ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 1 NO1. APRIL 2000 21

Other than in the minds of utopian dream-ers, there seems no prospect that LakePedder, lost to hydroinundation in the early1970s, will ever be restored. A Common-wealth inquiry recently concluded that thisowes more to Tasmanian parochialism andto the practical issue of currently prohibi-tive cost estimates than it does to any lackof technical expertise (CommonwealthGovernment 1995).The restoration of LakePedder, if such a thing were even possible,would be certain to offend Tasmanianhistorical pride in its iconic dam-buildingpractices, especially now that the hydro-industrial era is over. To many Tasmanians,the enlarged Lake Pedder is a sourceof pride, a defiant symbol of hydroindustri-alization and the quality of life that it oncegenerated, rather than a symbol of wilder-ness destroyed.

The Middle Gordon hydroelectricscheme that swamped the 10 km2 glacialLake Pedder created a vast impoundmentof 242 km2 and a storage capacity of 3 km3

(HydroElectric Commission, unpublishedsubmission to the Commonwealth Inquiryinto the Proposal to Drain and RestoreLake Pedder, 1995).This ‘fake’ Lake Pedderdam is ironically now defended using termssuch as ‘unique’, ‘aesthetically magnificent’and ‘flush’ with native fauna’. It isacclaimed in utilitarian terms as an engin-eering feat of gigantism that remains inter-nationally one of a kind and would bevandalized and lost forever if drained.Tasmania may be globally renowned for itsnatural environment and political greening,but there remains a simmering local resent-ment against conservation in Tasmania thatis little appreciated by the rest of Australia(Hay 1994). It is not appreciated at all bythe international community which seesTasmania as an idyllic ecoparadise.There isno doubt that a pilgrimage to Lake Pedderrestored would become an internationalecotourist attraction.

It seems tragic in hindsight that talk ofLake Pedder’s restoration began even as theflood waters were rising to engulf it.What-

ever its prospects, the quest for restorationis significant for evoking the recognition ofpast ecological folly, the meaning of lostplaces, the hope for an improved future andthe right to utopian dreaming (Crowley1999). It has been argued that restorationwould provide a locus poenitentiae, anopportunity to repent, if not taken by our-selves, then by our children ‘who will undowhat we have so foolishly done’ (St John1974). The dam was included within the1982 Tasmanian Wilderness World HeritageArea by the World Heritage Bureau ofUNESCO in recognition of its restorationpotential (Kiernan 1995). In 1994, followingthe commissioning of several feasibilitystudies over the preceding years, a Pedder2000 restoration campaign was launched inHobart by David Bellamy, the David SuzukiFoundation and Dr Bob Brown (Pedder2000 1994a).

Within 12 months, the Hobart-basedPedder 2000 had formed branches inSydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Adelaide,Launceston and Burnie, and secured a Com-monwealth inquiry into the restorationissue. It is primarily the environmentalmerits and technical feasibility of restora-tion raised by this inquiry’s findings that aredealt with here.This article covers three keyaspects of the restoration proposal: (i) thecase for restoration argued by Pedder 2000;(ii) the further issues raised by the Com-monwealth inquiry; and (iii) the possibleprocesses and impacts of drainage. It is fairto conclude on the available evidence thatthere is a clear split between optimists andpessimists in terms of the environmentaland technical feasibility of restoration.Thatsaid, it is also important to stress that theavailable evidence is not exhaustive enoughto objectively reconcile these positions,neither of which has been clearly proven ordisproven.

While this article does not deal with the‘why’ of restoration (Pedder 2000 1999a),the International Union for the Conserva-tion of Nature (IUCN) offers several com-pelling grounds. It argues that Lake Pedder’s

O P I N I O N

Restoring the lost Lake Pedder?By Dr K. Crowley

The tragic loss of one of the

world’s most outstanding

natural icons, Tasmania’s

original Lake Pedder,

remains unreconciled.

Kate Crowley chronicles

the public debate on the

possibility of restoration.

Dr Kate Crowley is a lecturer at the School of

Government, University of Tasmania, GPO Box

252–22, Hobart, Tas 7001, Australia. This article is

based on her research into the environmental and

political significance of the Pedder 2000 restora-

tion campaign.

loss was an environmental disaster thatseverely affected the integrity of the Tas-manian Wilderness World Heritage Area.The restoration of Lake Pedder would be asignificant step towards improving thisintegrity. It would also signify the need torestore degraded wilderness where feasi-ble, and offer a symbol to the world of adetermination to do so. The predictedpower demand from the Tasmanian grid isargued by restorationists and colleagues tohave not eventuated (Blakers 1994a), andLake Pedder restored could offer untoldeconomic benefits to the Tasmanian com-munity (Anderson 1994; InternationalUnion for the Conservation of Nature 1994;Tighe 1992; Pedder 2000 1994b; Pedder2000 1999b). Nevertheless, it is clear thatthere will be no restoration without, first,political and popular will, and second,without further investigation of the envi-ronmental and technical issues identifiedbelow.

Environmental and technicalissues

The Pedder 2000 case forres torat ion

The restoration of Lake Pedder faces manycomplex technical questions, many ofwhich have been deemed unresolvable bythe Commonwealth Government without

further research (Commonwealth Govern-ment 1995). Rather than ‘why should thelake be restored?’, these ask: what was thelake originally; has any of it survived; towhat state should it be restored; how bestshould it be restored; over what time scale;and how best can the lake’s vast surroundsbe rehabilitated? It seems inconceivable thatLake Pedder’s former magnificence, itsintoxicating beauty, its primeval enrichingmystique, its haunting, bedazzling spirit(Read 1996) could ever be recovered. Andyet the original quartzite beach, its dunesystem and characteristic megaripples arereportedly intact, with only fine sedimentcovering the original lake bed after 27 years(Tyler 1994).

At the time of inundation, the areas sur-rounding the glacial Lake Pedder were char-acteristic of the south-west Tasmanianuplands. The slopes supported rainforestand wet sclerophyll communities, while thevalleys supported open sedgelands, scruband button grass on acidic peat soils.Whilethe predominant surrounds were buttongrass, there were rainforest-pocketed hills tothe north, and heavy tree- and scrub-covered dunes at the lake’s edge (Johnson1972). In terms of botanical surveying, thepreflooded vegetation community waslargely undocumented; however, the inquiryheard that the pristine original ecosystemsof their surrounds remain intact. This,restoration advocates argue, would encour-

22 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 1 NO1. APRIL 2000

O P I N I O N

age the migration of indigenous native seedinto the newly exposed landscape to even-tually achieve a recovered vegetation com-munity. Proponents of restoration werefairly relaxed about how close this commu-nity would be to the original, and how longrestoration would take.

The success of initiating the restorationproject rests greatly on proving recoverabil-ity. First, drainage, which is discussed below,must be feasible. Second, the landformcomplex that comprised Lake Pedder mustbe recoverable. And finally, revegetationmust be viable. In terms of landform, Pedder2000 argues that the nested complex thatcomprised Lake Pedder (glacial cirques,moraines and outwash, and pink sandybeach) would re-emerge virtually intactupon drainage. Furthermore, it argues thatthis complex remains globally unique, andin the past comprised the lake’s best, mostloved features, offering its most classicphotographic images (Kiernan 1994; Gee1995; Pedder 2000 1995). Revegetation is amore complex, less resolved issue. Pedder2000 scientific studies have found that thesubmerged surrounds of the original lakeare not massively compacted and notinclined to become a reeking mud flat upondrainage.They have also found that originalreeds and rushes are recognizable on theold lake bed; that the dunes are secured bymats of peat; and that the basin’s soilsremain bound by root systems. However,these studies alone have not proven the via-bility of vegetation recoverability.

Despite these uncertainties, Pedder 2000has proposed simply ‘pulling the plug’,releasing water from the fake Lake Pedder atboth its Serpentine and Scotts Peak dams.This would expose the original Lake Pedder.

Tasmanian Government restoration estimates

Costs of restoration have been estimated at between one-half billion and well in

excess of one billion dollars Australian. This includes

• $450 to $670 million for energy lost;

• $10 to $15 million for environmental impact assessments;

• $80 to $105 million for the removal and/or modification of all existing infra-

structure and the provision of temporary civil works associated with any reha-

bilitation and revegetation works;

• $50 to $60 million for a programme of soil stabilization and rehabilitation works

covering the inundated area of the lake and its shorelines; and

• $375 to $500 million for revegetation, and possibly ten fold that if a more inten-

sive programme of revegetation is required beyond the view-scape around the

old lake.

(Source: Tasmanian Government, 1995.)

The recovery of Lake Pedder

would not only be one of the

world’s largest restoration

exercises; it presents a

vastly complex, contested,

political and ideological

challenge.

The adjacent Lake Gordon and Gordon Damwould remain untouched (Fig. 1; Pedder2000 1994b; Commonwealth Government1995). It claims that regeneration of vege-tation would begin naturally over the fol-lowing year, taking a decade or two, withweed infestation minimized both by theregion’s acidic soils and its remote locationfar from human settlement on the boundaryof the south-west wilderness. Indeed,‘natural revegetation of the Lake Gordonmargins following many years of low lakelevels suggests that lowly plants such asmosses and liverworts will readily colonizethe newly exposed bed of the Pedderimpoundment’ (Gee 1995).

Rapid drainage of the Serpentine Basinover the summer months was initially sug-gested by Pedder 2000 as the best means ofprotecting the inundated Lake Pedder’ssand dunes from erosion, but only afterprior studies to ensure the channels ofthe Huon and Gordon rivers can cope(Pedder 2000 1995). The issue of humanintervention was not settled by Pedder2000, with the need for forward planningbased upon further studies being seen asthe only way to determine whether revege-tation could indeed be left to mother

nature. On this issue there is a clear dividebetween human intervention and naturalrecovery.A scientific symposium heard boththat rapid (i.e. supplemented) revegetationwould help prevent soil break-up anderosion, but also that over 20 years or so ofexposure, successional vegetation commu-nities would most likely simply re-establishthemselves (Pedder 2000 1995).

Commonwealth inquiry intodraining and restoration

Within 14 months of launching Pedder2000, a federal inquiry was handing downits findings on Lake Pedder’s restorationprospects, an indication both of the nationalsignificance of the proposal and the politi-cal clout of its advocates. Drainage and therestoration of the geomorphological fea-tures of the original lake were found to betechnically feasible, and likely to enhancethe world heritage values of the TasmanianWilderness World Heritage Area. However,the most compelling reasons for restorationwere found to be symbolic, with equallysymbolic reasons found for retaining thedam. It was concluded that there were manymore compelling, urgent environmental pri-

orities to be achieved than Lake Pedder’srecovery, and that the Commonwealthwould thus not research nor consider theissue further (Commonwealth Government1995).

The inquiry had heard from a range ofauthorities including the authors of thescientific reports commissioned in 1992 byPedder 2000 on the project’s feasibility. Itnoted that the restoration issue is moreaccurately one of restoring the original lakeand rehabilitating the 24 000 ha of sur-rounding plains.While it is accepted that theoriginal, distinctive features of Lake Pedderitself are recoverable, there remains greatcontention about how best to expose thesefeatures and about the criteria to be deter-mined in re-establishing the surroundingvegetative cover.The lower criteria of reha-bilitation, rather than higher criteria ofrestoration, would not require the surround-ing plains to be returned to their originalstate, but to some other acceptable, stablestate. But the prospects of both are recog-nized as needing further research (Com-monwealth Government 1995).

Revegetation would be fraught with risksand challenges, even if only the lower crite-ria of rehabilitation were pursued. Issues of

ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 1 NO1. APRIL 2000 23

O P I N I O N

Figure 1. The Lake Pedder impoundment. Restoration would begin by opening the diversion tunnels at the Scotts Peak and Serpentine Dams. TheGordon Scheme would remain untouched. Reprinted with permission from Southwell 1983.

concern include the state of revegetationthat should be encouraged or actively estab-lished; the viability of the peat mat afterexposure; the lower-order vegetation thatmay be needed to bind the peat and itsimpact; the assistance that may be needed tore-establish the button grass plains in theproportions that existed before flooding;the possibility of finding or resowingviable seed; the feasibility and theimpact on the surrounding areas of alarge-scale seed collection exercise;the need to minimize weed invasion;and the need to minimize erosion(Commonwealth Government 1995).Confidence has been expressed thatthe restoration skills required can befound in Tasmania between the skillsof the HydroElectric Commission(HEC), the Forestry Commission, GreeningAustralia, the University’s Department ofGeography and Environmental Studies andthe local councils (Oriel 1994).

In the end, the Commonwealth inquirysimply recognized that uncertainty remainsas to vegetation rehabilitation methods, andindeed between the merits of rapidlyassisted rehabilitation versus the seeminglymore ‘natural’ gradual recolonizationapproach.This poses a significant cost issue,as the HEC submitted that an intensive pro-gramme of revegetation around the lake wasrequired at a cost of between $375 millionand $500 million and possibly ten-fold that(Commonwealth Government 1995). Thereis a similar prior question of rapid versusgradual drainage, as well as the issue of damremoval versus no dam removal. Thedrainage rate issue is one not clearlyrecorded by the inquiry. The inquiry heardboth that gradual drainage of the surround-ing plains has merit in terms of assisting veg-etative rehabilitation, but also that rapiddrainage may be more suited for recovery ofthe inundated landform. Clearly these opin-ions need to be weighed up in comparativeterms before the merit of either can beclearly assessed.

Drainage issues, processesand impacts

Of particular interest at the inquiry was theevidence from restoration advocates thatrapid inundation and submersion of the

original Lake Pedder system had preservedits major geomorphological features byensuring that little erosion damage wassuffered. But it also heard the oppositefrom the HEC (which opposes restoration),namely that the dunes of both Lake Pedderand its tiny companion, Lake Maria, didindeed suffer considerably. Again there is

obviously a case for further research todetermine how Lake Pedder’s submergedfeatures would survive drainage, to deter-mine, for instance, whether rapid or slowdewatering would best prevent dune slump-ing and wave damage, and indeed to deter-mine whether these features need tosurvive intact, or should simply be assistedto re-establish themselves and then torecover naturally (Commonwealth Govern-ment 1995).

Even more complex than the rate ofdrainage of the waters of the Lake PedderDam is the manner of drainage.This has notyet been the subject of feasibility studiesby either proponents or opponents ofdrainage, although the HEC has simulatedthe draining process to calculate how longit would take to drain the impoundment byusing current outlets.Three dams create theLake Pedder impoundment: the Scotts PeakDam, the Serpentine Dam and the smallEdgar Dam. One option is to drain as muchof the Lake Pedder impoundment as possi-ble into Lake Gordon through the McPartlanPass Canal, with the Edgar Dam riparianoutlet and the Serpentine Dam outlets con-tributing. Pondage would occur behind thefirst two of these dams and would flood47 km2 of the upper Huon catchment andoccasionally spill over into the SerpentineValley (Commonwealth Government 1995).

While water from the Serpentine couldbe pumped into the Lake Gordon Dam,there is obviously an issue of whether any ofthe dams should be breached instead.

24 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 1 NO1. APRIL 2000

O P I N I O N

Pedder 2000 recommends that they be leftin situ (Pedder 2000 1999b). If only theScotts Peak Dam were to be breached, therewould still be up to 10 km of waters behindthe Serpentine Dam that could occasionallyreflood Lake Pedder, and would maintain alarge mud flat. This partial draining wasfavoured by no one. All were equally con-

cerned to retain the role that theScotts Peak Dam plays in flood miti-gation of the Huon River, whosevalley now hosts a flourishing agri-cultural, and increasingly tourist-oriented, community, but equally isalready suffering the effects of clear-fell forestry within its catchment. Onbalance, the inquiry appears tosuggest modifying the Scotts PeakDam, possibly via the construction of

a spillway, and breaching the Serpentine(Commonwealth Government 1995).

The most drastic, and prohibitivelyexpensive, breaching scenario would be theremoval of each of the dams at a cost esti-mated by the HEC at $80–105 million.Whilerationale and method were not detailed inthis costing, the HEC suggests that the dis-mantling would require new road accessand track construction to facilitate disposalof the dam fabric, which would exceed780 000 m3, and which would need to bedumped in stable sites. ‘The damsites,dumps and other associated scars whichwould remain after dam removal wouldrequire rehabilitation works such as recon-touring or benching of the steep slopes,contour ripping of compacted areas, andcovering with soil or peat’ (HEC, unpubl.submission, 1995).

At the practical level, the HEC noted theenvironmental risks likely to be associatedwith drainage that should be the subject ofan environmental impact assessment priorto restoration at $80–105 million. Theseincluded consideration of any likely effectson local fauna and remnant endemicspecies; the possibility that the erosion ofthe newly exposed dam bed would causesiltation and sedimentation; the down-stream impacts of drainage and loss ofdrought proofing on irrigation-dependentcommunities; potential shoreline, dune andlandform damage; the viability of highlyinterventionist revegetation methods asmentioned above; the need to minimize

‘ . . . the most compelling reasons for

restoration were found to be symbolic,

with equally symbolic reasons found

for retaining the Dam.’

the head. Reflections: The Journal of the LakePedder Restoration Committee 7, 2–5.

Hay P. R. (1994) The politics of Tasmania’s WorldHeritage Area: Contesting the democraticsubject. Environmental Politics 3, 1–21.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature(1994) Resolution Regarding Lake Pedder.IUCN General Assembly, Appendix E. In: Inquiryinto the Proposal to Drain and Restore LakePedder (ed. Commonwealth Government),pp. 95–96. House of Representatives StandingCommittee on Environment, Recreation and theArts, Australian Government PublishingService, Canberra.

Johnson D. (1972) Lake Pedder: Why A NationalPark Must Be Saved. Lake Pedder Action Com-mittee, Camberwell, Vic.

Kiernan K. (1994) Restoring Lake Pedder: A Geo-morphological Perspective on RecoveryProspects and Likely Time Scale. UnpublishedPedder 2000 Report, PO Box 41, Surrey HillsNorth, Vic.

Kiernan K. (1995) Unique landforms will re-emerge‘almost from day one’: the Kiernan reports insummary. Reflections: The Journal of the LakePedder Restoration Committee 2, 7.

Oriel (1994) Yes Pedder, we have the ecologicalexpertise. Mercury 21 May, p. 26.

Pedder 2000 (1994a) Pedder lives: Pedderunplugged. Daily Planet 30, 11–14.

Pedder 2000 (1994b) The seven most commonly-asked questions about Lake Pedder: and theiranswers. Reflections: The Journal of the LakePedder Restoration Committee 1, 1.

Pedder 2000 (1995) Scientific symposium at theUniversity of Tasmania. Reflections: The Jour-nal of the Lake Pedder Restoration Commit-tee 3, 3.

Pedder 2000 (1998) Lake Pedder restorationresearch. Reflections: The Journal of the LakePedder Restoration Committee 6, 7.

Pedder 2000 (1999a) Eight Reasons Why LakePedder Should Be Restored. http://neptune.he.net/~pedder/intro/viney.htm (accessed 25October 1999).

Pedder 2000 (1999b) The case for restoration.Reflections: The Journal of the Lake PedderRestoration Committee 7, 4–5.

Read P. (1996) Returning to Nothing. The Meaningof Lost Places. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Southwell L. (1983) The Mountains of Paradise: TheWilderness of South-West Tasmania. LesSouthwell Pty Ltd, Camberwell, Vic.

St John E. (1974) Lake Pedder Committee of InquiryInterim Report: Annexure. Australian Govern-ment Publishing Service, Canberra.

Tasmanian Government (1995) Interim Submission:Inquiry into the Proposal to Drain and RestoreLake Pedder.

Tighe P. (1992) Hydroindustrialisation and conserva-tion policy in Tasmania. In: Australian Environ-mental Policy: Ten Case Studies (ed.K. Walker), pp. 124–155. University of NewSouth Wales Press, Kensington, NSW.

Tyler P. (1994) Lake Pedder: A Geophysical Survey.Unpublished Pedder 2000 Report, PO Box 41,Surrey Hills North, Vic.

ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 1 NO1. APRIL 2000 25

O P I N I O N

fire, weed infestation, Phytopthora out-breaks; and the loss of high aesthetic values(HEC, unpubl. submission, 1995).

Conclusions

Although it may be utopian dreaming, thereis clearly a sustained and, to some extent,scientifically informed push to drain the‘fake’ Lake Pedder and to reclaim the origi-nal.While there is currently no political norpopular will to do so, this has not quelledthe scientific nor professional debate abouthow best drainage and restoration could beachieved. Indeed, in the wake of the debate,a Key Centre for Ecological Restorationhas been mooted for the University ofTasmania as a focal point for Australianrestoration expertise (Oriel 1994). There isreasonable agreement that Lake Pedder’slandform complex is recoverable; and thereare technical, but not unresolvable, differ-ences on the issue of drainage. But, as wehave seen, there is a great divide on theissue of revegetation between proponentsand opponents of restoration.

The Scientific Committee of Pedder 2000intends to raise funds to examine unre-solved restoration issues and has identifiedits research priorities as an investigation ofrevegetation methods; dewatering engineer-ing and physical factors; draining implica-tions; tourism, economic and employmentimpacts; environmental effects; power gen-eration issues; legal issues and obligations;heritage values and impacts; and risk reduc-tion strategies (Pedder 2000 1998). But itwill be impossible to judge the prospects ofrestoration on these narrow grounds alone.The recovery of Lake Pedder would not onlybe one of the world’s largest restorationexercises; it presents a vastly complex, con-tested, political and ideological challenge.There are issues of democratic principle,nature rights,political conservatism, techno-cratic dreaming and green revisioning atstake that are well beyond the scope of envi-ronmental and technical issues.

There would be, in conclusion, nothingtypical in ecological restoration terms aboutthe recovery of the lost Lake Pedder. In

1972, the world’s first green political party,the United Tasmania Group, was founded inan effort to save it. The IUCN supportsrestoration, as do all manner of celebrities.Ecologist Tim Flannery sees Lake Pedderrestored as the centrepiece of Tasmania’secotourism industry. Film director Rob Sitchsees himself standing on Lake Pedder’srestored beach one day. Author RichardFlanagan sees fighting for the lost LakePedder as fighting for a vision of what Tas-mania could be. Thus far, most Tasmanianshaven’t seen it this way. They haven’t revi-sioned their hydroindustrial past, eventhough they struggle with its debt burdentoday (Blakers 1994b). Pedder 2000 hasrecognized this, dropping their adversarial-ism and opting for education as a means offirst removing the dam in the Tasmanianpsyche (Gee 1999).

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the variousreviewers of this article, anonymous andotherwise, for their insightful comments;and to L. Southwell for permission to repro-duce his diagram of the Lake Pedderimpoundment.

ReferencesAnderson I. (1994) Can Lake Pedder resurface?

New Scientist 1941, 14–15.Blakers A. (1994a) Hydroelectricity in Tasmania

revisited. Australian Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 1, 110–120.

Blakers A. (1994b) Dam Debt in Tasmania. Anunpublished submission by Dr A. Blakers toCommonwealth 1995, available at http://neptune.he.net/~pedder/blakers/allthree.htm .(accessed 25 October 1999).

Commonwealth Government (1995) Inquiry intothe Proposal to Drain and Restore LakePedder. House of Representatives StandingCommittee on Environment, Recreation andthe Arts, Australian Government PublishingService, Canberra.

Crowley K. (1999) Lake Pedder’s loss and failedrestoration: Ecological politics meets liberaldemocracy in Tasmania. Australian Journal ofPolitical Science 34, (in press).

Gee H. (1995) Ecological considerations for thedraining and restoration of Lake Pedder. Reflec-tions: The Journal of the Lake Pedder Restora-tion Committee 2, 4–5.

Gee H. (1999) You have first to take out the dam in