG Species suitable for use in a revegetation project within the DVG community

ASF Species suitable for use in a revegetation project within the ASF community

Table 2 Vascular flora within the study area

Vascular Flora Recorded Within the Study Area

Status Species Name Common Name i Agrostis capillaris bentgrass i Briza maxima greater quaking-grass i Briza minor lesser quaking-grass i Bromus catharticus prairie grass i Cirsium arvense var. arvense creeping thistle i Cirsium vulgare spear thistle i Cynoglossum australe coast houndstongue i Holcus lanatus yorkshire fog i Hydrocotyle hirta hairy pennywort i Hypochaeris radicata rough catsear i Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass i Pinus radiata radiata pine i Plantago lanceolata ribwort plantain i Rosa rubiginosa sweet briar i Taraxacum officinale common dandelion i Trifolium sp. i, D Rubus fruticosus blackberry i,D Ulex europaeus gorse Acacia dealbata subsp. dealbata silver wattle Acacia mearnsii black wattle Acacia verticillata prickly moses Acaena novae-zelandiae common buzzy Acrotriche serrulata ants delight Agrostis sp. Allocasuarina verticillata drooping sheoak Astroloma humifusum native cranberry Austrostipa mollis soft speargrass Banksia marginata silver banksia Bursaria spinosa subsp. spinosa prickly box Dactylis glomerata cocksfoot Dianella tasmanica forest flaxlily Epacris impressa common heath Eucalyptus ovata var. ovata black gum Eucalyptus pulchella white peppermint

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505

Vascular Flora Recorded Within the Study Area

Status Species Name Common Name

Eucalyptus viminalis subsp. viminalis white gum Exocarpos cupressiformis common native-cherry Gonocarpus tetragynus common raspwort Juncus pallidus pale rush Juncus sp. Lepidosperma inops fan sedge Lepidosperma laterale variable swordsedge Lomandra longifolia sagg Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides weeping grass Oxalis perennans grassland woodsorrel Pentapogon quadrifidus five-awned speargrass Pimelea sp. Plantago varia variable plantain Poa labillardierei tussockgrass Poa rodwayi velvet tussockgrass Poa sieberiana var. sieberiana grey tussockgrass Pteridium esculentum subsp. esculentum bracken Pultenaea juniperina prickly beauty Schoenus apogon common bogsedge Themeda triandra kangaroo grass Viola hederacea subsp. hederacea ivyleaf violet

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505

Table 3 Threatened fauna within 5000 metres of the study area

Species TSPA EPBC

Accipiter novaehollandiae Endangered Not Listed grey goshawk

Aquila audax subsp. fleayi Endangered Endangered wedge-tailed eagle

Arctocephalus tropicalis Endangered Vulnerable sub antarctic fur seal

Botaurus poiciloptilus Not Listed Endangered Australasian bittern

Calidris ferruginea Not Listed Critically Endangered Curlew Sandpiper

Diomedea melanophrys subsp. Not Listed Vulnerable melanophrys black browed albatross

Eagle sp Endangered Endangered

Eubalaena australis Endangered Endangered southern right whale

Haliaeetus leucogaster Vulnerable Migratory white-bellied sea-eagle

Lathamus discolor Endangered Critically endangered swift parrot

Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Vulnerable humpback whale

Pachyptila turtur subsp. subantarctica Endangered Vulnerable fairy prion southern sub-species

Perameles gunnii Not Listed (but of high Vulnerable eastern barred bandicoot conservation significance)

Podiceps cristatus Vulnerable Not Listed great crested grebe

Prototroctes maraena Vulnerable Vulnerable Australian grayling

Sarcophilus harrisii Endangered Endangered Tasmanian devil

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505

Species TSPA EPBC Sternula nereis subsp. Nereis- fairy tern Vulnerable Vulnerable Sterna nereis subsp. nereis Vulnerable Vulnerable Theclinesthes serpentata subsp lavara Rare Thinornis rubricollis Not listed Vulnerable hooded plover

Tyto novaehollandiae subsp. castanops Endangered Vulnerable masked owl (Tasmanian)

Table 4 Threatened fauna within 5000 metres of the study area- based on range boundaries

Species TSPA EPBC

Litoria raniformis (green and gold frog) Vulnerable Vulnerable

Pseudomys novaehollandiae Endangered Vulnerable New Holland mouse

Pseudemoia pagenstecheri Vulnerable tussock skink

Dasyurus maculatus subsp. maculatus Rare Vulnerable spotted-tailed quoll

Dasyurus viverrinus Endangered Eastern quoll

Pardalotus quadragintus Endangered Endangered forty-spotted pardalote

Antipodia chaostola subsp. leucophaea Endangered Endangered chaostola skipper

Galaxias fontanus Endangered Endangered swan galaxias

Tyto novaehollandiae subsp. castanops Endangered Vunerable masked owl (Tasmanian)

Perameles gunnii Not Listed (but of high Vulnerable eastern barred bandicoot conservation significance)

Lathamus discolor Endangered Critically endangered swift parrot

Prototroctes maraena Vulnerable Vulnerable Australian grayling

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505

Species TSPA EPBC

Sarcophilus harrisii Endangered Endangered Tasmanian devil

Accipiter novaehollandiae Endangered Not Listed grey goshawk

Haliaeetus leucogaster Vulnerable Migratory white-bellied sea-eagle

Brachionichyths hirsutus Endangered Critically Endangered spotted handfish

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade – Ecological Survey, 3218505

Table 5 Threatened flora within 5000 metres of the study area

Species TSPA EPBC Rare Not Listed Acacia siculiformis dagger wattle Rare Not Listed Austrostipa scabra Rough speargrass

Callitris oblonga subsp. oblonga Vulnerable Endangered south esk pine

Calocephalus lacteus Rare Not Listed milky beautyheads

Calystegia soldanella Rare Not Listed sea bindweed

Cryptandra amara Endangered Not Listed pretty pearlflower Not Listed Damasonium minus Rare starfruit Rare Not Listed Eucalyptus barberi barbers gum

Haloragis heterophylla Rare Not Listed variable raspwort

Hyalosperma demissum Endangered Not Listed moss sunray

Lasiopetalum micranthum Rare Not Listed Tasmanian velvet bush

Lobelia pratioides Vulnerable Not Listed poison lobelia Rare Not Listed Melaleuca pustulata wart paperbark Rare Not Listed Ozothamnus lycopodioides clubmoss everlasting bush

Pterostylis ziegeleri Vulnerable Vulnerable grassland greenhood

Rytidosperma indutum Rare Not Listed tall wallaby-grass

Species TSPA EPBC

Scaevola aemula Endangered Not Listed fairy fanflower

Stenanthemum pimeleoides Vulnerable Vulnerable propeller plant

Stenopetalum lineare Endangered Not Listed narrow thread petal

Vittadinia burbidgeae Rare Not Listed smooth new Holland daisy

Vittadinia cuneata var. cuneate- Rare Not Listed fuzzy new Holland daisy Vittadinia gracile Rare Not Listed wooly new Holland daisy

GHD

2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS7000

T: 61 3 6210 0600 F: 61 3 6210 0601 E: [email protected]

© GHD 2017 This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited. 3218505- 20777/https://projects.ghd.com/oc/Tasmania/swanseadamupgrade/Delivery/Documents/Ecological report/Ecological Survey Rev A_Final Review_27.11.17.docx Document Status Revision Author Reviewer Approved for Issue Name Signature Name Signature Date A J. Hill W. McMinn M Locke 06/10/2017

B Joint W. McMinn D.Elson 28/11/2017

www.ghd.com

Appendix C – CFEV Report

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) Database Corporate Interface Report

https://cfev.dpiw.tas.gov.au

Data in this report should be cited as:

CFEV database, v1.0 (2005), Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values Project, Water Resources Division, Department of Primary Industries and Water, Tasmania

All maps in this report should be cited as:

For interpretive information visit:

http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/cfev

The CFEV Program is an initiative of the Water Resources Division, Department of Primary Industries and Water. 1 Legend

River Sections

Data confidence and CFEV

The strength of the CFEV data lies with its comprehensive coverage of the state, which allows broad scale comparisons, generalised summaries, and the combination of complicated data sets into readily interpreted indices. It should be acknowledged that CFEV data uses a variety of data sources as input and that some of these are modelled and are not ground-truthed. As a result care should be taken when using specific variables at specific locations.

Disclaimer

This web resource has been developed by the State of Tasmania to provide public access to some State, Commonwealth and local government information, including text, maps and various forms of data and to information obtained from non-government sources. It also provides on-line access to some government services and transactions. All of the material published on this website is together referred to hereafter as “the information”. In those circumstances, no responsibility is accepted for the accuracy, completeness, or relevance to the user’s purpose, of the information and those using it for whatever purpose are advised to verify it with the relevant Commonwealth or State government department, local government body or other source and to obtain any appropriate professional advice. No warranty is given that the information is free of infection by computer viruses or other contamination, nor that access to the website or any part of it will not suffer from interruption from time to time, without notice. Any links to other websites that have been included on this website are provided for your convenience only. The Crown in its role as manager of this website does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy, availability, or appropriateness to the user’s purposes, of any information or services on any other website. The Crown, its officers, employees and agents do not accept liability however arising, including liability for negligence, for any loss resulting from the use of or reliance upon the information and/or reliance on its availability at any time. Any results with important management implications should be supported by on-ground surveys.

Page 2 2 River Sections : 268527,268531,268529

Centre point - E: 586732m N: 5336316m Scale (map width): 3996m GDA94 Zone 55

Page 3 2.1 Biophysical Classes

2.1.1 Crayfish Class Code Description % Total Count Total C3 Astacopsis franklinii present 100.00% 3 3267.85 m (excluding first order streams for rivers). 2.1.2 Fish Class Code Description % Total Count Total F5 An assemblage with a disjunct 100.00% 3 3267.85 m distribution including, streams flowing into estuaries on King Island, the Tamar River and many coastal streams and waterbodies in the south east of Tasmania. 2.1.3 Fluvial Geomorphic River Type Code Description % Total Count Total G18 Steep dissected eastern 100.00% 3 3267.85 m escarpment in upper catchment; Granite hills along coast (north); Dolerite rolling hills along coast (south) 2.1.3.1 East coast escarpment Steep dissected eastern escarpment in upper catchment; Granite hills along coast (north); Dolerite rolling hills along coast (south)

2.1.3.2 Fluvial Geomorphological Mosaic class Code Description Count MO6 Context: Foothills flanking the steep escarpment of the 2 Eastern Tiers. Physiography: Broad, gently rolling ridge tops dissected by relatively steep valleys, although the waterfalls and gorges of mosaic 7 (Eastern granite hills and coastal sediments) are absent. Relief is also considerably less. The rivers traversing this mosaic are considerably larger than 7 and hence valley floors are comparatively wider, and alluvial deposits more common. The area is dominated by dolerite, although Parmeener rocks crop out in basins and wider valley reaches. MO2 Context: Alluvial reaches in Tertiary/Quaternary sediments in 1 the South Esk, Coal and Apsley valleys. Physiography: Flat valley floors fringed by relict alluvial fans 2.1.4 Hydrological Class Code Description % Total Count Total H2 The states driest, most variable 100.00% 3 3267.85 m stream systems; medium and highly skewed annual flows; highly variable peak and low flows and seasonality. 2.1.5 Macroinvertebrate Class Code Description % Total Count Total BC2C5 Assemblages of streams of the 31.23% 2 1020.63 m central East Coast in the catchments of the Swan, Wye, Meredith, Cygnet, Buxton and

Page 4 Code Description % Total Count Total Lisdillon catchments. Two assemblages potentially present. Indicator taxa (EPTC groups): BC3BR Major eastern and Central Midland 68.77% 1 2247.22 m rivers in broadwater/pool/run reaches with either emergent- dominated (Eleocharis, Trighlochin) macrophyte assemblages, or emergent and submerged macrophyte complexes in broadwater/pool habitats. Indicator taxa (EPTC groups): 2.1.6 Macrophyte Class Code Description % Total Count Total M4A Emergent plant dominated 68.77% 1 2247.22 m assemblage; High probability of macrophyte assemblage occurrence, often dense/extensive. Dominants : M5A Submerged plant dominated 31.23% 2 1020.63 m assemblage; High probability of macrophyte assemblage occurrence, often dense/extensive. Dominants: 2.1.7 Tree Class Code Description % Total Count Total T4 Coastal dry forests and wet scrub 73.78% 2 2410.98 m mosaics of eastern and north- eastern Tasmania T37 East coast lowland dry sclerophyll 26.22% 1 856.87 m with Oyster Bay pine. Occurs on the dolerite sandstone and mudstone on the coastal flanks of the Eastern Tiers south of Bicheno. 2.2 Conservation Management Priority

2.2.1 CMPI2 Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length VH Very High Conservation 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m Management Priority (CMP). The river section is part of a river cluster for which the improvement of current conservation management is a very high priority. This CMP was derived by considering both its Integrated Conservation Value and land management security (by tenure). 2.2.1.1 CMPI1 Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length VH Very High Conservation 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m Management Priority (CMP). The river section is part of a river cluster

Page 5 Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length for which the improvement of current conservation management is a very high priority. This CMP was derived by considering both its Representative Conservation Value and land management security (by tenure). 2.2.2 CMPP2 Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length VH Very High Conservation 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m Management Priority (CMP). The river section is part of a river cluster for which the conservation management is a very high priority when development is proposed or occurs. This applies in the situation where further development occurs within the catchment which may contribute to a change in aquatic ecological condition or status. This CMP was derived by considering both its Integrated Conservation Value and land management security (by tenure). 2.2.2.1 CMPP1 Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length VH Very High Conservation 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m Management Priority (CMP). The river section is part of a river cluster for which the conservation management is a very high priority when development is proposed or occurs**. This CMP was derived by considering both its Representative Conservation Value and land management security (by tenure). ** this applies in the situation where further development occurs within the catchment which may contribute to a change in aquatic ecological condition or status. See CFEV Technical Report for list of relevant potential developments. 2.2.3 Land Tenure Security Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length Low This river section lies within a 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m catchment that has predominantly low security of land tenure. There are no formal or mandatory restrictions in place to ensure that the land within this catchment is managed to conserve or protect the landscape from potential negative

Page 6 Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length impacts. This includes areas of private land, unallocated crown land, Commonwealth land, Hydro managed land and areas managed by other water authorities. 2.2.3.1 Land tenure security composition map Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length Mixed The river section lies within a 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m catchment that has mixed security of land tenure. Management restrictions may vary across the landscape depending on the land tenure. 2.3 Conservation Value

2.3.1 ICV Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length H High Integrated Conservation Value 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m (ICV). ICV integrates the Representative Conservation Value with known Special Values (eg. threatened and priority species and communities, and priority sites). 2.3.1.1 Special Values Name Scientific Name Status Type platypus Ornithorynchus Non-outstanding Phylogenetically anatinus Distinct Fauna Species Riparian Non-outstanding Priority Flora Communities Australian grayling Prototroctes maraena Undifferentiated Threatened Fauna Species 2.3.2 NR class Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length A1 A1 class of Representativeness 1 33.33% 26.22% 856.87 m and Naturalness. This river section is within the first group of sites selected for rivers and is in near natural condition. Selection is based on representativeness, rarity of classification units and naturalness score. A3 A3 class of Representativeness 1 33.33% 68.77% 2247.22 m and Naturalness. This river section is within the first group of sites selected for rivers and is in poor condition. Selection is based on representativeness, rarity of classification units and naturalness score. A2 A2 class of Representativeness 1 33.33% 5.01% 163.76 m and Naturalness. This river section

Page 7 Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length is within the first group of sites selected for rivers and is in moderate condition. Selection is based on representativeness, rarity of classification units and naturalness score. 2.3.3 RCV Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length A A class Representative 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m Conservation Value (RCV). This river section is within the first group of sites selected for rivers. Selection is based on representativeness, rarity of classification units and naturalness. 2.3.3.1 Important biophysical class Code Description % Total Count Total T37 East coast lowland dry sclerophyll 26.22% 1 856.87 m with Oyster Bay pine. Occurs on the dolerite sandstone and mudstone on the coastal flanks of the Eastern Tiers south of Bicheno. G18 Steep dissected eastern 73.78% 2 2410.98 m escarpment in upper catchment; Granite hills along coast (north); Dolerite rolling hills along coast (south) 2.4 Location

2.4.1 Mapsheet Description Count SWANSEA 3 2.5 Name Description Count Meredith River 3 2.6 Naturalness Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length Low River section severely altered from 1 33.33% 68.77% 2247.22 m natural condition. High River section in near-natural 1 33.33% 26.22% 856.87 m condition. Medium River section significantly altered 1 33.33% 5.01% 163.76 m from natural condition. 2.6.1 Biological Condition Score Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 4 Near natural biological condition for 2 66.67% 31.23% 1020.63 m the river section. 3 Significantly impaired biological 1 33.33% 68.77% 2247.22 m

Page 8 Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length condition for the river section. 2.6.1.1 Exotic Fish Condition Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 0.65 Exotic fish present in low to 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m moderate abundance proportion of biomass as native fish has median of 0.65. 2.6.1.2 Macroinvertebrate Condition Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 3 Reduced total density and 2 66.67% 73.78% 2410.98 m significantly altered assemblage composition of benthic macroinvertebrates for the river section. 5 Natural total density levels and 1 33.33% 26.22% 856.87 m natural assemblage composition of benthic macroinvertebrates for the river section. 2.6.1.2.1 River Abstraction Index Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 5 Small to no decreases in long-term 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m mean annual volume of flow, and moderate decreases in summer baseflows in rural areas due to net abstraction (removal out of the channel) of water. 2.6.1.2.2 Flow Variability Index Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 4 The degree of change in flow 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m regime variability as a result of human flow manipulation (associated with large storages) is zero or very low; no major dam or structure present). 2.6.1.2.3 Macroinvertebrate Observed/Expected Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 0.6 AUSRIVAS O/E ranked index falls 2 66.67% 73.78% 2410.98 m within the B impairment band, O/E rank range approx. 0.4 to 0.8, with mean of approx. 0.8; Significantly impaired; Significant impact on presence or relative abundance of approx. dominant families. 0.8 AUSRIVAS O/E ranked index falls 1 33.33% 26.22% 856.87 m within the AB impairment band region, O/E rank range approx. 0.6 to 1.0, with mean of approx. 0.8; Close to natural or moderately impaired; Minimal to some impact

Page 9 Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length on presence or relative abundance of approx. dominant families. 2.6.1.3 Native fish Condition Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 1 No impact of large dams, changes 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m in flow regime, or acid drainage on native fish populations 2.6.1.4 Native Riparian Vegetation Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 3 Moderate to high proportional area 1 33.33% 68.77% 2247.22 m of native vegetation occurring within the riparian zone (50m width strip each side of the river section) (20 - 80% of total riparian buffer zone as native vegetation) 4 Very to extremely high proportional 2 66.67% 31.23% 1020.63 m area of native vegetation occurring within the riparian zone (50m width strip each side of river section) (>80% of total riparian buffer zone as native vegetation) 2.6.1.4.1 Willows Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 0 Dense willow infestations (Salix sp.) 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m present within the riparian zone. 2.6.1.5 Platypus Condition Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 1 Platypus population in essentially 2 66.67% 31.23% 1020.63 m natural condition; Not in known Mucor infestation area (in 2004); Riparian vegetation mostly or entirely native. 0.8 Platypus population in close to 1 33.33% 68.77% 2247.22 m natrual condition; Either: a: (Not in known Mucor infestation area in 2004; Mixed native and cultural riparian vegetation; First order stream) or b: (Not in known Mucor infestation area in 2004; Mixed native and cultural riparian vegetation; Stream of order > 1). 2.6.2 Geomorphic Condition Score Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 3 High geomorphic condition score 1 33.33% 26.22% 856.87 m for the river section. 2 Medium geomorphic condition 2 66.67% 73.78% 2410.98 m score for the river section. 2.6.2.1 Flow change

Page 10 Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 5 Minimal to no change to flow 1 33.33% 26.22% 856.87 m regime for the river section. 2 Large change to flow regime for the 2 66.67% 73.78% 2410.98 m river section. 2.6.2.1.1 River Abstraction Index Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 5 Small to no decreases in long-term 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m mean annual volume of flow, and moderate decreases in summer baseflows in rural areas due to net abstraction (removal out of the channel) of water. 2.6.2.1.2 Flow Variability Index Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 4 The degree of change in flow 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m regime variability as a result of human flow manipulation (associated with large storages) is zero or very low; no major dam or structure present). 2.6.2.1.3 Regulation Index Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 3 The amount of regulation of the 2 66.67% 73.78% 2410.98 m natural flow regime due to cumulative effect of water storage upstream is high. Geomorphic and biological impacts significant. 1 The amount of regulation of the 1 33.33% 26.22% 856.87 m natural flow regime due to cumulative effect of water storage upstream is low. Geomorphic and biological impacts weak or absent. 2.6.2.2 Geomorphic responsiveness Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 0.5 The responsiveness of the 1 33.33% 68.77% 2247.22 m ecosystem feature’s geomorphology to anthropogenic changes in flow and/or sediment regime is moderate 0 The responsiveness of the 2 66.67% 31.23% 1020.63 m ecosystem feature’s geomorphology to anthropogenic changes in flow and/or sediment regime is low (eg. a bedrock controlled system) 2.6.2.3 Sediment capture Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 3 Low to very low proportion of fluvial 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m sediment captured (stored) in dams

Page 11 Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length upstream of river section. 2.6.2.4 Sediment Input Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 4 Small anthropogenic change to 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m sediment input for the river section. 2.6.2.4.1 Catchment Disturbance Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 3 Moderate level of catchment 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m disturbance affecting stream channel and sediments; catchment partially cleared and/or used intensively, such as agriculture and forest clearance. 2.6.2.4.2 Mining Sedimentation Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 1 Absence of major long-term and/or 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m historical mining sedimentation deposits in channel. 2.6.2.4.2.1 River Acid Drainage Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 0 Significant acid drainage absent 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m 2.6.2.4.3 Urbanisation Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length 1 Local channel impacts from 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m urbanisation absent or limited. Fluvial geomorphological impacts absent or not significant. 2.7 Topographic Variables

2.7.1 Accumulated Catchment Area Maximum Minimum Mean Count 96367787.17 m² 86650634.64 m² 92170693.76 m² 3 2.7.2 Accumulated Length Maximum Minimum Mean Count 5292.74 m 856.87 m 2763.71 m 3 2.7.3 Accumulated Mean Annual Runoff Maximum Minimum Mean Count 16528.80 ML/year 15649.60 ML/year 16161.02 ML/year 3 2.7.4 Accumulated Mean Annual Runoff - pre-European Maximum Minimum Mean Count 16528.80 ML/year 15649.60 ML/year 16161.02 ML/year 3 2.7.5 Elevation Max

Page 12 Maximum Minimum Mean Count 20.00 m AHD 11.00 m AHD 14.33 m AHD 3 2.7.6 Elevation Min Maximum Minimum Mean Count 11.00 m AHD 0.00 m AHD 7.00 m AHD 3 2.7.7 Length Maximum Minimum Mean Count 2247.22 m 163.76 m 1089.28 m 3 2.7.8 Local Catchment Area Maximum Minimum Mean Count 2768744.75 m² 25702.18 m² 1075729.76 m² 3 2.7.9 Mean Annual Runoff Maximum Minimum Mean Count 215.48 ML/year 2.11 ML/year 84.73 ML/year 3 2.7.10 Slope Maximum Minimum Mean Count 0.009336 rise/run 0.000000 rise/run 0.004744 rise/run 3 2.7.11 Strahler stream order Maximum Minimum Mean Count 6.00 6.00 6.00 3 2.7.12 Tyler Corridor Position Code Description Count % Count % Total Total Length Length east Stream section is East of Tyler 3 100.00% 100.00% 3267.85 m Corridor. Catchments containing generally clear (or occasionally turbid) waters (which generally have a low dissolved organic carbon content, low to moderate light absoprtion when non-turbid, near-neutral to alkaline pH, and a ‘green window’ or ‘gilvin dominated’ underwater light climate), except for some small coastal systems which may be ‘humic’. See CFEV Manual for background and references.

Page 13

Appendix D – Aboriginal Heritage Assessment

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505

Appendix E – European Heritage Assessment

GHD | Report for TasWater - Swansea Dam Upgrade-Borrow Pits, 3218505 TasWater Meredith Dam Reparation Project

Historic Heritage Assessment

Final Report

AUTHOR: Stuart Huys and Zoe Smith

CLIENT: TasWater

13.10.2017 Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary 1

1.0 Project Outline 5 1.1 Project Details 5 1.2 Aims of the Investigation 5 1.3 Project Methodology 6

2.0 Historical Context 11 2.1 European Settlement of the Tasmanian East Coast 11 2.2 Establishment of the Municipality of Glamorgan 20

3.0 Results of the Search of the Heritage Registers 24 3.1 Heritage Databases, Registers and Lists 24 3.2 Registered Historic Sites within the Study Area 26 3.3 Detailed Description for the Heritage Listing of the Red Banks Property 28

4.0 Survey Coverage of the Study Area 31

5.0 Survey Results and Statement of Potential Heritage Potential 38

6.0 Statutory Controls and Legislative Requirements 39 6.1 National Conventions 39 6.2 Commonwealth Legislation 40 6.3 State Legislation 41 6.4 Local Planning Schemes 44

7.0 Statement of Heritage Impacts and Heritage Management Plan 45 7.1 Red Banks Property 45 7.2 General Recommendations 46

9.0 Unanticipated Discovery Plan 47

References Cited 49

List of Figures Figure 1: The general location of the Meredith Dam Reparation Project study area 8 Figure 2: Topographic map showing the four areas that were the focus of the Meredith Dam Reparation Project assessment 9 Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Table of Contents

Page

List of Figures Figure 3: Aerial image showing the four areas that were the focus of the Meredith Dam Reparation Project assessment 10 Figure 4: Map of grants in Great Swanport Area from map drawn by Thomas Scott 1824 (image taken from Nyman 1990:26) 15 Figure 5: The location of the study area within the heritage registered boundaries of the Red Banks Property (Source: The LIST, Land District Chart and Heritage Register, accessed 9 October 2017) 26 Figure 6: Red Banks. Original property lots belonging to Edward C. Shaw (Source: The LIST, Land District Chart and Heritage Register, accessed 9 October 2017) 28 Figure 7: Red Banks. Rural property Heritage Precinct. Owner: Mr CP Shaw. RA 13514 Tasman Hwy, Swansea (Source: Statement of Heritage Interest for Rural Property Owner) 30 Figure 6: Guidelines for the estimation of surface visibility 32 Figure 9: Aerial image showing the alignment of the survey transects across the four designated survey footprint areas 37

List of Tables Table i: Summary details for the Heritage Registered Red Banks Property 2 Table 1: Summary details for the Heritage Registered Red Banks Property 27 Table 2: Effective Survey Coverage achieved within the study area 32

List of Plates Plates 1 and 2. Images of George Meredith’s ‘Cambria’ (Images from Archives office of Australia ADRI’s: NS3195-1-808 and NS165-1-436 respectively) 13 Plate 3. Image of Surveyors looking to Waterloo Point 14 Plates 4 and 5. Waterloo Point Police Office and Gaol plans (from LINC Tasmania Archives Office ADRI’s PWD266-1-1764 and PWD266-1-1765 respectively) 14 Plates 6 and 7. Images of the Rocky Hills Probation Station (Image from Australian Heritage Photographic Library codes rt73177 and 73168 respectively). 19 Plate 8. Spikey Bridge near Swansea (Image from Archives Office of Tasmania available at: http://stors.tas.gov.au/NS3195-1-916) 20

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Table of Contents

Page

List of Plates

Plate 9. Morris’ General Store in Swansea (image from Australian Photographic Library code: rt41950) 21 Plate 10. All Saints Church of England (Image from National Archives of Australia no A6135, K16/7/75/124) 22 Plate 11. Photograph of the Bay View Hotel (Image from Archives Office of Tasmania ADRI: PH30-1-552 collection dated 1860-1992) 23 Plate 12: View south across ploughed paddock with excellent surface visibility 33 Plate 13: Section of pipeline corridor traversing grassed paddock with surface visibility averaging 20% 33 Plate 14: Graded vehicle track within paddock providing improved transect of Visibility 34 Plate 15: Generally reasonable visibility along the section of the pipeline corridor that crosses the Grange Hills 34 Plate 16: View north along the section of pipeline corridor that runs along the west margins of Moulting Lagoon, where surface visibility averaged 20-30%) 35 Plate 17: View north-east along graded vehicle track providing improved visibility along the west margins of Moulting Lagoon 35 Plate 18: Typically poor surface visibility within the residential outskirts of Swansea 36 Plate 19: Poor surface visibility in thickly vegetated areas on the southern section of the pipeline corridor 36

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Executive Summary

Project Background The existing Meredith Dam is located on the southern margins of the Meredith River, on the western outskirts of the town of Swansea, on the East Coast of Tasmania. The dam is the major water storage supply for Swansea (see Figure 1).

TasWater are proposing to undertake reparation works on the Meredith Dam, which has significant leakage issues. The reparation works will involve lining the dam floor and wall with a layer of clay material.

It is proposed that the clay borrow material will be sourced from areas immediately surrounding the Meredith Dam. Three separate locations have been identified as potentially providing a source of borrow material. The main proposed borrow pit area (Area 1) is located around the margins of the existing dam, and encompasses approximately 45ha. This includes the footprint of the existing dam. The second area (Area 2) is situated 500m to the south-east of the existing dam, and encompasses approximately 3.8ha. This area incorporates a large pile of clay material that had been previously extracted as part of the construction of an adjacent series of settlement ponds. Area 3 is located around 1.km to the south-east of the Meredith Dam, and incorporates an area of 11.8ha.

In addition to these proposed borrow pit areas, TasWater has identified a location where they will require to undertake pipeline coupling works with an existing water pipeline facility. This works area encompasses 0.85ha, and is referred to as Area 4. Figures 2 and 3 show the location of the four areas described above.

CHMA Pty Ltd have been engaged by GHD (on behalf of TasWater) to undertake an Historic heritage assessment for the Meredith Dam Reparation Project. The assessment is to be focused on the three proposed borrow pit areas described above (Areas 1-3), and the area where pipeline coupling works are proposed to take place (Area 4). These four areas are collectively referred to in this report as the study area. This report presents the findings of this assessment.

Registered Historic Sites within the Study Area The search of the Heritage Registers described in section 3.1 confirms that the entirety of the Meredith Dam study area is located within the boundaries of the heritage listed “Red Banks” Property. The Red Banks property is registered on the Tasmanian Heritage Register (THR) and under the Glamorgan Spring Bay Planning Scheme 1994 (GSBPS). The State and local listings focus on the value of the built heritage on the property in particular, the homestead and associated out buildings. The current study areas not located in the immediate vicinity of the site’s built heritage assets.

Table i provides the summary details for the heritage listing of the Red Banks property. A more detailed description of the property listing is presented in section 3.3.

Page | 1

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Table i: Summary details for the Heritage Registered Red Banks Property

Place Name Heritage Statement of and Location Register and Description Integrity Photos Significance Status

Red Banks and THR: 1564 N/A (listed An outstanding group comprising a rural colonial The buildings are Outbuildings Permanently prior to 2007) Georgian homestead, cottage and outbuildings (stone basically intact and the Registered and timber barn, timber shingled barn and stone walls) homestead features a CTs #: built in 1847 by Edward Carr Shaw (uncle of George fine entry, hall and 163430/1, Tier: State Bernard Shaw) on land originally owned by George staircase. 158015/2, Meredith jnr. 158015/1, 158016/1, and RNE: 11676 Vernacular house, part one storey, part two storey with Needs maintenance a portion of (21/10/1980) attics. Stone and stucco lined in imitation of ashlar. One and removal of later road. storey field stone kitchen wing at rear. Gable roof. Single unsympathetic Classified by storey veranda with concave iron roof and cast-iron additions. the National decoration. Twelve pane windows. Very fine entrance, Trust hall and staircase- four panel door with half sidelights and radial flat arched fanlight over. Old stone settlers’ Listed on the cottage. Stone and timber and paling and shingle barns. GSBPS The associated rural land is included in the THR listing.

Page | 2

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Results of the Field Survey Assessment No historic sites, features or objects were identified during the field survey assessment.

As noted in section 4 of this report, there were some constraints in surface visibility experienced across the majority of the study area, with visibility averaging between 20-40%. Given these visibility constraints, it can’t be stated with absolute certainty that there are no undetected historic heritage sites or features present within the study area. However, surface visibility was sufficient to generate a basic impression of the historic sensitivity of the study area. The indications are that historic sites and features are very unlikely to occur in the study area. Any sites that are present are likely to have been heavily disturbed through land clearing activity.

As described in section 3.2 of this report, the study area, is sited within the heritage listed boundaries of the Red Banks Property. The State and local listings focus on the value of the built heritage on the property in particular, the homestead and associated out buildings. The field survey assessment was able to confirm that there are no historic buildings or other structures associated with the historic listing that are situated within the bound of the study area. The main homestead complex and associated buildings are situated over 1km to the north-east of the study area.

Based on the observations made during the field survey inspection, it is assessed that there is a low potential for undetected historic heritage sites to be present in the study area.

Statement of Heritage Impacts and Heritage Management Plan

Red Banks Property The search of the Heritage Registers described in section 3.1 confirms that the entirety of the Meredith Dam study area is located within the boundaries of the heritage listed “Red Banks” Property. The Red Banks property is registered on the Tasmanian Heritage Register (THR) and under the Glamorgan Spring Bay Planning Scheme 1994 (GSBPS). The State and local listings focus on the value of the built heritage on the property in particular, the homestead and associated out buildings.

The field survey assessment was able to confirm that there are no historic buildings or other structures associated with the historic listing that are situated within the bound of the study area. The main homestead complex and associated buildings are situated over 1km to the north-east of the study area.

The property is listed on the THR, and is afforded statutory protection. Under the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 ‘a person must not carry out any works in relation to a registered place…which may affect the historic cultural heritage significance of the place unless the works are approved by the Tasmanian Heritage Council.’

Page | 3

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Works to places included in the THR require approval, either through a Certificate of Exemption for works which will have no or negligible impact, or through a discretionary permit for those works which may impact on the significance of the place.

Recommendation As the study area avoids all built structures and heritage landscape plantings on the Red Banks property, the heritage impacts to the property will be nil or negligible. On this basis it is recommended that TasWater submits a Certificate of Exemption for the proposed works in this property boundary.

General Recommendations  No historic sites, features or objects were identified during the field survey assessment. Based on the observations made during the field survey inspection, it is assessed that there is a low potential for undetected historic heritage sites to be present in the study area. On this basis, it is advised that there are no other specific heritage requirements or constraints that apply to the proposed Meredith Dam Reparation works.

 As per the Practice Note No 2 by the Tasmanian Heritage Council, processes must be followed should any unexpected archaeological features and/or deposits be revealed during works. A process for dealing with Unanticipated Discoveries is presented in section 8 of this report.

 Copies of this report should be submitted to Heritage Tasmania (HT) for review and comment.

Page | 4

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

1.0 Project Outline

1.1 Project Details The existing Meredith Dam is located on the southern margins of the Meredith River, on the western outskirts of the town of Swansea, on the East Coast of Tasmania. The dam is the major water storage supply for Swansea (see Figure 1).

Figures 2 and 3 show the location of the four areas described above.

1.2 Aims of the Investigation The principal aims of the current Historic Heritage assessment are as follows:  To undertake a search of the relevant historic heritage registers and databases to identify known historic heritage within the broader study area;  Undertake relevant background historic research to facilitate an understanding of the historic period, including evidence from archaeological, physical, ethno-historical, historical and oral evidence;  To locate, document and assess the historic heritage values within and in the immediate vicinity of the study area;  To assess the significance of the historic heritage values identified;

Page | 5

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

 To provide management options, conservation policies and specific recommendations to mitigate impacts to identified historic heritage values within the study area.

1.3 Project Methodology A three stage project methodology was implemented for this assessment.

Stage 1 (Pre-Fieldwork Background Investigations) Prior to field work being undertaken, CHMA staff completed the following tasks: A search of all relevant historic registers and databases in order to determine the extent of historic sites and features in the vicinity of the study area. Agency databases searched included:  The Australian Heritage Database (AHD);  The Register of the National Estate (RNE);  The National Heritage List (NHL);  Tasmanian Historic Places Inventory (THPI);  Tasmanian Heritage Register (THR);  The Glamorgan Spring Bay Planning Scheme 1994 (GSBPS)

Detailed historical research was also undertaken to understand the historical context of the area, its growth and development from early pioneer settlement and previous investigations in the area. Resources were scoured from:  National Library of Australia  Trove online collections  Tasmanian Archives  LINC Tasmania  Glamorgan Historical Society

Also obtained were relevant:  Maps of the study area;  Ethno-historic literature;  References to the land use history of the study area

Contact was made with Heritage Tasmania requesting any additional information for the area and data sheets for relevant sites listed on the THR.

Stage 2 (Field Work) Stage 2 entailed the field work component of the assessment. The field survey was undertaken over a period of one day (5-10-2017) by Stuart Huys (CHMA archaeologist) and Vernon Graham (Aboriginal Heritage Officer).

The field survey was specifically focused on the three proposed borrow pit areas (Areas 1-3), and the area where pipeline coupling works are proposed to take place (Area 4), as specified in section 1.1 of this report. These four areas encompass a sum total of 61.4ha.

Page | 6

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

The field survey was undertaken on foot, with the field team walking a series of survey transects across each of the four areas. In total, 7.1km of survey transects were walked by the field team, with the average width of each transect being 10m. In an effort to offset surface visibility issues, the survey assessment targeted any areas where there were improved locales of surface visibility such as erosion scalds, pedestrian tracks or animal tracks. Section 4 provides further details as to the survey coverage achieved within the study area.

Stage 3 Stage three of the project involves the production of a Draft and Final Report that includes an analysis of the data obtained from the field survey, an assessment of archaeological sensitivity and management recommendations. The report has been prepared by Stuart Huys and Zoe Smith.

Page | 7

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Figure 1: The general location of the Meredith Dam Reparation Project study area

Page | 8

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Figure 2: Topographic map showing the four areas that were the focus of the Meredith Dam Reparation Project assessment

Page | 9

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Figure 3: Aerial image showing the four areas that were the focus of the Meredith Dam Reparation Project assessment

Page | 10

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

2.0 Historical Context

2.1 European Settlement of the Tasmanian East Coast By the close of 1804, two areas of settlement existed in Van Diemen’s Land; at Risdon on the River Derwent to the south and at York Town on the River Tamar in the north. Approximately four years later, the need to establish good communications between the northern and southern settlements led to the search for a direct route across the Central Plateau to Hobart Town by Lieutenant Thomas Laycock of the 102nd New South Wales ‘Rum Corps’. A bush track was therefore formed between the north and the south, with another leading to New Norfolk and nearby settlements, but no one went overland to the East Coast until the Governorship of Colonel Sorrell in c1819.

In a report by Mr Commissioner Bigge in 1820, detailing the conditions prevailing in Australia, he enquired as to why the East Coast had been so far neglected. Sorrell had previously sent Mr. Henry Rice, who owned a small farm at the Coal River where Richmond was to be built, to survey the country between the road to Port Dalrymple (the Tamar) and the eastern coast, in particular the area labeled Swan Port (von Stieglitz 1955). Rice returned with favourable reports of the area recording good water, good soils, and large expanses of fertile land.

The first settlers to the area arrived in Tasmania aboard the privately chartered ship called the ‘Emerald’, in 1821. This was the first vessel ever to be privately chartered to Van Diemen’s Land, and had arrived containing George Meredith, Joseph Archer, brothers Adam and John Amos, Thomas George Gregson and their respective families.

Adam and John Amos had a long-standing relationship with George Meredith prior to their decision to emigrate together. Adam had been a tenant on land owned by Meredith in Wales upon which he had established a successful wheat growing business, while his brother John, a highly skilled wheelwright and artisan worked for Meredith in this capacity and lived with his family in one of the farm houses on his brother’s leased land (von Stieglitz 1955).

Following a series of bad economical decisions and the birth of his illegitimate child to one of his servants, Meredith decided to emigrate and to settle in an entirely uninhabited part of the island which he could populate with people of his own choosing. He subsequently persuaded his distant nephew John Meredith, along with Archer, Gregson and the Amos brothers to join him in his venture. The group brought with them 24 hardy Saxon Merinos and organized for a further 200 cattle to be made available to them upon their arrival. Before departing Wales, following the death of this wife Sarah in childbirth, Meredith married his mistress Mary Evans, who joined his family on the ‘Emerald’.

Whilst still at sea, George Meredith made a deal with John Amos, who was a man of minimal means but considerable skill. John wished to abandon his artisan career and instead become a landowner. In order to facilitate this, Meredith offered him a deal, which he agreed to, in which he would surrender all grants of land given him to Meredith. In return, Meredith would place under his care and management a farm of 300 acres, money and stock to occupy for an 8-year period. During this period, John would be expected to make all

Page | 11

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017 necessary farming equipment and housing, in return for 1/3 of the profits of the estate annually. At the end of the 8 years, Meredith would be given 100 acres of his own (Nyman 1990)

Upon arrival in Hobart Town, the tenacious and quick-acting Meredith organized the settlement of his families, before approaching Governor Sorrell for land. Sorrell suggested the East Coast as a suitable place for settlement and allocated the following allotments of land to Meredith and each of the members of his party: George Meredith: 2000 acres Adam Amos: 500 acres John Meredith: 1000 acres John Amos: 400 acres

Location orders having been received, arrangements were immediately made for an exploratory trip, departing in a hired whaleboat on April 5th 1821: the party included George Meredith and his son, Adam Amos and his son, Henry Rice and Watson (who had surveyed the area in 1819).

The group originally rowed into Little Swan Port River, but disappointed by the soils they continued north to Oyster Bay and the Frecinet Peninsula. They grounded their whaleboat and pitched tents at the southern end of 9-mile beach. They explored the area for several days, locating flat ground, good forests, valleys and rivers as well as an expanse of land burnt by the Aborigines (the ‘Burnt Plains’ later Melrose) and a large lagoon (Moulting Lagoon). Meredith therefore decided ‘I intend to fix our grant’s here.’ (von Stieglitz 1955: 26)

Upon returning to Hobart, Meredith approached Governor Sorrell and negotiated double the land grants for himself, John Meredith and Adam Amos, with a further 300 acres offered to John Amos in the area of ‘Great Swan Port.’

Meredith had chosen for himself a 2000 acre block incorporating sheltered and fertile land between Saltwater Creek (now Meredith River) and another creek called the Wye. However, when Lieutenant Thomas Buxton came through the area as manager for William Talbot in 1821, he and Talbot selected land within this area previously marked out for Meredith. A bitter quarrel ensued and dragged on for many years. The property eventually became Meredith’s, known as Cambria.

John Meredith settled on a 2000 acre block to the north in a section of land fed by springs and bounded by the Swan and Signet Rivers, which he called ‘Spring Vale’ (Nyman 1990).

Adam Amos secured his 1000-acre grant further to the northwest, his southern boundary joining that of ‘Spring Vale’, which was occupied by John Meredith. He named the property Glen Gala Farm in 1822 and built a chock and log hut there to move his family into. John Amos established his residence on a 700acre grant on the Wye River (see Figure 2). Adam Amos was named chief constable in 1822, a position in which he was held in high regard until his dismissal in 1833 and retirement from public life; following a series of political stouches between George Meredith, John Lyne (of Aspley) and Francis Aubin in which Amos appears to have been an innocent bystander (Nyman 1990).

Page | 12

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Plates 1 and 2: Images of George Meredith’s ‘Cambria’ (Images from Archives office of Australia ADRI’s: NS3195-1-808 and NS165-1-436 respectively)

John Amos selected land 3 miles to the north of George Meredith, on the banks of the Wye, however this land was subsequently absorbed by George Meredith and John ultimately ended up to the south his brother Adam. The locations of these plots are provided in Figure 4.

Over time, the area became increasingly populated, with new families moving to the area including the Cottons, Buxtons, Lynes, Talbots and many others. Also, the sons and daughters of the original families were beginning to come of age and in need of land of their own.

In 1827, by order of Governor Arthur, a military station was established at Great Swan Port under Captain Hibbert. Hibbert had fought at Waterloo and named the place Waterloo Point in honor of the great battle. The military station once included a barracks, officers’ quarters, commissariat stores and the Commandant’s house and gardens, however all gradually fell into decay and no sign of any of these buildings remains in the area. The military station included a police office and gaol. A post station was established in 1832.

Page | 13

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Plate 3: Image of Surveyors looking to Waterloo Point

Plates 4 and 5: Waterloo Point Police Office and Gaol plans (from LINC Tasmania Archives Office ADRI’s PWD266-1-1764 and PWD266-1-1765 respectively)

Page | 14

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Figure 4: Map of grants in Great Swanport Area from map drawn by Thomas Scott 1824 (image taken from Nyman 1990:26)

Page | 15

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Culture Contact and Conflict with Clans of the Oyster Bay Nation As a frontier area, the settlement of the East Coast was accompanied by several incidents with the resident Aboriginal population of the area – the clans of the Oyster Bay nation. According to von Stieglitz ‘By the late twenties…tragedies beyond telling were of daily occurrence and there are official reports of outrages committed in the district of Great Swan Port, from 1826 to 1830, in the state archives’ (von Stieglitz 1955:46).

In 1828 police reports included the surrounding of Mr. Lyne’s house and knocking down of his youngest daughter, robbing of a hut belonging to George Meredith, another settler’s Mr. Allen’s hut was robbed and burnt to the ground, then robbed again later in the year. Buxton was robbed again than year. Two murders were also reported (von Stieglitz 1955:47), one of a settler and the other of a policeman’s assigned servant. Two of George Meredith’s horses were also killed.

In October of the following year ‘they murdered a man and burnt the hut of another, named Cullen, to the ground. They speared a Mr. Carr and murdered his man. “About the same time they seriously wounded with spears three men in Mr. Cotton’s service and robbed Mr. Cotton. They also robbed the hut occupied by a neighbour of his. Very much the same people were visited again by the blacks in 1830. Simpson’s place, Richard Allen and others, being robbed. On the 8th September a private solider at the 63rd Regiment was murdered at Boomer Creek’ (von Stieglitz 1955). Other reports included the murder of a sawer working for the government and the plunder of their huts, the plundering of James King’s hut at New Grange, George Meredith's hut and then on up the Swan to Glen Gala and Brook Lodge, where one of the grant owner Paddy Duffy’s men was killed (Nyman 1990).

Also in 1829 was a report by Jorgen Jorgensen, who was stationed at Oatlands as a constable under Thomas Anstey, P.M. After visiting the area he commented ‘the natives were upwards of 150 strong and no women or children among them…..I allude to the body that attacked Mr. Cotton’s hut….. the aborigines made their on Schouten’s Main…..They had the audacity to threaten Mr. Meredith’s men and when these began to sing in defiance, the natives re-echoed their song in derision from the rocks and told them they would soon come and take them all’ (von Stieglitz 1955).

One incident signed by Thomas Buxton, owner of Mayfield estate who recorded events on his property near Waterloo (now Swansea). His report details being surrounded by twenty or thirty natives at his home, several of whom were surrounding his man and bullocks working some distance from the house. Buxton fired a few times allowing his man to escape. He then saw Mrs. Chapman and two children being followed by natives and he fired at them to allow her to escape. He then saw another party of natives at his new house carrying away bedding, and then meet another settler who had been wounded in the chin and left breast (von Stieglitz 1955:47). Buxton’s home had also been previously robbed by natives in March 1826 during which they killed one man and wounded another.

Francis Aubin also made a report at the Police Office on Waterloo Point in 1830 in which he recorded that a man named Francis Bowker had been speared by the blacks near Mr. Duffey’s of this district and died of the wounds (von Stieglitz 1955:47).

Page | 16

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

So widespread was the general fear at the time that ‘Every shadow and every charred stump seemed to be a black man ready to burn the huts or spear those unhappy, lonely settlers…No solider went out unless he had a companion with him.’ (von Stieglitz 1955:48)

On the back of this hostility and fear, the orders were issued for the ‘Black Drive’ or ‘Black Line’: ‘Between the 7th and 12th October 1830 Lieutenant Aubin will thoroughly examine the tier extending from the head of the Swan River; north, down to Spring Bay; the southern extremity of his district, in which duty he will be aided in addition to the military parties station at Spring Bay and Little Swan Port, by Captains Maclaine, and Leard, Messrs Meredith, Hawkins, Gatehouse, Buxton, Harte, Amos, King, Lyne and all settlers in that district’ (Melville, the history of VDL pp. 27 in Nyman 1990:108).

Following the dismal failure of the black line (which resulted in the capture of only one aboriginal man and a boy), George Augustus Robinson appeared in the district, authorized to try to persuade the aborigines to give themselves to his care. Much to the surprise of the settlers in the area, many chose to do so. When Robinson and his group arrived at Glen Gala, Adam Amos and his family reportedly stayed inside their house, making no acknowledgement of their presence (Nyman 1990).

In 1831 a final attack was made by the aborigines of the area with the theft of guns from Watersmeeting while its owner was away. Upon hearing that 40 or more aborigines were in the district, George Meredith guessed they would follow their usual pattern and head towards the peninsula. He gathered all the settlers from the area he could find and for a fortnight a party of approximately 100 men kept the aborigines penned up on the southern part of the Peninsula. A cordon of men and fires stretched from Promise Bay to Wineglass Bay, but was eventually broken in the night and the aborigines escaped, leaving the settlers with nothing apparently to show for their vigil. However, the incident had been so alarming for the aborigines that they never returned to the area (Nyman 1990).

Further Settlement In 1831 the government cancelled the practice of awarding settlers with free land in proportion to their capital (a formula used since the establishment of the colony), instead land had to be sold to the highest bidder at public auction (Nyman 1990). Consequently, there was a rush amongst those waiting to finalise outstanding applications and extensions to original grants. John Lyne was granted 320 acres, George Meredith successfully obtained another 1000 acres. John Amos, who was granted an additional thousand acres in January because of the improvements he had made to Cranbrook, received a further 200 acres, while his son James received a location order for 320 acres, as did each of his cousins John and Adam. All three of these grants (James, John and Adam) were taken next to James King’s reserve near the mouth of the Wye River (Nyman 1990).

Newcomers to the area, or those attempting to stake out grants for themselves came across resistance from Adam Amos, who blocked three applications by Dr. George Story and another by John Lyne, claiming that the land already belonged to either himself, his brother or his children.

Page | 17

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

An account of the state of the road to the East Coast area was provided by Melville in 1833. His account is headed ‘From Hobart Town to Waterloo Point – a Post Station – but not a regular road – 75 miles’ (von Stieglitz 1955:60). The route involved, amongst other things ‘two miles of the worst track of road in the colony….a very inconvenient ford’ and several creek/river crossings. ‘Bad as the road had been all the inhabitants take it in preference to the passage by sea, preferring three days of certainty…. to the uncertainty of a sea passage’ (von Stieglitz 1955:60).

This rough track was the only way inland to the east coast for many years. East Coast dwellers would make their way to Hobart on horseback, through creeks and rivers with no bridge until they came to Richmond (von Stieglitz 1955:60).

By 1834 the population of the district had increased exponentially, numbering 341 people, comprising 180 free men, 65 free women and 158 male and 10 female convicts. The administration of Great Swan Port had become so involved that in 1834 the district was divided into two. The district of Little Swanport River was renamed Spring Bay and placed under the supervision Captain Peter Maclaine, while Great Swan Port remained under the administration of Major Lord.

The first public house in the area was the ‘Rose and Crown’ licensed in 1839, followed by the Swan Inn, run by ex-convict John Radford and his wife Mary Ann. It was established in 1840 on the southern bank of the Swan River (Nyman 1990).

The town of Swansea was first surveyed in 1842 and from that point on, the old name Waterloo Point was officially discarded. A description of the area dating to 1852 (author unknown) comments that ‘ One straggling street, its chief features a long wooden pier, erected by the inhabitants with government aid, the white cottage of the English clergyman on the point to the south, the little promontory jutting out into the sea surrounded by a flagstaff, and a few white washed buildings, including the gaol police office and magistrate cottage, looks at a distance like a small fort. The church, originally built for a schoolroom, has been raised in height and handsomely furnished. The houses of three publicans, and one or two stores are the only other edifices on ‘the Point’ above the rank of huts (von Stieglitz 1955:61).’

Sealing and Whaling Bay whaling was carried out in varying degrees by several of the East Coast pioneers, however George Meredith was the most prolific. Black and Right whales would come to calve along the east coast, offering an easy harvest with little outlay. Though hazardous, the profits of Bay whaling were seen as far outweighing the costs, and Meredith and others never had any trouble finding crews for the work. From 1820 to 1840 whaling really got under way, with peak profits occurring in 1837.

In 1824 Meredith was recorded as having two whaleboats, numbers of trypots and harpoons totaling 250 pounds in value. In 1836, a total of 69 whales were taken, generating an income of some 7706 pounds to the 13 boats involved (Nyman 1990). The boiling of blubber to produce oil required constant watching due to its ability to burn easily and spoil the quality. In 1824, oil was worth 21 pounds a ton and increased in value over time (von Stieglitz 1955:72).

Page | 18

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Due to dwindling numbers and/or whales moving to safer breeding grounds, by 1850 Bay whaling came to an end.

Rocky Hills – Convict Probation Station In 1841 a probation station was established at Rocky Hills near Mayfield to accommodate several hundred convicts. The station was designed to lodge up to 400 convicts and operated until 1848. The entire station was built of stone, quarried and cut on the spot as needed. The station was amongst the first under the newly designated ‘Probation System’ (1841-1847). The original station included large five-roomed officer’s quarters, a mess room (subsequently used as both a chapel and school room) and a large cobbled exercise yard, surrounded on all three sides by stone cells forming high walls. A bake house and a brick and stone building were also present where seashells were burnt for mortar. The station included a cemetery, which covers approximately a quarter acre of a rocky knoll and is surrounded by a wall (there are no headstones). The entire station covers about two acres of land.

However, supervision and discipline at the station was notably lax, resulting in regular ringing’s of the escape bell and several runaways becoming bushrangers. Bushrangers are recorded as visiting Glen Gala one Sunday in 1842 just as divine service was about to commence in the granary. A series of raids by bushrangers followed, Bellbrook, The Springs and Watersmeeting were all robbed by starving escapees from the convict station. Four were finally captured, spending a night at Glen Gala before being taken to the gaol and Waterloo Point (Nyman 1990:163).

The station has since been converted into a private residence.

Plates 6 and 7: Images of the Rocky Hills Probation Station (Image from Australian Heritage Photographic Library codes rt73177 and 73168 respectively)

Spiky Bridge, Swansea The Spiky Bridge in Swansea was built in 1843 by the convicts under the orders of Major de Gillern, the superintendent of the Rocky Hills convict probation station. The spikes along the top of the bridge were designed to prevent cattle falling over the sides and inspired the bridge’s name. According to local legend, the bridge came about when Edward Shaw, a friend of the Major became tired of requesting that the road traversing a steep gully south of

Page | 19

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Waterloo Point be improved. One night while driving the Major home, Shaw took the gully at full gallop, terrifying the Major, who is said to have immediately assigned the convict gang to build a bridge across the dip (von Stieglitz 1995:64).

Plate 8: Spikey Bridge near Swansea (Image from Archives Office of Tasmania available at: http://stors.tas.gov.au/NS3195-1-916)

2.2 Establishment of the Municipality of Glamorgan Tasmania was granted responsible Government by the Imperial Government in 1856, with the Rural Municipalities Bill passed in Tasmania in 1858. The Act provided ‘that any town, electoral, police or road district could be constituted a rural municipality on application to the Governor-in-Council, provided that certain formalities were complied with. A Warden and Councilors could be elected, under whose control the local roads and police would pass; the Warden to be vested with the power of a Police Magistrate’ (von Stieglitz 1955:76).

Great Swanport were the first to apply for these benefits, forwarding a petition to the Governor in 1859. By 1860 the Rural Municipality of Glamorgan was constituted and gazette. The first election of councilors was held in February 1860 and included: James Alexander Graham of Swansea, John Meredith of Cambria (son of George), John Amos of Glen Herriot, John Perkins King of Piermont, Francis Cotton of Kelvedon and James Amos of Colebrook (von Stieglitz 1955:76).

James Alexander Graham, a man of high integrity and justice of character became the first Warden of the Municipality. Graham built a large stone store in 1838 (Morris’ store), which was filled with every conceivable need of the district. Originally only a single story structure, Graham sold it to James Morris, who passed in through his family for several generations and added subsequent levels. The store remains at the entry to Swansea, relatively untouched.

Page | 20

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Plate 9: Morris’ General Store in Swansea (image from Australian Photographic Library code: rt41950)

In March 1862 a committee was elected for the establishment of the Glamorgan Public Library.

In the 1880s a Swansea’s bark mill was constructed to process black wattle bark, which was used as a tanning agent.

Churches Rev Joseph Mayson was the first rector of Swansea, arriving in 1839 and remaining as rector for 38 years (von Stieglitz 1955). Originally performing services wherever possible, in 1845 an old stone building was bought specifically for use as a church, with services conducted there until 1868 when the building became unsafe. Following the formation and tireless work of a Committee, the All Saints Church of England was finally completed in 1871.

The first Roman Catholic Church, named ‘The Star of the Sea’ was consecrated in 1860, from a repurposed building that had originally been the old Commissariat Store. The church of ‘St Anne’ was built at Spring Bay in 1869 (von Stieglitz 1955).

Page | 21

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Plate 10: All Saints Church of England (Image from National Archives of Australia no A6135, K16/7/75/124)

The Hospital The May Shaw Memorial Hospital was founded in 1939 as a Bush Nursing Maternity Home and Hospital. It was named in honour of Mrs. Howard Amos of Glen Gala, who had been nurse May Shaw. A donation by Howard Amos allowed for the purchase of a suitable building for the Bush Nursing hospital - a former house. By December 1939 the Hospital was opened, fully equipped and providing a free service.

Hotels and Inns The earliest public house at Swansea was ‘The Rose and Crown’ licensed in 1839. This was followed by the ‘Swan Inn’ dating to 1841, which subsequently became a guesthouse. Also in 1841 the ‘Traveller’s Rest’ became licensed, operating for well over 100 years under several names, the last being ‘Bay View Hotel.’ ‘The Swansea Inn’ (later ‘Schouten House’) was built in 1850, originally as a brewery (von Stieglitz 1955).

Eastern Coast Steam Navigation Company/the Swan Port Steam Navigation Company George Meredith’s schooner the ‘Independent’ built in 1826 was the first vessel to trade along the coast to Hobart from Oyster Bay. Meredith undertook this project after a quarrel with Governor Arthur who subsequently forbade ships to call in at Swan Port. Instead of chartering vessels, Meredith decided to build his own.

However, in 1854 the East Coast Steam Navigation Company was established and utilised a Steam vessel to facilitate Swan Port Trade and to promote prosperity for the whole Eastern District, including Prosser’s Plains. The company was established by 31 shareholders in Swanport, with similar numbers at Spring Bay, Prosser’s Plains, Falmouth, several from the Richmond-Sorrel area, and over 40 in Hobart. The company purchased several steam boats over a number of years which served to discharge cargo and passengers to and from several areas along the coast including (but not limited to) Launceston, Swansea, Spring Bay, Bicheno, Falmouth, Fras. Groom, Cape Portland, Hobart Town. Cargo included the full

Page | 22

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017 gambit of products from passengers to mail, wool, fresh produce, coal and wood. The primary exports of the area were wool, black wattle bark, wheat, oats and potatoes.

Plate 11: Photograph of the Bay View Hotel (Image from Archives Office of Tasmania ADRI: PH30-1-552 collection dated 1860-1992)

Over time the company lost money, people complained that the ships were not punctual enough and called in at too many places seeking cargo. Passenger fares were argued to be too high and meals on board unnecessarily lavish (von Stieglitz 1955:86). The company appears to have folded around 1857 with the sale of many of its primary ships advertised in local papers.

When the ECSN Co. went into liquidation, its services were picked up by the Tasmanian Steam Navigation Co. who enlarged their activities to include Schouten Island, Swansea, Bicheno and the rest.

Page | 23

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

3.0 Results of the Search of the Heritage Registers

3.1 Heritage Databases, Registers and Lists Prior to undertaking fieldwork in the study area, a search was carried out of a number of historic registers and databases in order to determine the extent of historic sites and features in the vicinity of the study area. Agency databases searched included:  Australian National Heritage List (NHL)  Australian Commonwealth Heritage List (CHL)  The Australian Heritage Database (AHD)  Tasmanian Heritage Register (THR)  The Register of the National Estate (RNE)  Australian Heritage Places Inventory (AHPI)  The National Trust (NT)  Glamorgan Spring Bay Planning Scheme 1994 (GSBPS).

The search revealed several historic sites within the broader study area listed on the RNE, THPI, THR and within the Glamorgan Spring Bay Planning Scheme (1994). Each of these registers is discussed below.

Register of the National Estate (RNE) The RNE ceased to be an active register in February 2007 and from this point onwards sites were unable to be added or removed from the list. Many places on the RNE are also included in state and local government registers, which provide sites with various level of protection. However, the RNE is still considered to be a statutory register with registered sites offered protection under the EPBC Act until 2012. The Minister for the Environment is required to consider the register when making decisions under the EPBC Act.

Tasmanian Heritage Register (THR) The Tasmanian Heritage Register provides a list of places recognized as possessing ‘historic cultural heritage significance to the whole of Tasmania’ (www.heritage.tas.gov.au/thr.html), as representatives/contributors to our cultural fabric and historic identity of Tasmania. The Register is maintained by the Heritage Council, under the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 and Historic Cultural Heritage Amendment Act 2013.

The Principle Act (1995) offers protection to all registered heritage places and areas under Part 6 s.32 (1) in which it states: ‘A person must not carry out any works in relation to a registered place or a place within a heritage area which may affect the historic cultural heritage significance of the place unless the works are approved by Heritage Council.’

Approval to carry out works or to impact upon places registered on the Tasmanian Heritage Register must therefore be sought through the Tasmanian Heritage Council via a works application. The works application process has recently been streamlined (see section 6.3), resulting in the following process:  Works applications are lodged with the local planning authority (in this case it is the Glamorgan Spring Bay Council), who advertise the works to allow 14 days for interested parties to lodge a representation with it.

Page | 24

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

 A copy of the works application and any representations received are then forwarded to the Heritage Council for assessment by Heritage Tasmania. Assessment is undertaken against the Tasmanian Heritage Assessment Criteria (see section 6.3) and may involve a site visit, before recommendations are made to the Heritage Council’s Works Application Assessment Committee.  The Committee considers the recommendations and either approves, approves with conditions or refuses the application.  The Heritage Council decision is then issued to the planning authority and a copy provided to the applicant.  The planning authority must incorporate the Council decision into the final permit (or refusal).

Certificates of Exemption for Heritage Works are included under Part 6, s42 of the Act. Clause (4) states ‘Without limiting its discretion the Heritage Council must approve the exemption certificate application if it is reasonably satisfied that the heritage works’ a) are identified in the works guidelines as works that will have no impact or only negligible impact on the historic cultural significance of the relevant registered place or heritage area; and b) are capable of being carried out in accordance with the works guidelines.’

The effect of certificates of exemption are outlined in section 43 as follows: (1) Subject to subsection (2), a certificate of exemption allows the heritage works identified in the certificate to be carried out in relation to the registered place or heritage area identified in the certificate. (2) If the carrying out of the heritage works identified in a certificate of exemption or any part of those heritage works, requires a discretionary permit or other permit under the Planning Act, the certificate of exemption does not annul, qualify or displace that requirement.’

The Glamorgan Spring Bay Planning Scheme 1994 The Glamorgan Spring Bay Planning Scheme outlines the conditions under which and processes required to ensure the efficient use, development and management of resources within the planning area, whilst avoiding undesirable social and environmental impacts to the Glamorgan Spring Bay area.

Schedule 2 of the scheme deals specifically with Heritage, ‘identifying buildings, sites or areas of historical, aesthetic or cultural significance and to ensure their preservation and protection’ (Part 9 – Schedule 2, s2.1). Section S2.5 provides a list of recorded Heritage sites within the bounds of the planning area.

The central policy is that any actions that may lead to the denigration of the features, which contribute to a place’s significance, shall be avoided by the use of a series of specific controls relating to the development of a heritage site. As such, sites recorded within this document are protected under the guiding principles outlined in Schedule 2. Impacts to any of these sites therefore requires the submission of a development application to the

Page | 25

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Glamorgan Spring Bay Council, who will assess its relative impacts to heritage values, in accordance with the information outlined in sections S2.2 and S2.3 of the Planning Scheme.

3.2 Registered Historic Sites within the Study Area The search of the Heritage Registers described in section 3.1 confirms that the entirety of the Meredith Dam study area is located within the boundaries of the heritage listed “Red Banks” Property. The Red Banks property is registered on the Tasmanian Heritage Register (THR) and under the Glamorgan Spring Bay Planning Scheme 1994 (GSBPS). The State and local listings focus on the value of the built heritage on the property in particular, the homestead and associated out buildings. The current study areas not located in the immediate vicinity of the site’s built heritage assets.

Table 1 provides the summary details for the heritage listing of the Red Banks property. Figure 5 shows the location of the study area in relation to the Red Banks property boundaries. A more detailed description of the property listing is presented in section 3.3.

Figure 5: The location of the study area within the heritage registered boundaries of the Red Banks Property (Source: The LIST, Land District Chart and Heritage Register, accessed 9 October 2017)

Page | 26

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Table 1: Summary details for the Heritage Registered Red Banks Property

Place Name Heritage Statement of and Location Register and Description Integrity Photos Significance Status

Page | 27

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

3.3 Detailed Description for the Heritage Listing of the Red Banks Property The current State registration for the Red Banks Property includes the following parcels of land: . CT # 163430/1 - 13512B Tasman Hwy, Swansea, 7190, Tas. . CT # 158015/2 - Lot 2 Tasman Hwy, Swansea, 7190, Tas. . CT # 158015/1 - Lot 1 Tasman Hwy, Swansea, 7190, Tas. . CT # 158016/1 - Lot 1 Tasman Hwy, Swansea, 7190, Tas. . Acquired road created in May 2012. Was part of legacy title 35679/1

The original extent of the listing consisted of the two titles Certificate of Titles 35679/1 and 35679/2, representing an area of >800ha (see Figure 6). There have been subsequent subdivisions of these titles and the registration has not been reviewed. As a result, the whole this area is still formally on the register, including CTs 158015/1 and 170094/2 where the study areas are located. The land that is now 170094/2 was part of the original listing for the place, however, as the land was subdivided the register was unable to keep up, the result being that although the mapping shows the new lots, the registration still comprises the land that formed the original registration (pers. comm. Heritage Tasmania).

Figure 6: Red Banks. Original property lots belonging to Edward C. Shaw (Source: The LIST, Land District Chart and Heritage Register, accessed 9 October 2017)

Page | 28

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

As mentioned in section 3.2, the State and local heritage listings of the Red Banks Property is principally based on the value of the built heritage on the property in particular, the homestead and associated out buildings. The current study areas not located in the immediate vicinity of the site’s built heritage assets.

Description of the Homestead and Associated Buildings The house was built by Edward Carr Shaw (who was the uncle of George Bernard Shaw), on land originally owned by George Meredith Jnr. In c1860 there was a fire that partially destroyed much of the internal joinery.

The house is two storeys and of stuccoed stone. The roof is gabled with corrugated iron cladding and decorative barge boards. There is a veranda to the front with concave corrugated iron, timber posts, cast iron lacework and flagstone floor. The front door is central and has sidelights and fanlight. The internal joinery dates from the c1833 construction period in part and from the c1860 post fire reconstruction in other parts. Some of the interior walls have been painted by local artist and resident Louise Mitchell in c1930. Other buildings on the site include the original residence -a ruinous single storey wattle and daub house with gabled roof, a stone and timber laundry adjacent the rear of the main house, a c1833 weatherboard schoolhouse, a ruinous stone workers hut with no surviving roof, a pair of conjoined stone workers’ cottages subsequently converted to a shearing shed, and a barn/stable with an attached machinery shed.

Figure 7 is a sketch plan showing the location of the various buildings associated with the Red Banks property.

Statement of Significance 'Red Banks' is of historic heritage significance because of its ability to demonstrate the principal characteristics of a rendered Old Colonial Georgian two storey rural homestead with its associated outbuildings.

Page | 29

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Figure 7: Red Banks. Rural property Heritage Precinct. Owner: Mr CP Shaw. RA 13514 Tasman Hwy, Swansea (Source: Statement of Heritage Interest for Rural Property Owner)

Page | 30

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

4.0 Survey Coverage of the Study Area

Survey Coverage and Surface Visibility Survey coverage refers to the estimated portion of a study area that has actually been visually inspected during a field survey. Surface Visibility refers to the extent to which the actual soils of the ground surface are available for inspection. There are a number of factors that can affect surface visibility, including vegetation cover, surface water and the presence introduced gravels or materials. Figure 8 presents a chart which is used as a general guideline for estimating surface visibility.

As described in section 1.1 of this report, the four separate areas that were the focus of this investigation varied in size. The extent of survey transects walked across each area varied accordingly.

The majority of the survey transects (4.8km) were concentrated in Area 1, which is the largest of the Area footprints, encompassing 45ha. These transects were aligned to provide coverage across most parts of the study area. However, Area 1 encompasses the existing Meredith Dam and associated infrastructure (formed vehicle tracks, spillways etc). These areas were excluded from the assessment, due the fact that any heritage sites that may once have been present in these infrastructure areas will have been completely destroyed or covered by water or introduced gravels.

Surface visibility across Area 1 varied between 20%-40% (averaging 30%), which is in the low-medium range (see Figure 8 for surface visibility guidelines). Surface visibility was generally more improved within the rocky hills in the western portion of Area 1, where vegetation cover was comparatively sparse (see Plates 12 and 13). The east portion of Area 1, on the low lying river flood plains was more heavily grassed, with fewer erosion scalds and exposures (see Plate 14).

Area 2 encompasses approximately 3.8ha. This area incorporates a large pile of clay material that had been previously extracted as part of the construction of an adjacent series of settlement ponds. A total of 700m of transects were walked within Area 2. These transects were focused around the soil pile, where the natural soils were available for inspection. Surface visibility in these areas was restricted to around 30% due to grass cover, which again is in the low-medium range (see Plate 15). There were discrete erosion scalds and stock tracks providing improved visibility.

Area 3 incorporates 11.8ha. A total of 1.3km of transects were walked across this area, with the transects aligned to provide coverage of all parts of the Area. Surface visibility was restricted to 20% across this area, with grass cover being quite thick (see Plate 16). This is in the low range. Stock tracks and the occasional erosion scald provided locales of improved visibility (see Plate 17).

Page | 31

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Area 4 is the smallest of the four footprints, encompassing 0.85ha. A total of 400m of survey transects were walked across this area, providing 100% survey coverage. Surface visibility across this area averaged around 40%. This is in the low-medium range. There are a number of large erosion scalds present in this area, as well as a vehicle track running through the area, providing transects of improved visibility (see Plates 18 and 19).

Figure 9 shows the alignment of the transects walked across the four areas.

Full (100%) High (75%) Medium (50%) Low (24%) None (0%) Figure 8: Guidelines for the estimation of surface visibility

Effective coverage Variations in both survey coverage and surface visibility have a direct bearing on the ability of a field team to detect discrete historic features such as partially buried foundations. The combination of survey coverage and surface visibility is referred to as effective survey coverage. Table 2 presents the estimated effective survey coverage achieved within the four separate areas that were the focus of the survey assessment.

Table 2: Effective Survey Coverage achieved within the study area Area Surveyed Survey Coverage Estimated Effective Surface Survey Visibility Coverage Area 1 4800m x 10m = 48 000m² 30% 14 400m² Area 2 700m x 10m = 7 000m² 30% 2 100 m² Area 3 1300m x 10m = 13 000m² 20% 2 600m² Area 4 400m x 10m = 4 000m² 40% 1 600m² TOTAL 7 200m x 10m = 72 000m² 20 700m²

Page | 32

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Plate 12: View west across the western portion of Area 1, showing sparse grass cover on the rocky hills, with visibility in the range of 30-40%

Plate 13: View west along a large erosion scald in Area 1, on the margins of the Meredith River

Page | 33

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Plate 14: View south across grassed paddocks in the east portion of Area 1, with surface visibility averaging 20%

Plate 15: View south at Area 2, showing typical surface visibility conditions, constrained by grass cover

Page | 34

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Plate 16: View east across Area 3, showing typical surface visibility restricted to 20% due to grass cover

Plate 17: Stock tracks within Area 3 providing improved surface visibility

Page | 35

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Plate 18: View north across Area 4 showing large erosion scalds providing reasonable surface visibility

Plate 19: View west across Area 4, with stock tracks providing improved surface visibility

Page | 36

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Figure 9: Aerial image showing the alignment of the survey transects across the four designated survey footprint areas

Page | 37

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

5.0 Survey Results and Statement of Heritage Potential

No historic sites, features or objects were identified during the field survey assessment.

Based on the observations made during the field survey inspection, it is assessed that there is a low potential for undetected historic heritage sites to be present in the study area.

Page | 38

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

6.0 Statutory Controls and Legislative Requirements

The following provides a summary overview of the various legislative instruments and statutory requirements relating to historic heritage in Tasmania. The review is presented in order to provide the proponent with a basic understanding of the statutory frameworks and procedures relating to heritage in Tasmania.

6.1 National Conventions Council of Australian Governments Agreement 1997 In 1997, COAG reached an agreement on Commonwealth, State and local government roles and responsibilities for heritage management. Local government, through the Australian Local Government Association, and the Tasmanian Government were both signatories to this Agreement. The Agreement resulted in the following outcomes: - Acceptance of a tiered model of heritage management, with the definition of places as being of either, world, national, state or of local heritage significance; - Nominations of Australian places for the World Heritage List and management of Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention would be carried out by the Commonwealth Government; - A new National Heritage System on one was created in January 2004, comprising the Australian Heritage Council (AHC), National Heritage List (NHL) and Commonwealth Heritage List (CHL); - The Commonwealth Government, through the Australian Heritage Council would be responsible for listing, protecting and managing heritage places of national significance; - State and Territory Governments would be responsible for listing, protecting and managing heritage places of state significance; and - Local government would be responsible for listing, protecting and managing heritage places of local significance.

Environment Protection and Heritage Council of the Australian and State/Territory Governments 1998 In 1998, the National Heritage Convention proposed a set of common criteria to be used in order to better assess, understand and manage the heritage values of places.

The Environment Protection and Heritage Council of the Australian and State/Territory Governments adopted this as a national set of desirable common criteria (known as the HERCON criteria). The adoption of these criteria by Heritage Tasmania has not yet been formalised. These criteria are also based upon the Burra Charter values. The Common Criteria (HERCON Criteria) adopted in April 2008 are summarised below: a) Importance to the course or pattern of our cultural or natural history. b) Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of our cultural or natural history.

Page | 39

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

c) Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of our cultural or natural history. d) Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or environments. e) Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics f) Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period. g) Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. This includes the significance of a place to Indigenous peoples as part of their continuing and developing cultural traditions. h) Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in our history.

These criteria have been endorsed by the Heritage Chairs and Officials of Australia and New Zealand (HCOANZ) in the Supporting Local Government Project document, “Protecting Local Heritage Places: A National Guide for Local Government and Communities” (March 2009).

Burra Charter 1999 Australia ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) is the peak body of professionals working in heritage conservation in Australia. The Burra Charter was adopted by Australia ICOMOS in 1979 in Burra, South Australia based on other international conventions. Further revisions were adopted in 1981, 1988 and 1999 to ensure the Charter continues to reflect best practice in heritage and conservation management. The current version of the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 1999 is the only version that should be used.

The Burra Charter provides guidance for the conservation and management of places of cultural significance (cultural heritage places), and is based on the knowledge and experience of Australian ICOMOS members. The Charter sets a standard of practice for those who provide advice, make decisions about, or undertake works to places of cultural significance, including owners, managers and custodians.

The Charter recognises the need to involve people in the decision-making process, particularly those that have strong associations with a place. It also advocates a cautious approach to changing heritage places: do as much as necessary to care for the place and to make it useable, but otherwise change it as little as possible so that its cultural significance is retained.

6.2 Commonwealth Legislation Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) provides for the listing of natural, historic or indigenous places that are of outstanding national heritage value to the Australian nation as well as heritage places on Commonwealth lands and waters under Australian Government control.

Page | 40

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Once a heritage place is listed under the EPBC Act, special requirements come into force to ensure that the values of the place will be protected and conserved for future generations. The following heritage lists are established through the EPBC Act: - National Heritage List - a list of places of natural, historic and indigenous places that are of outstanding national heritage value to the Australian nation - Commonwealth Heritage List - a list of natural, historic and indigenous places of significance owned or controlled by the Australian Government. - List of Overseas Places of Historic Significance to Australia – this list recognises symbolically sites of outstanding historic significance to Australia but not under Australian jurisdiction.

Australian Heritage Council Act 2003 The Australian Heritage Council is a body of heritage experts that has replaced the Australian Heritage Commission as the Australian Government's independent expert advisory body on heritage matters when the new Commonwealth Heritage System was introduced in 2004 under amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity and Conservation Act 1999.

The Council plays a key role in assessment, advice and policy formulation and support of major heritage programs. Its main responsibilities are to assess and nominate places for the National Heritage List and the Commonwealth Heritage List, promote the identification, assessment, conservation and monitoring of heritage; and advise the Minister on various heritage matters.

Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 The PMCH Act regulates the export of cultural heritage objects from Australia. The purpose of the Act is to protect, for the benefit of the nation, objects which if exported would significantly diminish Australia's cultural heritage. Some Australian protected objects of Aboriginal, military heritage and historical significance cannot be granted a permit for export. Other Australian protected objects may be exported provided a permit or certificate has been obtained.

6.3 State Legislation Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 This Act (LUPA) is the cornerstone of the State Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS). It establishes the legitimacy of local planning schemes and regulates land use planning and development across Tasmania. With regard to historic heritage, LUPAA requires that planning authorities will work to conserve those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value‟ [Schedule 1 Part 2(g)].

Resource Planning and Development Commission Act 1997 The Resource Planning and Development Commission (now referred to as the Tasmanian Planning Commission) is responsible for overseeing Tasmania’s planning system, approving planning schemes and amendments to schemes and assessing Projects of State Significance. In terms of heritage management, the TPC will consider the establishment of heritage overlays, precincts or areas as part of the creation of planning schemes.

Page | 41

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal Act 1993 The Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal determine planning appeals and enforce the Acts within the RMPS. The Tribunal plays an important role in the management of heritage places through its determinations on proposed development on, or near to, places of heritage significance.

Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 The Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 (HCH Act) is the key piece of Tasmanian legislation for the identification, assessment and management of historic cultural heritage places. The stated purpose of the HCH Act is to promote the identification, assessment, protection and conservation of places having historic cultural heritage significance and to establish the Tasmanian Heritage Council‟. The HCH Act also includes the requirements to: - establish and maintain the Tasmanian Heritage Register (THR); - provide for a system for a system of approvals for work on places on the Register; - provide for Heritage Agreements and assistance to property owners; - provide for protection of shipwrecks; - provide for control mechanisms and penalties for breaches of the Act.

Under the HCH Act, “conservation‟ in relation to a place is defined as - the retention of the historic cultural heritage significance of the place; and - any maintenance, preservation, restoration, reconstruction and adaption of the place.

The definition of “place‟ under the HCH Act includes: - a site, precinct or parcel of land; - any building or part of a building; - any shipwreck; - any item in or on, or historically or physically associated or connected with, a site precinct or parcel of land where the primary importance of the item derives in part from its association with that site, precinct or parcel of land; and - any equipment, furniture, fittings, and articles in or on, or historically or physically associated or connected with any building or item.

The Act created the Tasmanian Heritage Council (THC), which came into existence in 1997 and operates within the State RMPS. The THC is a statutory body, separate from government, which is responsible for the administration of the HCH Act and the establishment of the Tasmanian Heritage Register (THR), which lists all places assessed as having heritage values of state significance. The THC also assesses works that may affect the heritage significance of places and provides advice to state and local government on heritage matters. The primary task of the THC is as a resource management and planning body, which is focused on heritage conservation issues. Any development on heritage-listed places requires the approval of the THC before works can commence.

Page | 42

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Heritage Tasmania (HT), which is part of the Department of Primary Industry, Parks, Water and the Environment, also plays a key role in fulfilling statutory responsibilities under the HCH Act.

HT has three core roles: - co-ordinating historic heritage strategy and activity for the State Government; - supporting the Tasmanian Heritage Council to implement the HCH Act; and - facilitating the development of the historic heritage register.

In 2013, The Historic Cultural Heritage Amendment Bill 2013 was passed, with the primary goal of streamlining the approvals process and better align the Heritage Act with the Planning Act. Under the Amendment Bill applicants need only lodge a single Development Application (DA) (as opposed to both a Works Application and DA), which will be referred to the Heritage Council by the local planning authority. Heritage Council then has the opportunity to advise the planning authority whether or not it has an interest in the DA and may request further information under s57 of the LUPAA. If the Heritage Council does not have an interest in the DA, it reverts to the status it has under the Scheme or Planning Act. Where Heritage Council does have an interest in the DA, the Council decision must be incorporated into the final permit (or refusal) issued by the local planning authority.

Also included in the Amendment Bill 2013 is the incorporation of the HERCON significance criteria for assessing the significance of heritage sites. Point 11 of the amendment (2013) details the substitution of Section 16 of the HCH Act 1995 with new protocols for the entry of places in the Heritage Register. The Heritage Council may enter a place in the Heritage Register if it satisfied that the place has historic cultural heritage significance by meeting threshold values for one or more of eight individual criteria. Aesthetic characteristics of a place now forms the eighth criterion against which heritage significance may be assessed.

Discretionary permit applications are lodged with the relevant local planning authority. On receipt, the application is sent to the Heritage Council, which will firstly decide whether they have an interest in determining the application. If the Heritage Council has no interest in the matter, the local planning authority will determine the application.

If the Heritage Council has an interest in determining the application, a number of matters may be relevant to its decision. This includes the likely impact of the works on the significance of the place; any representations; and any regulations and works guidelines issued under the HCH Act. The Heritage Council may also consult with the planning authority when making a decision.

Page | 43

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

In making a decision, the Heritage Council will exercise one of three options: consent to the discretionary permit being granted; consent to the discretionary permit being granted subject to certain conditions; or advise the planning authority that the discretionary permit should be refused. The Heritage Council’s decision is then forwarded to the planning authority, which will incorporate the decision into any planning permit

Works Guidelines for Historic Heritage Places The Tasmanian Heritage Council and Heritage Tasmania have issued Works Guidelines for Historic Heritage Places. The guidelines provide a general reference for the types of works, which may be exempt, or those where a permit will be required. They also define appropriate outcomes for a range of different works and development scenarios. Although specifically designed for places included in the THR, the guidelines provide useful advice for the management of heritage places generally.

6.4 Local Planning Schemes In accordance with the requirements of the Land Use Planning and Approvals ACT 1993 (LUPAA), Local Planning Schemes have been established throughout Tasmania in accordance with regional divisions of the state.

The current study area falls within the Municipality of Glamorgan Spring Bay and associated its’ Planning Scheme 1994 (see section 3.1), which includes the towns of Swansea, Orford, Triabunna, Cranbrook and Coles Bay, as well as the national parks at Maria Island and the Freycinet Penninsula.

Requirements for the use or development of land within the area current study area and Municipality as a whole are governed by the Glamorgan Spring Bay Planning Scheme 1994. The specific implications of the GSBPS on heritage relevant to the broader study area have been discussed in detail in Section 3.1. In summary, Schedule 2 of the scheme deals specifically with Heritage, ‘identifying buildings, sites or areas of historical, aesthetic or cultural significance and to ensure their preservation and protection’ (Part 9 – Schedule 2, s2.1). Section S2.5 provides a list of recorded Heritage sites within the bounds of the planning area.

Page | 44

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

7.0 Statement of Heritage Impacts and Heritage Management Plan

The heritage management options and recommendations provided in this report are made on the basis of the following criteria. - The legal and procedural requirements as summarised in section 6 of this report, with specific reference to the Work Guidelines for Historic Heritage Places (see Appendix 2). - The results of the heritage register searches and field investigation as documented in sections 3 and 5 of the report. - Background research into the extant archaeological and historic record for the study area and its surrounding regions. - The assigned significance values for heritage areas or features.

The recommendations are aimed at minimising the impact of the proposed Meredith Dam Reparation Project on historic heritage values.

7.1 Red Banks Property The search of the Heritage Registers described in section 3.1 confirms that the entirety of the Meredith Dam study area is located within the boundaries of the heritage listed “Red Banks” Property. The Red Banks property is registered on the Tasmanian Heritage Register (THR) and under the Glamorgan Spring Bay Planning Scheme 1994 (GSBPS). The State and local listings focus on the value of the built heritage on the property in particular, the homestead and associated out buildings.

Page | 45

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

7.2 General Recommendations

 No historic sites, features or objects were identified during the field survey assessment. Based on the observations made during the field survey inspection, it is assessed that there is a low potential for undetected historic heritage sites to be present in the study area. On this basis, it is advised that there are no other specific heritage requirements or constraints that apply to the proposed Meredith Dam Reparation works.

 Copies of this report should be submitted to Heritage Tasmania (HT) for review and comment.

Page | 46

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

6.0 Unanticipated Discovery Plan

The following text describes the proposed method for dealing with unanticipated discoveries of heritage features or objects during the proposed construction of the SIS Pipeline and related infrastructure. The plan provides guidance to project personnel so that they may meet their obligations with respect to heritage legislation.

Please Note: There are two different processes presented for the mitigation of these unanticipated discoveries. The first process applies for the discovery of all cultural heritage objects or features, with the exception of skeletal remains (burials). The second process applies exclusively to the discovery of skeletal remains (burials).

Discovery of Heritage Objects or Features Step 1 If any person believes that they have discovered or uncovered a heritage object or feature, the individual should notify any machinery operators that are working in the general vicinity of the area that earth disturbance works should stop immediately.

Step 2 A buffer protection zone of 5m x 5m should be established around the suspected heritage find. No unauthorised entry or earth disturbance will be allowed within this ‘archaeological zone’ until such time as the suspected heritage find has been assessed, and appropriate mitigation measures have been carried out.

Step 3 A qualified heritage practitioner should be engaged to assess the suspected heritage find.

If the heritage find is a movable object, then the find should be recorded, photographed and a decision should be made as to whether the object should be re- located to a designated Keeping Place.

If the find is an unmovable heritage object or feature, then the find should be recorded and photographed and a HIA and HMP developed for the feature. This should be then submitted to Heritage Tasmania (HT) for review and advice.

Discovery of Skeletal Material Step 1 Under no circumstances should the suspected skeletal remains be touched or disturbed. If these are human remains, then this area potentially is a crime scene. Tampering with a crime scene is a criminal offence.

Step 2 Any person discovering suspected skeletal remains should notify machinery operators that are working in the general vicinity of the area that earth disturbing works should stop immediately. Remember health and safety requirements when approaching machinery operators.

Page | 47

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

Step 3 A buffer protection zone of 50m x 50m should be established around the suspected skeletal remains. No unauthorised entry or earth disturbance will be allowed with this buffer zone until such time as the suspected skeletal remains have been assessed.

Step 4 The relevant authorities (police) will be contacted and informed of the discovery.

Step 5 Should the skeletal remains be suspected to be of Aboriginal origin, then Section 23 of the Coroners Act 1995 will apply. This is as follows:

1) The Attorney General may approve an Aboriginal organisation for the purposes of this section. 2) If, at any stage after a death is reported under section 19(1), a coroner suspects that any human remains relating to that death may be Aboriginal remains, the coroner must refer the matter to an Aboriginal organisation approved by the Attorney General (In this instance TALSC). 3) If a coroner refers a matter to an Aboriginal organisation approved by the Attorney-General – (a) The coroner must not carry out any investigations or perform any duties or functions under this Act in respect of the remains; and (b) The Aboriginal organisation must, as soon as practicable after the matter is referred to it, investigate the remains and prepare a report for the coroner. 4) If the Aboriginal organisation in its report to the coroner advises that the remains are Aboriginal remains, the jurisdiction of the coroner under this Act in respect of the remains ceases and this Act does not apply to the remains. In this instance the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 will apply, and relevant Permits will need to be obtained before any further actions can be taken. 5) If the Aboriginal organisation in its report to the coroner advises that the remains are not Aboriginal remains, the coroner may resume the investigation in respect of the remains.

Page | 48

Meredith Dam Reparation Project, Swansea Historic Heritage Assessment Report CHMA 2017

References Cited

Giblin,RW. 1839. The Early History of Tasmania. Methuen & Co, London.

Nyman, L. 1990. The Eastcoasters. Regal Publications, Tasmania. von Stieglitz, K.R. 1955. Pioneers of the East Coast from 1642, Swansea, Bicheno. Evandale, Tasmania.

Legislation - Australian Heritage Council Act 2003 - Council of Australian Governments Agreement 1997 - Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 - Environment Protection and Heritage Council of the Australian and State/Territory Governments 1998 - Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 - Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 - Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 - National Trust Act 2006 - Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 - Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal Act 1993 - Resource Planning and Development Commission Act 1997 - The Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 - Glamorgan Spring Bay Planning Scheme 1994

Page | 49