Contents

List of attachments
Attachment 1:
Bushcare costing of land rehabilitation

Attachment 2:
Comments by Manager of Resource Management and Conservation Division, DPIWE, on Meander Dam Supplementary DPEMP

Attachment 3:
Comments from Resource Management and Conservation Division, DPIWE, on Meander Dam DPEMP

Attachment 4:
Comments by Nature conservation Branch Botanist on Meander Dam DPEMP

Attachment 5:
Original Nature Conservation Branch Epacris aff. exserta (Union Bridge) Impact Statement

1. Impacts of the proposal on Epacris aff. exserta (Union Bridge)
Epacris aff. exserta (Union Bridge) is listed as Vulnerable on the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and as Endangered on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. There are only 21 known populations of this species, totalling just over 7,100 individuals at best. Approximately half of all known individuals are found on the Meander River, including the largest known colony (designated Eub5 and comprising of 1,811 individuals) just downstream of the proposed dam site.

There are two major risks that have been identified to the Epacris aff. exserta populations on the Meander River if the Meander Dam were to be built. These are:

"1. Erosion of habitat due to increased scour in a sediment starved environment in which the river may source new sediment from the habitat.

2. Erosion of habitat due to increased susceptibility resulting from inundation and consequent waterlogging and loss of riparian vegetation."

(Population structure and habitat of Epacris aff. exserta (Union Bridge) on the Meander River, North, Barker and Associates, page iii).

It is also worth noting the following information from the Meander Dam DPEMP Supplementary Information in relation to floods:

"During wet winters, only the first few high flow events are captured behind the (largely full) dam, with the frequency and magnitude of winter high flow events identical to the natural hydrograph. The only difference the dam appears to have in wet winters periods is to result in higher base flows (5.5 m3/s) between high flow events." (page 38).

Theses two pieces of information present a seemingly irreconcilable conflict for the management of impacts on Epacris aff. exserta. In wetter years, the higher base flows between high flow events will result in inundation and waterlogging, whilst the frequency and magnitude of flood events will hardly be altered from normal. Releases from the dam for irrigation purposes over summer may also contribute to this waterlogging. It is also worth noting the following statement from the Meander Dam DPEMP Supplementary Information:

"Since the finalisation of the Geomorphology assessment (Locher et al, 2002), the projected hydrology of the proposed dam has changed significantly, due to a change in the size of the turbine associated with the mini-hydro development." (page 38)

As a result of this, the flow regimes have been revised, but the assessment of geomorphological impacts, and hence impacts on the Epacris aff. exserta, have not been revised. It is astonishing that such a significant change in the operation of this proposal did not result in a revising of impacts on a threatened species.

The largest known population of this species (approximately 1811 individuals, as above) is found at and immediately downstream of the proposed dam site. A small number of individuals (approximately 118 - Environmental Assessment Report, page 63) would be destroyed by inundation of the dam sites, with the remainder of the population to be impacted upon as described below:

"Eighty percent of these plants are on habitat that the fluvio-geomorphic assessments suggest may be lost to erosion over an unknown but extended period (possibly 100-300 years). Assuming the loss of approximately 1448 plants this would represent a decline of about 20% over that period."

(Extension Survey and Conservation Assessment of Epacris aff. exserta, North, Barker and Associates, page 8)

This report also goes on to state that:

"The population is important because it is the largest and thus is buffered against stochastic loss due to fluctuations in numbers. It is also likely to be a source of seed for the maintenance of the downstream populations." (page 9)

With regards to the populations present on the Mersey River, the document Geomorphic response of the Mersey River and population response of Epacris aff. exserta (Union Bridge) to flow regulation by North, Barker and Associates draws the following conclusions (page 38):

• "The Epacris aff. exserta (Union Bridge) population on the Mersey is currently growing due to colonisation of new flood plain deposits and less frequently disturbed bars.

• The vast majority of Epacris aff. exserta (Union Bridge) grow in alluvial sediments on banks, bars and in channel flood plain deposits.

• The loss of the alluvial sediment supply due to dams is allied to future habitat loss as the sediment supply moves through the system over an extended but unknown period, possibly several centuries. The sediment supply from tributaries below Union Bridge may be sufficient to sustain some of the new Flood Plain Deposits.

• After the loss of the alluvial banks over an extended period Epacris aff. exserta (Union Bridge) may continue to exist in marginal habitats along the Mersey River and in the lower reaches of unregulated tributaries such as the Lobster Rivulet. These small populations of plants are susceptible to natural population fluctuations increasing the risk of loss."

This indicates that the Mersey River populations of Epacris aff. exserta (Union Bridge) are also expected to decline in the medium to long term because of impacts of river regulation.

The proponent’s response to these issues is contained within three documents

• Species Management Plan for Epacris aff. exserta (Union Bridge) core habitat on State Forest in Tasmania

Pre-construction and construction commitments aside, the first of these documents outlines monitoring and reporting protocols. This is not mitigation. The second of these documents also deals with monitoring and reporting, as well as committing to some weed control, fencing, signage and ex-situ propagation. The latter commitment appears to be highly problematic, as this ex-situ population could not be used to establish a new population along the Meander River, as it is stated that:

"The available suitable habitats within the Meander River have Epacris on them now. Additional habitat that may be chosen for ex-situ planting is therefore likely to be marginal and immediately at risk of failure."

(Population structure and habitat of Epacris aff. exserta (Union Bridge) on the Meander River, North, Barker and Associates, page 30).

Additionally, this ex-situ population could conceivably be used to re-establish a population that was lost due to the operation of the dam. However, as the proposed mitigation measures do not directly address those aspects of dam operation that might impact upon Epacris aff. exserta (Union Bridge), any population that is re-established at a site where a population has been lost due to the operation of the dam could be reasonably expected to be lost as well.

The third document deals with management of populations of this species within State Forest. Not only does this document not commit to anything that a resource management agency could be reasonably expected to undertake anyway, it also does not address the principle issues facing this species.

In summary, even if all commitments are fully met and implemented, if the proposed Meander Dam proceeds then there will be an irreversible decline of all populations of Epacris aff. exserta (Union Bridge) on both the Mersey and Meander Rivers. In the long term, only the population on the Lobster Rivulet (less than 10% of the current population) will not be subject to decline, but will, like the degraded populations remaining on the Mersey and Meander Rivers, be susceptible to catastrophic events. It is completely plausible that the construction and operation of the Meander Dam will, in conjunction with a number of other factors, result in the extinction of Epacris aff. exserta (Union Bridge). Further, the acknowledged loss of the majority (80%) of the largest known population of this species (Eub5) as a direct result of the proposed Meander Dam is a significant impact within the terms of the guidelines for assessment under the` Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. On the other hand, should the dam not proceed, there is every chance of securing the Meander River populations of this species.

2. Impacts on the proposal on spotted-tailed quoll Dasyuris maculatus
The spotted-tailed quoll has been recommended to be listed as Vulnerable on the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and is listed as Vulnerable on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The TCT is very concerned about the document entitled Meander Dam Mitigation Strategy for the Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyuris maculatus). The primary focus of this document, and of the proponent’s mitigation measures, is the provision of compensatory habitat. We would like to draw your attention to the following statement:

" ‘Compensatory habitat’ is a term used where habitats are constructed artificially (often wetland areas) in an attempt to compensate for an area of natural habitat that is going to be destroyed. Modern practice in natural heritage conservation does not support this approach - it is regarded as a last resort. The complexity of natural habitat and the interactions of the components cannot be replicated artificially (although very simple systems can be created, such as planting reeds). This is not the same as retaining the original ecosystem, with all of its component species, ecosystems and earth processes."

(Protecting Natural Heritage - using the Natural Heritage Charter, Commonwealth of Australia, 2003, page 124)

Applying this principle, the proposed mitigation measure of rehabilitating 140 ha of cleared pasture for new habitat is unacceptable, as well as quite possibly unachievable. The time that would be taken for this habitat to become useful must also be questioned, as spotted-tailed quolls have short life spans.

We are also concerned about the structure of the proposed ‘Special Management Zone’ (SMZ). This area is extremely narrow and bordered on most sides by either couped State Forest or hardwood plantation. The purpose of the SMZ appears to be exclusively as a wildlife corridor, and ignores the obvious value of the proposed inundation site to this. Intensive trapping revealed that there are very few populations of this species remaining in the area that is bound by the Great Western Tiers and the Bass Highway from Mole Creek to Jackeys Marsh (H. Hesterman, personal communication). Correspondence and communication with a number of experts has led us to believe that it is very likely that this unusually dense population is a source population for the region, and/or the proposed inundation area serves as refugia for this species. Quite obviously, this emphasises the importance of the proposed inundation area to the species as a whole. In light of this, mitigation measures designed mostly to address the issue of a maintaining a wildlife corridor, equating to a simple passage through the area, will not be adequate.

The proximity of couped State Forest and hardwood plantations to the proposed ‘Special Management Zone’ also presents a number of other significant problems. It is worth noting that no provisions for the restriction of 1080 poisoning have been undertaken, despite there being some considerable concern at the incidence of secondary poisoning of this species.

The presence of abundant prey must obviously be a key factor in the density of spotted-tailed quoll at the site of the proposed dam. However, the mitigation measures do not address this issue, and there would appear to be no guarantee that prey would be present in the same abundance post-inundation. Thus, even if compensatory habitat was successfully provided, without abundant prey it would be completely useless. The same concerns that have been expressed about the impacts of forestry activities and 1080 poison on quolls are doubly true for their prey species, as such animals are the primary targets of 1080 poison and must be present in large ratios to resident quolls.

In summary, the proposal to rehabilitate improved pasture to make top-quality quoll habitat is fanciful and is unlikely to be achieved at all, let alone in sufficient time to be of any use. Reservation of couped State Forest could only be deemed successful if reservation was long term and other forestry activities were controlled, but in any case would replace an area of very high quality habitat with a very low edge:area ratio with a lesser area of lower quality habitat with a very high edge:area ratio.

3. Other ecological impacts of the proposal

As well as impacts on the two threatened species discussed above, there are a number of other ecological impacts which contribute to the dam’s failure to be ecologically sustainable.

"Considering the available habitat, it is also likely that the area provides excellent habitat for owls. This was strongly supported by the discovery of the remains of an adult ring-tailed possum and a ‘young at foot’ pademelon, both decapitated, found under perches on large old trees. This feeding style is typical of owls (B. Brown, TPWS, pers. comm.)."

(DPEMP, page 124)

As there are only two owl species in Tasmania, the larger of which is the masked owl, it is quite reasonable to assume that this is the species that is present. No further assessment has been made of the presence of this species. This would seem to be a serious omission, as there are generally considered to be less than 1,500 breeding adults remaining in Tasmania, where it has a status of Endangered on the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. As it is widely recognised as a subspecies, it would also qualify as endangered on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It must also be questioned whether or not a permit has been issued in relation to possible impacts on this species.

Further, an examination of the report Landscape Change in the Meander Valley: A Case Study for Monitoring and Reporting of Land Use Modification, Vegetation Condition and Biodiversity Loss (Cadman, Bushcare Tasmania, 2003) shows that there are major losses of native vegetation occurring in this region.

"In the period 1995 – 2000 2993 ha of native woody vegetation was lost to plantations, agricultural development or urbanisation in the Meander Valley." (page i)

"Four sub-catchments within the overall landscape are at or below the critical thresholds of woody vegetation and by inference native vegetation cover of 30%…A further 4 sub-catchments are at significant risk of reaching this threshold and the trend of clearance over the time sequence of the study for [two additional sub-catchments] are cause for some concern." (page 13)

The following table is taken from Downstream Meander Dam Fluvial Geomorphology Assessment (Locher et al, Supplementary DPEMP, May 2003, page 6) and characterises physical responses of rivers to regulation.

Category of change Type of response

The impacts of these physical changes are explained in Population structure and habitat of Epacris aff. exserta (Union Bridge) on the Meander River (North, Barker and Associates, Supplementary DPEMP, April 2002, page 7):

"Hupp (1985) described the relationship between the rivers energy and the development of depositional landforms that are typically indicated by different vegetation types; that is they provide different habitats. It follows that the variation in the hydromorphic processes operating along the course of a river contributes to the distribution of a plant species along the banks of a river. When the habitats of plants (river banks) are disturbed by flood the form of the bank can recover as it is redeposited and becomes revegetated. This dynamic process is an important feature of the geomorphic/vegetation relationship on river banks (Hupp and

Simon 1991). However, in regulated rivers the sediment supply is interrupted and so to is the potential for natural habitat dynamics to continue. In the sediment starved system the potential for habitat erosion without redeposition by a stream with increased energy arises as a threat. It is the management of the streams energy that may provide the answers to ameliorating the impacts in some instances.

A second key area of concern with regard to riparian vegetation is the impact of inundation. Many species are adapted to extended periods of inundation (Blom et al. 1990) and indeed some are aquatic. But in terms of the persistence of the existing riparian vegetation there will be some species that are fragile and some that are resilient to increased inundation (Nilsson et al. 1997). So in the absence of habitat destruction there may be a change in the species composition in response to inundation and this will depend upon the length of the period of inundation (Hughes 1997, Ladiges & Foord 1981) and importantly the rate at which change is implemented. If the period of inundation is dramatically different to the natural one all species may be killed."

While this section of the Meander River has little aquatic vertebrate fauna, the Meander Dam DPEMP states the following with regards to invertebrate fauna:

"A total of 48 taxa were identified from the composite kick samples and AusRivAS samples (Table 7.5). This collection of animals was composed largely of stoneflies (Plecoptera), mayflies (Ephemeroptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera), aquatic beetles (Coleoptera) and aquatic larvae of flies (Diptera), which is broadly characteristic of a fast-flowing habitat dominated by cobble and boulder sized substrate. Many of the taxa identified are characteristically found in rivers where water quality is good and there is minimal impact to instream aquatic habitat." (page 130)

This assemblage of species will quite obviously not persist in the impoundment area should the dam proceed, and is unlikely to persist intact downstream of the proposed dam. In short, there will be significant impacts on aquatic invertebrates in the vicinity of the proposed dam.

In summary:

• The riparian zone and aquatic habitat of the Meander River downstream of the dam would suffer irreparable change;
• The riparian zone and aquatic habitat of the Meander River within the impoundment area of the dam would suffer irreparable change;
• Over 250 ha of native vegetation will be destroyed, with no guarantee of effective replacement or reservation of other areas;
• Numerous native fauna species will be displaced or destroyed.

In the few cases where the proponent has offered mitigation measures for these impacts, it consists almost entirely of monitoring and reporting. This is not mitigation.

4. Economic viability of the proposal
Before dealing with the broader economic issues, the veracity of the fundamental information on which the economic viability of this proposal is based must be examined. The original mail survey, on which the justification for the entire project is based, was conducted in September 2001. Since this time, on-farm dams with a total capacity of around 2,000 ML have been formally applied for in the Meander Valley. Most have been approved. Amongst these applications is the family business of one of the main supporters of the dam. Also in this period, local milk buyer TQM collapsed and poppy company Tasmanian Alkaloids announced a significant cutback in production. Using data that is almost two years old, and not based on any firm commitment to purchase water or realistic price discussion, calls into serious question the accuracy of the information upon which economic forecasts have been based.

It is worth noting at the outset that Marsden Jacob Associates (MJA) did not meet with the TCT or any other group or individuals opposed to the dam, and thus were offered a very one-sided view of this proposal whilst compiling their economic appraisal. This would seem to be at odds with the recommendations of the National Competition Council, as articulated in the document New investment in rural water infrastructure:

"Assessments of economic viability should involve an open transparent process. In its draft report on the "Impact of Competition Policy on Rural and Regional Australia", the Productivity Commission recommended that all cost benefit cost studies should be publicly available. To this the Council adds that studies should involve an appropriate amount of consultation with relevant stakeholders." (page 4)

Despite not being formally consulted as could be expected, the TCT agrees with a significant number of the assumptions and calculations that MJA have used, as they are much more realistic than those presented previously. In summary, we believe the faults in the MJA analysis fall into two broad groups, which we will address below.

(a) Inaccuracies in assumptions

Willingness to pay
It is difficult to accept that irrigators would only be prepared to pay $55 per ML when the benefits are up to 5 times this much to their business.

Risk
MJA states that "Arguably, a highly reliable dam servicing an established and diversified customer base of dairying and high-value cropping might be regarded as less than average risk and therefore command a lower discount rate." (page 13). This statement is in direct contradiction with the Commonwealth Competitive Neutrality Complaints Office, which assigns dams a medium risk factor.

Environmental flows
MJA state "Moreover, we have assumed that introduction of environmental flow policy would be implemented within two to three years." (page 21), going on to cite the Water for Ecosystems Policy under the Water Management Act 1999. What is ignored is the provision within this policy for the Minister to approve a high risk Water Provision for the Environment flow (for example, approximate to the status quo). Further, MJA also ignore the only documented case of an approved Water Management plan (Great Forester) in Tasmania, where a Water Provision for the Environment flow only 5ML/day higher than the current flow was approved for a period of three years.

In short, even an assumption of a phase in of environmental flows by 2010 is very optimistic under current conditions in Tasmania.

Environmental mitigation
The environmental mitigation costings supplied to MJA are flawed, which is little surprise considering their source. For example, the one-off allocation of $10,000 for quoll mitigation is only a fraction of what is necessary, and the allocation of only $200,000 for the rehabilitation of land works out at less than $1,500/ha. As far as the latter point is concerned, the proponent was advised that normal costs for such rehabilitation are in the order of $3,500/ha with an additional $3,500/ha to maintain for additional 10-15 years (see Attachment #1). At this rate, $959,000 would be necessary for the rehabilitation of this area.

Further, it is proposed that 243 ha of couped State Forest be placed into a Special Management Zone for quolls, subject to review. At worst, this public asset might be completely removed from production, which is an economic cost. One hectare of forest would be expected to yield between $5,000 and $10,000 in royalties, and so if the full area were to be removed from production the economic cost would be between $1.2 and $2.4 million.

(b) Optimistic construction of scenarios

The TCT agrees with many of MJA’s assumptions and calculations, but disagrees with the optimistic manner in which these factors have been structured into a cost benefit analysis. We would therefore like to present this alternative analysis for consideration.

Project Component NPV @ 6% ($ Millions)
Recovery of Environmental Flow Restrictions 8.8 ¹

Additional Irrigation

-Adjacent to River 21.1 ²

-Away from River 0.0 ³

Electricity Generation 2.0 ⁴

Other Benefits 1.1 ⁵

System Costs - 31.5 ⁶

Environmental Mitigation - 2.0 ⁷

Recovery of assessment costs - 0.75 ⁸

Net Present Value - 1.25

Project IRR 5.7 %

This economic scenario does not comply with National Competition Policy guidelines. The application of a higher discount rate, between 7 and 10.5%, for example, in line with that recommended by NCC, CCNCO and NSW Treasury, would reduce the NPV and the IRR further, or alternatively, would compensate for some ‘improvement’ in one of the other assumptions.

5. Financial viability of the proposal
The National Competition Council states the following with regards to financial viability:

"The Council suggests that government assistance should not be included in considering whether or not a project can recover its direct or broader costs. The CoAG Framework does not preclude governments from transparently subsidising the prices charged by water service providers. However, it is the Council’s view that if governments wish to subsidise prices upon completion of a new investment this should be considered

separately from calculations of commercial viability. Under this approach governments therefore face two separate questions when considering future rural investment projects:

1. Is the project able to recover all costs on a stand alone basis?

2. What price should service users be charged upon the projects completion?"

(New investment in rural water infrastructure NCC, page 4)

There would appear to be no question that this proposal is not financially viable on a stand alone basis. This has been established and acknowledged numerous times. How this complies with National Competition Policy is not as clear. It is, however, the TCT’s view that seeing as how the proponent asserts that this proposal is economically robust, the question must be asked why provide a substantial taxpayer funded grant to overcome commercial issues? We would argue that the provision of one third of the total budget of an allegedly commercial enterprise in the form of a taxpayer funded grant is at the very least against the principle, if not the letter, of NCP.

It is also worth noting the apparent problems that would be encountered trying to overcome basic financing options:

"Discussions with the 26 owners identified 14 people who had at least some interest in taking an equity position in the dam. 18 would be interested in a long-term water right. This includes some that were interested in being a part owner of the dam. 10 would be prepared to take water on an annual basis. There would obviously be difficulties financing a scheme on this basis."

(Agricultural and Economic Report, Supplementary DPEMP, June 2002, page 11)

There is a real risk that, if approved, this project would fail financially, leaving State and Commonwealth Government’s the options of either writing off their input or pumping even more public money into the dam. Creating a situation where this is a possibility is not good public policy.

In summary, there are serious problems with the financial viability of this proposal, and many factors that must be re-assessed.

6. On-farm storage option
The document entitled Development Report: Assessment of On-Farm Storages as an alternative to the Meander Dam provides a limited desk top analysis of the potential for further farm dams in the Meander Valley. The TCT is deeply concerned about the number of errors and flawed assumptions within this document, and we note that ACIL Tasman has also expressed concerns about its conclusions. This report seems to ignore the following benefits that on-farm storage provides:

• the increase in the capital value of a property that an on-farm dam brings;
• the likelihood of landholders borrowing money to build on-farm dams and therefore not having any up-front costs; and
• the tax benefits associated with construction of on-farm infrastructure, particularly with regards to loans.

ACIL Tasman made the following comments in the document Third Report: review of Marsden Jacob Associates report (June 2003)

"We have reservations about two of the main assumptions in the National Strategic Services analysis in particular.

ACIL Tasman’s view, therefore, is that the National Strategic Services assessment of the viability of farm dams is suspect. Presumably the final MJA Economic Analysis will contain a more searching analysis of this issue. It seems unlikely that the facts of the matter will threaten MJA’s conclusion that the Meander Dam Project is viable, but some reduction of the assessed Dam Project benefits relative to the Without Project case may be necessary." (page 6)

We note that this readjustment has not occurred.

Flawed as this document is, it still comes to the conclusion that:

"…it is estimated that the potential identified yield from new dams would range between 7,354 ML in the most optimistic scenario to 4,295 Ml in the most likely scenario." (page 46)

Thus, there would appear to be absolutely no question that there is still sufficient on-farm storage sites left in the Meander Valley to more than compensate for any new environmental flow regime that might be implemented in the Meander River in the near future. This in reinforced by the fact that since September 2001, on-farm dams with a total capacity of around 2,000 ML have been formally applied for in the Meander Valley. This is an important point, as one of the two major justifications for this proposal is to avoid loss of farm revenue due to the implementation of environmental flows.

The other main justification for this project is the Tasmanian Government’s stated intent to double agricultural production by 2008. There has never been any investigation as to whether or not this policy is sustainable or even achievable, or how it can be reconciled with Tasmania’s commitment to water reform.

This raises a key question - of whether or not the Commonwealth should support ill-conceived, unsustainable State Government policies and proposals. There is no question that landholders in the Meander Valley should be assisted in dealing with water reform initiatives such as environmental flows, and it is entirely acceptable to allocate public funding to achieve this. However, there is no justification for the Commonwealth supporting the expensive, unsustainable expansion of agriculture in an already stressed catchment, particularly when the same argument could be applied to any number of catchments Australia-wide.

7. Social and community impacts of the proposal
The document entitled Meander Dam: Social and Community Impacts has been prepared to justify the social benefit of the proposed dam. The relevance of this report is problematic given that it simply accepts the underlying premises and assumptions attached to the proponent's economic case for the dam and ignores the findings of the Tasmanian RMPAT appeal. This is a position that at the very least needs to be re-visited in the Commonwealth response. Where is the critical analysis of the socio-economic impact contained in the proponents original 'rationale'?

The social capital issues identified in this document are real but they are systemic of regional and rural decline not enhanced or undermined by the existence or otherwise of the dam proposal. The obvious strategy would be to transfer the net public subsidy attached to the dam into substantive policy responses to the established social capital issues outlined in the report - such as VET and farm management training programs such as RITE.

The most disturbing aspect of using this report at this time in the process is that even when it uncritically accepts the assumptions and premises of the proponent's case it is unable to provide anything other than an entirely ambiguous level of support. The report is riddled with statements such as: 'likely to have' ; 'there is likely'; 'may increase'; 'there may be more'. It is not unreasonable to assume that this is language from an academic perspective that remains unconvinced of the case advanced.

The ambiguity of this document is reinforced by the final point made under ‘Conclusions’ on page 5:

"Economic, social and community outcomes would be enhanced through a broad program of education and training, including farmer learning groups in which farmers are active leaders, social and educational skills development and development of community and agricultural sector structures that reach out to external knowledge resources."

Whilst relevant and important, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the proposed Meander Dam.

There is no question that the Meander Valley is a vulnerable rural community and that it should be a priority area for assistance. However, key issues which should be addressed in any such assistance package, such as increased education and training, are entirely independent of any specific project, including the proposed Meander Dam.

8. Unresolved issues
There are still a number unresolved issues with regards to the ecological sustainability and operational (and therefore financial and economic) viability of this proposal. The proponent has chosen to selectively ignore these issues, which have the potential to impact upon the viability of this proposal.

The capability of the land to handle increased irrigation in relation to the areas of highest demand has not been addressed. Nor has the localised impacts of salinity and water logging on productivity been examined. In the original DPEMP there is a serious error in the differentiation within the Class 4 land category. This is done even though it is conceded such divisions may not be readily distinguishable. One possible conclusion for this, given the overall positive bias within this document, is to improve the perceived viability of the proposal. It is quite possible that the majority of Class 3 land (most suitable for irrigation) in the area may already be under irrigation, seriously weakening the need for the proposed dam or any resultant increase in productivity.

Until a proper assessment of demand related to land capability and cross-referenced with areas with potential salinity and/or water logging problems, serious questions must be raised about the potential to sustainably increase productivity in this area.

The issue of sediment build up within the dam is a real one, and has not been addressed by the proponent. The area upstream of the dam has been referred to as the most degraded sub-alpine region in Australia, and large landslips are common. In the Supplementary DPEMP, Mineral Resources Tasmania make the following comment:

"In order to thoroughly assess the landslide risk from the impoundment and to the dam site itself it is recommended that a more detailed engineering geological investigation of the catchment and planned dam site should be carried out. The presence of landslides within the storage area and within the catchment has been acknowledged in the DPEMP but not supported with land stability maps.

Because of the potential instability of the Western Tiers the frequency, number and types of landslides and their levels of activity should be established to allow an estimate to be made of possible quantities of sediments that may been deposited in the proposed dam. The study should also address the issue of raised groundwater levels in the catchment as a result of the proposed dam and its potential to increase the frequency of landslides." (page 21)

In response, the proponent has commented on the potential for landslips to impact on the integrity of the dam. In other words, this issue has been completely ignored. Build up of large amounts of sediment within the dam will ultimately effect its storage capacity and operation. This in turn will have ramifications of its financial and economic viability.

The issue of increased erosion downstream of the dam, and the subsequent loss of private property is still unresolved. The document Downstream Meander Dam Fluvial Geomorphology Assessment (Locher et al, May 2002) found that there would be channel widening and deepening as well as the high risk of floodplain stripping in three separate reaches of the Meander River, totaling 11 kilometres. Compensation for landholders who may lose land has not been factored into any of the proponent’s costings.

9. National Competition Policy
National Competition Policy clearly states that:

"Governments have agreed that all investments in new rural water schemes or extensions to existing schemes should only be undertaken after appraisal indicates that it is economically viable and ecologically sustainable." (clause 3d(iii))

The National Competition Council also have clearly stated the position on water infrastructure development:

"… in the past regional development has been used to justify projects that have not been able to recover their direct costs with proponents arguing that as these broader gains represent a public benefit the government should cover the shortfall in the project’s commercial returns. The Council suggests that where broader regional benefits (such as increased economic activity and employment) are included in the analysis they should be estimated through a robust and transparent methodology. Further, these regional benefits need to be compared with their associated costs. For example, the transaction costs and opportunity cost of the government providing financial assistance to the project should be considered."

(New investment in rural water infrastructure NCC, page 3)

No opportunity costing of $9.6 million of taxpayers money, invested at no return, has been made for the proposed Meander Dam. With regards to impacts on threatened species, NCC states the following:

"In any case, irrespective of the magnitude of the scale of the infrastructure, where such fauna are considered to be rare, endangered, vulnerable or threatened the requirement to maintain biodiversity would necessitate due consideration being given to measures for ensuring the ongoing survival of the species."

(New investment in rural water infrastructure NCC, page 5)

As has already been discussed, the building of this dam will dramatically increase the probability of the extinction of at least one threatened species.

The NCC also clearly states its position on assessments:

"When States and Territories assess the ecological sustainability of medium to large scale infrastructure developments the Council will look to see that appropriate regulatory and policy structures and decision processes are in place. The Council will also look for evidence, where available, that these mechanisms are leading to outcomes consistent with CoAG commitments.

With regard to this scale of development approvals, the Council would seek assurances that the process used involves a level of independence and transparency among parties involved in the process. At the operational level this should equate to independence among government development agencies, development proponents, individuals responsible for conducting impact assessments, and government agencies involved in making recommendations that lead to a decision to proceed or not to proceed with development."

(New investment in rural water infrastructure NCC, pages 5 and 6)

This is an important point. A major and ongoing problem in Tasmania is DPIWE acting as both proponent and assessing body. In the case of the Meander Dam, the proponent was the Rivers and Water Supply Commission (RWSC), a Government Business Enterprise based within DPIWE. The Meander Dam was promoted by the Water Development Branch (WDB) of DPIWE, which also coordinated the Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan. The WDB effectively was the proponent of this proposal, which was publicly admitted by its manager on a number of occasions. Assessment of the proposal was conducted by the Environment Division of DPIWE. Internal advice from within DPIWE is not publicly available, only the Environmental Assessment Report that was generated by the Environment Division. However, the TCT has obtained this advice through Freedom of Information, and we will refer to this further below. The Environmental Assessment Report basically accepted the assertions of the WDB and recommended approval of this proposal.

The Assessment report was then passed to the Board of Environmental Management and Pollution Control for determination. This five member board has amongst its members the Manager of Environment Division of DPIWE, who effectively generated the report the board was to consider, the Secretary of DPIWE, who is also the Chair of the Board. The proposal was subsequently approved.

This proposal also required approval by the Assessment Committee for Dam Construction (ACDC). Amongst the 6 person membership of the ACDC is the Manager of Environment Division of DPIWE, the Manger of the Water Resources Division of DPIWE, and the Chair of the RWSC. The proposal was subsequently approved.

In short, the TCT is of the opinion that the assessment and approval of this proposal was completely compromised by its internal passage through DPIWE and the presence of individuals with major conflicts of interest on the supposedly independent approval committees. There is no question that the Minister responsible for DPIWE had a major political interest in the approval of the dam, and the success of the TCT’s subsequent appeal underlines our concerns on this issue.

The use of enabling legislation to over ride Tasmania’s Resource Management and Planning System to obtain a permit for this proposal also highlights the problems with assessment and approvals in situations where DPIWE acts as proponent, assessor and approving body.

NCC provides further information on the assessment and approval process in this same document:

"Given jurisdictions are required to conduct an environmental impact assessment, environmental management plans or similar approaches the Council will assess; the assessment process, the decision process, and consequent implementation and subsequent monitoring to ensure ecological sustainability. In particular, the Council will be looking for information on:

Decision process – Where a decision is made to proceed with development following an impact assessment that indicates an environmental impact will occur, the Council seeks information on who has decided the level of impact is considered to be ecologically sustainable, and what considerations were taken into account in forming such a decision. The reasons for these decisions should be publicly available."

(New investment in rural water infrastructure NCC, page 6)

The proposed Meander Dam is without any doubt ecologically unsustainable. This view was expressed by the General Manager of the Resource Management and Conservation Division of DPIWE over a year ago in documents obtained under Freedom of Information. When commenting on the impacts on the Epacris aff. exserta (Union Bridge) population in an internal email, it is stated that these impacts would be:

"contrary to the [Tasmanian] Government’s stated policy position in relation to biodiversity conservation and constitute environmental harm which is inconsistent with the objectives of Sustainable Development"

(Attachment 2. Please note that the mapping of substrate referred to in this attachment revealed that 80% of the population in question was found on erodible substrate and would therefore be lost.)

• Internal DPIWE documents from February 2002 paint a similar picture:

• "The authors have ignored the impact statement that the TSU (Threatened Species Unit) sent them."

• "There is no mention of the impact of environmental flows on Epacris aff. exserta (Union Bridge)"

• "The authors of the DPEMP appear to have been filtering advice provided to them in order to reduce the apparent environmental impacts of the proposed dam."

• "A production cost benefit analysis was carried out but an environmental cost benefit analysis was not." (annotated with the comment "no other suitable sites are in area therefore not relevant")

(Attachment 3)

• "the issue of E. aff. exserta Union Bridge has been trivialised!"

• "Monitoring is not mitigation."

(Attachment 4)

Please also see the original version of the document Impacts of the proposed Meander Dam on Epacris aff. exserta ‘Union Bridge’ and note that it is annotated "Water Development Branch put a watered down version of this document in the DPEMP as appendix 7" (Attachment 5).

There would appear to be no question that there have been serious problems with the Tasmanian Government’s internal assessment and approval processes, and that internal advice contrary to the desired outcome was ignored.

10. Addressing environmental issues brought to light by the proposal
Many of the measures that the proponent has suggested to mitigate environmental impacts can, should, and in some cases are being addressed through other channels. For example, the TCT recently submitted an Envirofund application to deal with the issue of human induced mortality in quolls as a result of raids on poultry houses. This proposal was fully supported by the Nature Conservation Branch, DPIWE, and demonstrates how these issues can be dealt with. Another example of a conservation issue that could be dealt with through programs such as Envirofund is weed control and fencing of populations of Epacris aff. exserta (Union Bridge) on the Meander River. Conservation covenants and grants could also help protect those Epacris aff. exserta (Union Bridge) populations that are on private land, whilst the management arrangements proposed for population within State Forest can and should proceed independently of the dam.

In short, this proposal has brought to light a number of environmental issues which can be addressed through other avenues for a net environmental gain. Should the dam proceed however, these gains would be quickly countered by significant environmental damage.

11. Conclusion
There remain significant, unresolved issues with this proposal. Importantly, the situation with regards to the major impacts on Epacris aff. exserta (Union Bridge) has not changed since the TCT appeal to RMPAT in January of this year. If anything, the outlook for this species is even bleaker.

In summary:

• This proposal is not ecologically sustainable.
• Minor changes to the proposed economic model result in the proposal making an economic loss.
• There are major problems with the financial viability of this proposal, and on a stand alone basis it is not viable.
• Although deeply flawed, the on-farm storage study has revealed that there are still sufficient options to more than compensate for any increased environmental flow regime in the Meander River.

• The social impacts study is superficial and inconclusive.
• This proposal does not comply with National Competition Council water reform guidelines