bowra station - environmental impact assessment

Jesse Kahler S2799588 |

Environmental Impact Assessment Bowra Station – Coal Seam Gas Wells

2603ENV - Ecology

1

2603ENV - Ecology Jesse Kahler s2799588

Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2

1.1 Proposed project.................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 The site............................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Current land use .................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 Construction processes ........................................................................................................ 3

1.5 Timeframes of development ................................................................................................. 3

1.6 Project justification.............................................................................................................. 3

2.0 Methods ................................................................................................................................. 5

3.0 Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 7

3.1 Nature Conservation - Flora: ................................................................................................ 7

3.1.1 Existing conditions:....................................................................................................... 7

3.1.2 Impact Assessment:....................................................................................................... 8

3.1.3 Mitigation and Monitoring: ............................................................................................ 8

3.1.4 Impact and Evaluation: .................................................................................................. 8

3.2 Nature Conservation - Fauna: ............................................................................................... 9

3.2.1 Existing conditions:....................................................................................................... 9

3.2.2 Impact Assessment:..................................................................................................... 10

3.2.3 Mitigation and Monitoring: .......................................................................................... 10

3.2.4 Impact and Evaluation: ................................................................................................ 11

3.3 Geology and Soils: ............................................................................................................ 11

3.3.1 Existing conditions:..................................................................................................... 11




3.4 Surface and Ground Water: ................................................................................................ 13

3.4.1 Existing conditions:..................................................................................................... 13




4.0 Project Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 15

5.0 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 15

References ................................................................................................................................. 16

Appendix 1 – Regional Ecosystem Maps:..................................................................................... 20

Appendix 2 – Figures:................................................................................................................. 26

2


1.0 Introduction

1.1 Proposed project

The proposed development for the 14,000 ha site known as Bowra Station, near Cunnamulla,

southwest Queensland, is for the construction of six coal seam gas wells located in various locations

within the site, where mining of abundant coal seam gas located in a large basin beneath the site is to be carried out.

Below, in table 2.1, are the latitudinal and longitudinal position for each of the proposed coal seam gas wells for the Bowra site

Table 2.1: Geographical locations of proposed coal seam gas wells

1.2 The site

The 14,000 ha site for the proposed development (see figure 1.1) is located approximately ten kilometres north-west of the town of Cunnamulla – southwest Queensland (Barkla, 2008), and is within close proximity of the Warrego and Paroo Rivers (Australian Wildlife Conservancy, 2009). The site of topic is situated within a rich Mulga Land Bioregion (see appendix 2 – figures) which has been identified as a high priority area of conservation by the Australian Federal Government; moreover, the Bowra area is home to over 200 birds, approximately 31 mammals, 65 reptiles, and 20 amphibian species, some of which are threatened species and/or endangered (Australian Wildlife Conservancy, n.d.). Therefore, through the identification of the species diversity, both floral and faunal, and significance of the area lead to the purchase of the site by the Australian Wildlife Conservancy in 2010 (Australian Wildlife Conservancy, n.d.).

The acquisition of the 14,000 ha site by the Australian Wildlife Conservancy in 2010 was the first step towards providing protection for the area, as the proposed implementation of an active land management program in order to maximise conservation of the area for the site. From the acquisition of the Bowra site, the AWC now protects fifteen regional ecosystems, where six are recognised as threatened, and a further seven ecosystems within the site identified as being inadequately protected within other national parks. Furthermore, the site of question is comprised of a range of land types which support a diverse group of communities including that of mulga, wetlands, and open Coolabah woodlands. Therefore, it may be seen that the proposed development of coal seam gas plants may have confounding future impacts on the surrounding environment of the site, therefore, this environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been conducted in order to quantify whether impacts on flora, fauna, geologic aspects, soils, surface water, and ground water may occur.

1.3 Current land use

Whilst the site for the proposed development was previously utilised as a cattle station, the Bowra area is also currently widely recognised as being one of Australia’s foremost bird watching areas (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2013); this is most likely due to the Australian Wildlife Conservancy allowing birdwatchers, and people who are willing to assist in the land management program alike, access to the sanctuary (Australian Wildlife Conservancy, n.d.).

Well number: Location (latitude/longitude): 1 -27.95859, 145.5768

2 -27.9852, 145.5996

3 -27.99305, 145.6106 4 -27.961, 145.585

5 -26.949, 145.5379 6 -28.04778, 145.5379

3


1.4 Construction processes

The construction of a coal seam gas well is that which is thoroughly planned and in accordance with the strict guidelines of gas mining, implemented by the Australian Government. From the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (2011), it is noted that there are 11 main steps in the process which occur in the lead up to, and initiation of construction, as well as the eventual abandonment and rehabilitation of a well: “site identification and location; site (or ‘lease) access and preparation; well design; work program issued for well construction; well drilling; logging and/or testing; running and cementing casing; well stimulation (if required); well completion; CSG production; and well abandoning and site rehabilitation” (2011, p. 8).

1.5 Timeframes of development

From the AGL energy company, it is seen that the timeframe for the total construction of a coal seam gas well to be completed is likely to take between two to three weeks (AGL, n.d.)

1.6 Project justification

The development of coal seam gas plants on the Bowra may be justified due to two main benefiting factors; the abundance of gas within the area of concern (see appendix 2 – Figures), and the environmental benefits of using coal seam gas as an energy source once it has been extracted. From Appendix 2, it can be seen that Bowra is located above the Adavale Gas Basin, which therefore, allows for the possibility for extracting the abundant source of methane gas, through coal seam gas mining, that is located within the areas surrounding, and are occupied by, the Bowra site. The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (n.d.) identify natural gas sourced from coal seams, amongst other ways, as one of the best sources for the production of electricity in order to power appliances. Coal seam gas provides a clean, affordable and reliable source of energy compared to that of other fuel types; furthermore, this notion of gas-powered energy being a better alternative energy source for the environment is further supported by Queensland Gas Company (2012), where it is noted that the utilisation of gas as an energy source produces approximately 20% less carbon dioxide emissions – in comparison to oil –, as well as up to 70% fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, another resulting benefit of mining coal seam gas for to utilise it as an energy source may be seen in the way of reducing the effect that methane gas contained within coal beds has, in terms of its contribution to the greenhouse gas effect. This benefit is seen due to removing the methane gas which is contained within coal beds before the coal may be mined and burned (if it is used for coal-burning forms of energy production), as the methane gas which may have been present in the coal that was to burnt would have already been extracted through CSG mining, and therefore, not be directly released into the environment causing direct harm to the surrounding environment and ozone layer (Levy & Rosenlieb 1991). From this, it may be seen as axiomatic that through the development of the coal seam gas plants on the site, there may be two significantly plausible benefiting factors; thus, the development of CSG wells in Bowra may be seen to be justified. However, there may be an equally significant – or greater – negative effect on the environment from the undertakings of CSG mining which is analysed within the assessment section of this Environmental Impact Assessment.

`Figure 1.1.1: Land map of Bowra and its surrounding area, and proposed coal seam gas

well locations

Source: (Google Earth 2012)

2.0 Methods

A desktop study was conducted in order to obtain data relating to the local flora and fauna species

types, regional ecosystem maps, and construction methodology to be utilised for the proposed for CSG wells on Bowra Station, Cunnamulla, southwest Queensland.

To identify, visually, where the site is located in regards to Cunnamulla, as well as the proposed CSG locations within the site, an aerial image was required; therefore, Google Earth was utilised

The following sources were used In order to identify the species of flora and fauna which inhabit the site:

Queensland Government (Nature Conservation Act 1992 List):

http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/wildlife-online/

Australian Government (EPBC Act 1999 List):

Flora

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=flora

Fauna

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna

To identify the ecosystem a proposed coal seam gas well location was located in regional ecosystem maps and the regional identification table were required:

Queensland Government (2013):

Regional ecosystem maps

http://ehp.qld.gov.au/ecosystems/biodiversity/regional-ecosystems/maps/index.php

Regional ecosystem definition description

http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/ecosystems/biodiversity/regionalecosystems/how_to_download_redd.html

For the construction methods utilised for the development of a coal seam gas station and their correlating wells, the following sources were obtained:

Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (2011):

Steps of development

http://mines.industry.qld.gov.au/assets/petroleum-pdf/csg_code_of_practice.pdf

Timeframes

http://agk.com.au/gloucester/assets/pdf/Gloucester%20about%20CSG.pdf

For the full list of resources used within this assignment, see Reference List

http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/wildlife-online/

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=flora

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna

http://ehp.qld.gov.au/ecosystems/biodiversity/regional-ecosystems/maps/index.php

http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/ecosystems/biodiversity/regionalecosystems/how_to_download_redd.html

http://mines.industry.qld.gov.au/assets/petroleum-pdf/csg_code_of_practice.pdf

http://agk.com.au/gloucester/assets/pdf/Gloucester%20about%20CSG.pdf

6


2.1 Risk assessment matrix:

The following matrix represents the risk of factors that may occur from different construction aspects

of nature conservation: flora, nature conservation: fauna, geology and soils, and surface and ground water.

Table 2.1.1: Risk assessment matrix of the proposed construction of six coal seam gas wells

Table 2.1.2: Probability of occurring definitions

Probability Description Extremely likely to happen Expect to occur

Likely to happen High possibility it will occur Could happen Equal chance it will or won’t occur

Unlikely to happen High possibility it won’t occur Rarely happens Expected to never occur

Source: based on (BHP Billiton 2009)

Table 2.1.3: Severity levels of consequences

Severity levels What should be done

Level 5 Immediate action should be taken Level 4 Plan action for environment

Level 3 Monitor environment and create management strategy

Level 2 Monitor environment

Level 1 Allow for normal occurrences to continue

Source: based on (Unknown, n.d.)

Level 1 Level 2 – Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Probability

Extremely likely

to happenModerate High High Extreme Extreme

Likely to

happenModerate Moderate High High Extreme

Could happen Low Moderate Moderate High High

Unlikel y to

happenLow Low Moderate Moderate High

Rarely happens Low Low Low Moderate Moderate

Severity

7


3.0 Assessment

3.1 Nature Conservation - Flora:

3.1.1 Existing conditions:

From figure 1.1 it may be observed that the proposed coal seam gas well locations 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 are

surrounded by significantly dense vegetation, whilst well location 3 is significantly less vegetated. In

order to identify the endangered species of each proposed well location, the desktop study method of

utilising a generated list of flora species contained within a specific area from the Queensland

Government was used. When generating the flora list, a radius of 3km from the exact geographical

location of each well (e.g. location 1: -27.95859, 145.5768) was specified. Using this method, it was

identified that there were no endangered flora species present within the given radiuses of the

proposed well locations; therefore, it was concluded that there are no endangered flora species within the entire 14,000 ha site.

Though it was identified that there were no endangered flora species (Clegg et al. 2012), it may also

be identified that the proposed locations for the coal seam gas wells in the Bowra area contain a

diversified range of flora species. Moreover, it should also noted that portions of the 14,000 ha site

contain vegetation types identified as essential habitats. From the Queensland Government (2011) it is

delineated that an essential habitat is one where vegetation with species of endangered, vulnerable,

rare or near threatened status, have been known to occupy. From appendix 1 – Regional Ecosystem

Maps, it is demonstrated that the surrounding area of proposed well location 1 is identified by the

Regional Ecosystem Maps as an essential habitat; moreover, it is also seen from appendix 1 that the

proposed well locations of 2 and 3 are located within areas defined as essential habitats.

From the Regional Ecosystem Description Database (Queensland Government 2013a), it was

identified that, as a whole, the Bowra area is of great diversity in regards to flora –containing over 90

different species of flora within the six proposed well locations (Clegg et al. 2012; Queensland

Government 2012a), however, it is also noted that individual areas surrounding, or occupied by, some

of the proposed coal seam gas well locations have low biodiversity. From table 3.1.1.1 below, and the

Regional Ecosystem Description Database (Queensland Government 2013a), it is seen that the

regional ecosystem ID’s of 6.3.8, 6.3.13, 6.3.16, 6.3.18, and 6.3.22 with low biodiversity statuses

have been classified as ‘of concern’. From the Regional Ecosystem Description Database (Queensland Government 2013a), table 3.1.1.1 (below) was created.

Table 3.1.1.1: Biodiversity status, descriptions of dominant vegetation, and land type where the vegetation is found for the corresponding Regional Ecosystem Description Database ID’s

Vegetation in an area determines diversity (Johnson, reich, macnally 2007)

Regional

Ecosystem

Description

Database

(REDD)

Biodiversity

status

Description (dominant vegetation; land type where vegetation is found)

6.3.8 Of concern Contains Eucalyptus largiflorens and Acacia cambagei woodlands; vegetation located on alluvium

6.3.13 Of concern Contains species of Asteraceae and/or short grasses and open herbland; vegetation located on alluvial plains

6.3.16Of concern

Contains Callitris glaucophylla , Acacia excelsa , Geijera parviflora and Acacia aneura woodlands; vegetation located on

alluvial dunes

6.3.18 Of concern Contains Eucalyptus populnea , Eremophila mitchellii , Acacia aneura , and Eucalyptus melanophloia woodlands;

vegetation located on alluvial plains

6.3.21 No concern at

present

Contains Acacia aneura , Acacia excelsa and Geijera parviflora low woodlands; vegetation located on low alluvial sand

dunes

6.3.22 Of concern Contains Acacia victoriae , Eucalypts spp , and tall open–shrubland; vegetation located on residual-based land


present

Contains Acacia aneura , Eucalyptus populnea , Corymbia terminalis and tall shrubland; vegetation located on residual-based

land


present

Contains Acacia catenulatat , Acacia petraea and tall shrubland; Vegetation located on scarps and tops of ranges


present

Contains Eriachne mucronata open-grassland, Acacia aneura and/or Corymbia terminalis woodlands; Vegetation located

on plains or flat tops of residual-based land

Source: based on (Queensland Government 2013a)

8


3.1.2 Impact Assessment:

It is recognized from Gaston (2005, p. 243), that there is a significant correlation between lowered

biodiversity and increased species extinction levels; therefore, it may be identified that in order to

protect the biodiversity of the Bowra area, precautions for protecting currently threatened flora and

fauna species should be employed to avoid an increase in the number of endangered species, and

therefore, help reduce the significantly negative rates of biodiversity. Accordingly, if development

was undertaken at the proposed well locations where these regional ecosystem ID’s exist, it may be

seen as self-evident that due to habitat loss which would occur from land clearing for mining

purposes, the negative impacts would be significant for not only flora-based species, but fauna species too.

It is noted by Williams et al. (2012b, p. 32) that CSG mining endeavours can result in serious threats

to vegetation, threatened species and overall biodiversity (see appendix 2 - figures); moreover, it is

noted that a serious resulting consequence from CSG methods of land clearing is increased fire risk

within an environment. Moreover, this threat of fire to flora species is also noted from Cochrane

(2003, p. 915), where it is stated that through anthropogenic impacts caused by the construction of access roads, it is often seen that areas of vegetation become extremely susceptible to fire.

3.1.3 Mitigation and Monitoring:

In order to mitigate the negative impacts on the local environment which would occur, as identified

above, as a result of construction for the proposed coal seam gas wells located on the Bowra site, it is

suggested that the minimisation of land used for the construction of the wells is utilised, and that

proposed CSG well locations should be located in situ to the nearest existing roads.

In minimising the amount of land used for the construction of the coal seam gas wells, such as staff camps and areas for piping and machineray etc. it would more than likely lower the negative effects of habitat removal, increased risk of flora species becoming extinct, increased fire risk, and overall lowered biodiversity that would occur from the development as a whole. Therefore, a plausible method for minimising the amount of land used is through the re-location of the proposed CSG wells to be within close proximity of each other within the Bowra site. Similarly to that of the previously mentioned method for mitigation of nature conservation: flora, the other method suggested to minimise the negative effects of coal seam gas mine construction is the relocation of the proposed coal seam gas wells to be situated within the close vicinity of already established roads. When assessing the benefits of this method, it may be determined that locating wells near already existing roads would eliminate the need for constructing, though construction of access roads will still be required, large lengths of access roads to and from the site, which would therefore help in the prevention of the detrimental by-product effects of coal seam gas mining mentioned above.

3.1.4 Impact and Evaluation:

From above, it is determined that negative impacts to flora species could occur from mining

activities, therefore resulting in a level 3 severity; see 2.1 risk assessment matrix for corresponding measurements

9


3.2 Nature Conservation - Fauna:


From the Australian Wildlife Conservancy (n.d.) it is seen that the Bowra area provides a habitual

environment for a multitude of different fauna species: over 200 bird, 31 mammal, 65 reptilian, and

20 amphibious species. From the fauna list generated for each proposed well locations by wildnet

(Queensland Government 2012a) as part of the desktop study, the diversity of fauna species identified

by the Australian Wildlife Conservancy (n.d.) is further supported as there is a wide and diverse range

of bird, mammal, reptile and amphibian animal types identified. Additionally, of the diversified range

of species which are located in the Bowra area, there are a selection of species which have been

identified to have a conservation status of ‘vulnerable’ or ‘nearly threatened’, as seen below in table

3.2.1.1.

Table 3.2.1.1: Fauna species of particular interest within the Bowra area and there conservation status

Species (scientific

name)

Common Name Well

location

Conservation

Status – Queensland

Government

(Nature

Conservation

Act 1992 List)

Conservation

Status – Australian

Government

(EPBC Act

1999 List)

IUCN Red List

of Threatened Species

Lophpchroa leadbeateri Major Mitchell’s cockatoo

1, 2, 3, 4, 6

Vulnerable Not Identified Least concern

Granitella picta Painted honeyeater 1, 2, 3, 4

Vulnerable Not Identified Vulnerable

Pyrrholaemus brunneus Redthroat 1, 2, 3, 4

Nearly Threatened

Not Identified Least Concern

Lophoictinia isura Square-tailed kite 2, 3, 4 Nearly Threatened

Not Identified Least Concern

Falco hypoleucos Grey falcon 2, 3, 4 Nearly Threatened

Not Identified Vulnerable

Source: based on (Queensland Government 2012a; Australian Government 2009; IUCN 2012)

Upon observation of table 3.2.1, above, it can evidently be seen that proposed well location 2 contains

all five fauna species which have been classified as either vulnerable or nearly threatened.

Additionally, from table 3.2.1 above, it is also seen that the Major Mitchell’s cockatoo and the

Painted honeyeater are found within majority of the six locations nominated for well construction, making them significant species of concern within the Bowra area due to their conservation status.

The Major Mitchell’s cockatoo (Lophpchroa leadbeateri) is a species of cockatoo which seeks to inhabit old hollow trees in order to provide a nest for their offspring (Rowley, 1991). Furthermore, from Rowley (1991), it is seen that this particular species of bird is also known to be a spring-breeder. Moreover, it is also noted (Rowley 1991; Rowley & Chapman 1991, p. 224 ) that Major Mitchell’s cockatoo’s are not often found nesting close to each other, as an important characteristic of this bird is that they prefer not to nest within close proximity of others of the same species.

The Painted honeyeater (Granitella picta) is a bird species which has an identified breeding season of

spring to summer (Oliver et al. 2003, p. 171). Additionally, it is noted (Oliver et al. 2003) that the

Painted honeyeater is found most prominently found within Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla)

woodlands.

10



As mentioned above in 3.2.1 – existing conditions, the Major Mitchell’s cockatoo is spring-breeder,

with this in mind it is obvious that any construction for proposed well locations 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 on the

Bowra site within the time frame of September – November (months of spring in southern

hemisphere), breeding habits of the Major Mitchell Cockatoo may be affected, and furthermore, their offspring, therefore possibly making the species more susceptible to extinction.

As mentioned above in 3.2.1 – existing conditions, the Painted honeyeater is found primarily within

Brigalow woodlands, which are present within surrounding areas of the proposed well locations.

Therefore, the alteration and/or destruction of this flora species, due to land clearing for construction

purposes, could increase the risk of extinction for this already ‘vulnerable’ classified bird species.

It is seen from Williams et al. (2012a, p. 5) that when constructing coal seam gas infrastructure, a

significant ramification – amongst other negative effects of invasive species spreading and a higher

fire risk – is habitat fragmentation. From Fahrig (2003, p. 487), habitat fragmentation is defined as a

landscape orientated process which involves habitat loss, and the separation and breaking apart of a

habitat. From Origin Energy (2012) it is stated that for a viable coal seam gas mining location, a 1.2

hectare lease site would be created through the clearing of any surrounding vegetation of the gas well;

furthermore, it is also seen (Origin Energy 2012) that further land clearing is needed in order to

provide room for access roads, staff camps, a lay down area for piping and machineray, and a

gasplant. Therefore, in accordance with this information, it may be expected that a similar area size

would be cleared in for each of the six proposed gas wells on the Bowra site, resulting in a significant

habitat loss. The Queensland Government (2010) identified that barriers such as roads – as well as

access roads – can significantly restrict the interaction of flora and fauna alike, therefore creating a

barrier effect, which is not uncommon to cause local extinctions. Jaarsma and Willems (2002, p. 126)

define the barrier effect as “the opportunity that an animal will be prevented from crossing the road”.

From this definition, it may be obvious that animals in the surrounding habitat where habitat loss has

occurred due to the construction of CSG related development, including access roads, may be effected

by the barrier effect. Moreover, the barrier effect may segregate populations of species surrounding

access roads, as habitats may be subdivided in the adjacent direction to the access roads (Rico et al.

2007, p. 1). Furthermore, from Fahrig (2001, p. 65), it is identified that it takes only a small loss of

habitat to increase the extinction levels within a given area. Therefore, it can be seen that effects of

land clearing, and therefore habitat loss, from coal seam gas mining related activities would have a

profound impact on the local fauna, especially that of species which have been classified as

‘vulnerable’ or ‘nearly threatened’.


From table 3.2.1.1, it is seen that proposed well location 2, 3 and 4 contain all species of concern

within the Bowra area (due to the relatively large radius used for fauna species list in desktop study);

therefore, it is overwhelmingly suggested that any developments made to, or near, these well locations

in particular should be avoided, however, if development is absolutely necessary, every precaution

should be taken in a meticulous manner in order to avoid harming any aspect of the five susceptible

fauna species. Additionally, as at least one species of concern is located within each of the proposed

coal seam gas wells, except for location 5, it should be noted that the construction methods in general

should take into account the threatened fauna, in order to minimise negative effects and eliminate the

application of further risk to the already, somewhat, endangered species. For example, using the

notion of accounting for the species of concern within the Bowra site in construction process, as

Major Mitchell’s cockatoos require old hollow trees for nesting, and Painted honeyeaters require a

habitat with sufficient Brigalow woodlands, when construction is undertaken for the proposed CSG

11


wells, destruction of these two types of trees should not occur in order to preserve the two

‘vulnerable’ fauna species.


From above, it is noted that negative impacts to fauna species is likely to occur from mining,

therefore creating a severity level of 4; see 2.1 risk assessment matrix for corresponding

measurements

3.3 Geology and Soils:


From the Regional Ecosystem Description Database (Queensland Government 2013a) and Queensland Government (2013b), see appendix 1 – regional ecosystem maps, it is seen that there are a range of classifications (e.g. 6.3.22) which portions of a habitat may be assigned in order to describe its ecological properties, including soil properties. From these two sources mentioned above, tables 3.3.1.1 and 3.3.1.2 were created.

Table 3.3.1.1: Regional Ecosystem ID for each proposed well location

Source: based on (Queensland Government 2013b)

From table 3.3.1.1 and the Regional Ecosystem Description Database (Queensland Government 2013a), it can be determined that each proposed coal seam gas well is classified as having multiple – at least two – ecological classification with the surrounding area. Furthermore, through observation of each of the proposed CSG well locations it may also be seen that well locations 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are very similar in ecological properties; these similarities – in terms of soil-based properties, can be seen from table 3.3.1.2 below, and Regional Ecosystem Description Database (Queensland Government 2013a).

Table 3.3.1.2: Description of Regional Ecosystem ID’s in regards to soil properties

Well location Regional Ecosystem ID

(REID)

1 6.3.22 / 6.3.8 2 6.3.21 / 6.3.16 / 6.3.13

3 6.3.21 / 6.3.16 / 6.3.13 4 6.3.13 / 6.3.18

5 6.7.13 / 6.7.10 / 6.7.17 6 6.3.21 / 6.3.16 / 6.3.13

Regional Ecosystem ID Description (soils; associated soils)

6.3.8 Poorly drained soils, deep, alkaline based, grey coloured alluvial clays

6.3.13Medium to heavy clays, lighter texture as depth increases; Associated soils : Very deep, slightly acid to slightly

alkaline based, brown (grey and red coloured may occur) coloured clay

6.3.16 Deep, acid-alkaline, red or yellow earthy sands coloured

6.3.18 Associated soils: Moderately deep to deep, acid based, red earths and red clay coloured, often hard setting

6.3.21 Very deep, acid based, red to yellow-red colour, loamy sands texture

6.3.22 Associated soils: Very deep, brown coloured alluvial, sandy clay loams to sandy clay texture, hard setting surfaces

6.7.10Acid to slightly acid, sandy-loams to sandy-clay loams texture; Associated soils: Shallow to very shallow, loamy,

red earths with silcrete gravel cover

6.7.13 Associated soils: Very shallow, yellow-brown to red coloured, acid based, loamy texture

6.7.17 Associated soils: Very shallow, acid based, red coloured, loamy textured,

Source: based on (Queensland Government 2013a)

12


In accordance with Regional Ecosystem description database (Queensland Government 2013a) and table 3.1.1.1, it can also be seen that the Regional Ecosystem Description Database ID’s given for each proposed coal seam gas well identify the predominant land type for each regional ecosystem ID. Therefore, it is determined that the predominant land type for the proposed well location ecosystems are alluvial based. From the Queensland Government (2012b) it is delineated that alluvial land systems include closed depressions, inland lakes, and estuarine deposits under freshwater influence; moreover, it is also defined (Queensland Government 2012b) that alluvial land systems have a

diversified range of soils contained within them, as can also be seen above from table 3.1.1.2.


It is well predicated that through the processes utilised for the construction of coal seam gas wells,

geological alteration is likely to occur, and therefore, have a profound negative impact on the

surrounding environment where construction occurs (Williams et al. 2012a). Moreover, these harmful

impacts which may have an effect on the geological features of an environment, can have a carryon

effect to the flora and fauna species that inhabit the immediate or surrounding areas where the coal seam gas mining construction occurs.

Whilst impacts to ecological aspects, such as trees, are visually apparent, effects to soil within an area where construction processes occur can be significant. As stated, land clearing is required in order to construct a coal seam gas well within a given area (Origin Energy 2012), therefore it may be acknowledged that profoundly negative effects to soil and their properties may occur. From Melo et al. (2012), it is acknowledged that the process of land clearing allows for significant changes of soil properties to occur. Thus, a negative effect to soil which may occur during alteration of geological aspects may be soil compaction. Beylich et al. (2010) identify that soil compaction often means an alteration to a soils structure and various other properties; furthermore, they also note that “soil compaction is a worldwide environmental problem of increasing importance” which occurs within various environmental habitats (2010, p. 133). The construction methods used for the construction of CSG wells will more than likely involve the use of large trucks and heavy machinery, therefore, it is axiomatic that the detrimental effect of soil compaction is likely to occur. From Whalley et al. (1995, p. 65), it is identified that a critically important effect that can arise from soil compaction can be a reduction in biotic activity for the areas within an environment where compaction occurs. Therefore, it can be seen that from the effects of large vehicles and heavy machinery that would be used for the construction of coal seam gas wells on the Bowra site, profound negative effects to the areas biotic elements may occur, therefore, possibly impacting other aspects of the surrounding environment such as flora and fauna species.


In order to help preserve and protect the ecological features that are currently present within each of

the proposed coal seam gas well locations, and the 14,000 ha site of Bowra as a whole, it is suggested

that a management program should be implemented. This suggestion is put forth as traditional

methods of land clearing, and its associated negative impacts of habitat fragmentation and ecological

barriers, for coal seam gas related activities – as specified from Origin Energy (2012) – would

eliminate current properties that help support the fauna, flora, surface and groundwater aspects of the Bowra area.

Additionally, in order to help preserve the current soil state within the six proposed sites for CSG, it is recommended that an analysis of the soil properties – type and texture, are undertaken of the particular location for the CSG well at hand, as this aspect of the environment, in regards to prevention of soil compaction, is found to be essential from Beylich (2010, p. 140).

Lastly, it is also seen that with a mitigation method of lowering the current number of proposed coal seam gas wells within the site, ecological and soil-based features can remain (dependent on the

13


number of wells removed) relatively unharmed from that of anthropogenic effects created by coal seam gas mining.


From above, it is determined that negative impacts to geological and soils could occur from mining

activities, therefore resulting in a level 3 severity; see 2.1 risk assessment matrix for corresponding measurements

3.4 Surface and Ground Water:


Surface water, as it sounds, is defined as natural or drainage water that has not infiltrated the ground

(Merriam-Webster, n.d.); additionally, ground water is defined as water that is found beneath ground,

and is consisted largely of surface water which was seeped down (Dictionary, 2013). From wetland

maps of the Bowra area (Queensland Government, 2013c) containing the six proposed coal seam gas

well locations, it can be seen that there are surface water sources, in the form of rivers, within close

proximity of each proposed well location. Furthermore, it is identified from the Australian Wildlife

Conservancy (2009) that these main surface water sources are the Warrego and Paroo Rivers.

Additionally, it is identified that these two rivers are located within the Murray- Darling Basin

(Murray Darling Basin Authority, n.d.).

From figure 3.4.1 below, it can be seen that the Bowra area is located above the great artesian plane.

Moreover, the Australian Government (2009) identifies the great artesian basin is a significant source of ground water throughout Australia, as it underlies approximately 22% of Australia.

Figure 3.4.1: The great artesian basin

Source: (Australian Government 2011)

14



It is noted that there may many effects that occur to surface and ground water due to coal seam gas

mining. Furthermore, it is identified from Hamawand et al. (2013, p. 553), that in some situations,

water used for coal seam gas mining can damage the balance of an ecosystem due to altering the

quality of surface and ground water. Furthermore, it is also identified from Carey (2012, p. 27), that

there is the potential for coal seam gas related endeavours to cause contamination of water sources.

Moreover, it is seen from Carey (2012, p. 31) that methods relating to hydraulic fracturing, a method

utilised in the attainment of coal seam gas, have had occurrences where accidental contamination of

water by a dangerous contaminant known as BTEX (Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl benzene, and Xylene)

has occurred. Additionally, it is seen from Osborne (2012, p. 24) that there is an increased risk in

contaminating aquifers throughout Queensland and New South Wales due to a large number of

proposed wells that are to be constructed; furthermore, it is also identified (Osborne 2012, p. 24) that

these contaminations may be due to poor construction, therefore, allowing for the exchange of fluids and gas.

It may also be noted that due to impacts of contamination to ground and surface water from coal seam gas based activities, flora species occupying, and surrounding, a given environment would more than likely result in species being significantly affected.


In order to limit the possible effects that the method of hydraulic fracturing, method used for

obtaining coal seam gas, may have, a technique identified by Sutherland et al. (2012, p. 13) that

France employed is to completely ban the process of hydraulic fracturing.

For the formal process of mitigating negative impacts to surface and ground water, it is suggested that

the mitigation method used by Arrow Energy (2013) should be implied:

Identify potential impacts |

Classify the sensitivity of ground and surface water |

Determine magnitude of potential impacts on environment |

Assess significance of potential impacts on environment |

Develop design response and mitigation measures |

Assess significance of residual impacts on environment

Source: (Arrow Energy 2013)


From above, it is determined that negative impacts to surface and ground water are unlikely to occur

from mining activities, therefore resulting in a level 2 severity; see 2.1 risk assessment matrix for corresponding measurements

15


4.0 Project Alternatives

Due to a lack of research, and the negative impacts which are likely to be a by-product of coal seam

gas mining, directly or indirectly, it is determined that the development of six coal seam gas wells on

the 14,000 ha site that is Bowra Station, Queensland, should not occur. However, though it may be

seen as axiomatic that to having no development occur at all within the area would be of great benefit

to the local environment – as anthropogenic factors from the development which would most likely

negatively affect the area could be eliminated –, if the development of coal seam gas wells and station

were required for an crucial reason within the Bowra area, it is noted that the following changes to the

construction and operating processes should be implemented in order to significantly minimise the negative effects that would result from any form of construction on the site:

alteration of methods utilised for construction should be employed (if possible) in order to minimise the currently significant effects of land clearing – and therefore the creation of fragmentation and barriers;

alteration of the use of vehicles and machinery in terms of transport infrastructure, in order to limit the significantly detrimental impact of soil compaction

relocation of proposed coal seam gas well locations to more environmentally viable area: ideally, within close proximity of already existing road infrastructure; and

reduction in the number of coal seam gas wells (if possible)

5.0 Summary

Though the effects from the construction and operating processes of coal seam gas mining is likely to

be reversible, it cannot be successfully be concluded that this would be the case; however, as

mentioned earlier, through adaption of less intrusive methods for construction and operation, risks

regarding the current and future aspects of the site, such as preserving species diversity and land

types, may be adequately mitigated. Therefore, though it is determined that construction of a coal

seam gas station should not take place, if it were absolutely essential, the 14,000 ha site of Bowra

Station, Cunnamulla, Queensland, may be able to be successfully managed in such a manner that may

allow for the successful rehabilitation of the site to its original state, therefore, allowing for the construction and operation of a coal seam gas station.

16


References

AGL n.d., AGL gloucester gas project: coal seam gas fact sheet (online),

Available: <http://agk.com.au/gloucester/assets/pdf/Gloucester%20about%20CSG.pdf> (28 May 2013).

Arrow Energy 2013, Section 14: Groundwater (online),

Available: <http://www.arrowenergy.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/3837/Section_14-

Groundwater.pdf> (29 May 2013).

Australian Government 2009, EPBC Act List of threatened fauna (online),

Available: <http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-

bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna> (28 May 2013).

Australian Government 2009, Water matters (online),

Available: <http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/watermatters/pubs/water-

matters-20090519.pdf> (29 May 2013).

Australian Government 2011, Great artesian basin (online),

Available: <http://www.environment.gov.au/water/locations/gab/pubs/gab-map.pdf>

(29 May 2013).

Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association n.d., What is natural gas? (online),

Available: <http://www.appea.com.au/oil-gas-explained/oil-and-gas/what-is-natural-gas/> (25 May 2013).

Australian Wildlife Conservancy 2009, Wildlife matters: pungalina reveals one of Australia's rarest

mammals (online),

Available: <http://www.auswildlifetrust.org/wildlifematters/wildlifematters_19oct09.pdf> (25 May 2013).

Australian Wildlife Conservancy n.d, Management priorities (online),

Available: <http://www.australianwildlife.org/Bowra/Management-Priorities.aspx>

(25 May 2013).

Australian Wildlife Conservancy n.d., Property snapshot (online),

Available: <http://www.australianwildlife.org/Bowra/Property-Snapshot.aspx> (28 May 2013).

Barkla, J. 2008, Bowra station (online),

Available:

<http://www.australianwildlife.org/images/file/bowra/boca%20october%2008%20bowra%20

article.pdf>

(25 May 2013).

Beylich, A., Oberholzer, H., Schrader, S., Hoper, H. & Wilke, B. 2010, 'Evaluation of soil compaction

effects on soil biota and soil biological processes in soils', Soil and Tillage Research, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 133-143.

BHP Billiton 2009, Risk matrix and impacts table (online), Available:

<http://www.bhpbilliton.com/home/aboutus/regulatory/Documents/creisAppI3RiskMatrixImpactsTable.pdf> (31 May 2013)

17


Cameron, D. 2012, 'Coal seam gas', Interaction, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 12-18.

Carey, M. 2012, 'Coal seam gas: future bonanza or toxic legacy?', Viewpoint, Issue 8, pp. 26-31.

Clegg, S., Laidlaw, M., Virkki, D., Lowe, K. & McCallum, H. 2012, Bowra 2012 (online),

Available: <https://bblearn.griffith.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-315585-dt-content-rid-

464548_1/courses/2603ENV_3131_GC/Appendix%202%20Bowra%20plant%20list.pdf> (28 May 2013).

Cochrane, M. 2003, 'Fire sciences for rainforests', Nature, Volume 421, pp. 913-919.

Collins, R. 2011, 'The coal seam gas explosion', Waste Management and Environment, vol. 22, no. 5, p. 36.

Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation 2011, Code of practice for

constructing and abandoning coal seam gas wells in Queensland (online),

Available: <http://mines.industry.qld.gov.au/assets/petroleum-pdf/csg_code_of_practice.pdf> (25 May 2013).

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities 2013, Bowra

sanctuary (online),

Available: <http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/nrs/getting-involved/case-

studies/bowra.html> (25 May 2013).

Dictionary 2013, Ground water (online),

Available: <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ground+water>

(29 May 2013).

Fahrig, L. 2001, 'How much habitat is enough?', Biological Conservation, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 65-74.

Fahrig, L. 2003, 'Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity', Annual Review of Ecology,

Evolution, and Systematics, Volume 34, pp. 487-515.

Gaston, K. J. 2005, 'Biodiversity and extinction: species and people', Progress in Physical

Geography, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 239-247.

Google Earth 2012, Image of Cunnamulla area (satellite imagery), 29th May

Hamawand, I., Yusaf, T. & Hamawand, S. G. 2013, 'Coal seam gas and associated water: a review

paper', Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 22, pp. 550-560.

IUCN 2012, The IUCN red list of threatened species (online),

Available: <http://www.iucnredlist.org/search> (28 May 2013).

Jaarsma, C. F. & Willems, G. P. 2002, 'Reducing habitat fragmentation by minor rural roads through traffic calming', Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 58, no. 2-4, pp. 125-135.

Levy, B. & Rosenlieb, A. 1991, 'Producing natural gas from coal seams', Public Utilities Fortnightly, vol. 127, no. 12, p. 53.

Melo, V. S., Desjardins, T., Silva Jr, M. L., Santos, E. R., Sarrazin, M. & Santos, M. M. L. S. 2012,

'Consequences of forest conversion to pasture and fallow on soil microbial biomass and activity in the eastern Amazon', Soil use and management, vol. 28, no 4, pp. 530-535.

18


Merriam-Webster n.d. Surface water (online),

Available: <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surface%20water> (29 May 2013).

Murray Darling Basin Authority n.d. Paroo and Warrego (online),

Available: <http://www.mdba.gov.au/about-basin/how-river-runs/paroo-warrego>

(29 May 2013).

Oliver, D. L., Chambers, M. A. & Parker, D. G. 2003, 'Habitat and resource selection of the painted

honeyeater (granitella picta) on the northern floodplains region of New South Wales', Emu - Austral Ornithology, vol. 103, no. 2, pp. 171-176.

Origin Energy 2012, A landowner's guide to: coal seam gas exploration and production (online),

Available: <http://origintogether.com/wp-content/factsheets/What_is_Coal_Seam_Gas.pdf> (28 May 2013).

Osborne, K. 2012, 'Is coal seam gas polluting groundwater?', Australasian Science, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 22-25.

Queensland Gas Company 2012, Key benefits (online),

Available: <http://www.qgc.com.au/qclng-project/key-benefits.aspx>

(25 May 2013).

Queensland Government 2010, Increased habitat fragmentation (online),

Available:

<http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/monitoring_guide/impacts/habitat_fragmentation.html> (28 May 2013).

Queensland Government 2011, Essential habitat (online),

Available: <http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/vegetation/code_review_06/eh_review.html> (26 May 2013).

Queensland Government 2012a, Wildlife online (online),

Available: <http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/wildlife-online/>

(26 May 2013).

Queensland Government 2012b, Land zone definitions (online),

Available: <http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/ecosystems/biodiversity/regional-

ecosystems/land_zone_definitions.html> (28 May 2013).

Queensland Government 2013a, Regional ecosystem information sources (online),

Available: <http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/ecosystems/biodiversity/regional-ecosystems/how_to_download_redd.html> (26 May 2013).

Queensland Government 2013b, Regional ecosystem maps/regrowth vegetation maps and PMAVs

(online),

Available: <http://ehp.qld.gov.au/ecosystems/biodiversity/regional-

ecosystems/maps/index.php> (26 May 2013).

Queensland Government 2013c, Wetland info (online),

Available: <http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wetlandmaps/#> (29 May 2013).

19


Rico , A., Kindlmann, P. & Sedlacek, F. 2007, 'Barrier effects of roads on movements of small mammals', Folia Zoologica, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 1-12.

Rowley, I. 1991, 'A confusion of cockatoos', Natural History, vol. 100, no. 11, pp. 44-52.

Rowley, I. & Chapman, G. 1991, 'The breeding biology, food, social organisation, demography and

conservation of the major mitchell or pink cockatoo, cacatua leadbeateri, on the margin of the western australian wheatbelt', Australian Journal of Zoology, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 211-261.

Sutherland, W. J., Aveling, R., Bennun, L., Chapman, E., Clout, M., Cote, I. M., Depledge, M. H.,

Dicks, L. V., Dobson, A. P., Fellman, L., Fleishman, E., Gibbons, D. W., Keim, B., Lickorish,

F., Lindenmayer, D. B., Monk, K. A., Norris, K., Peck, L. S., Prior, S. V., Scharlemann, J. P.

W., Spalding, M. & Watkinson, A. R. 2012, 'A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2012', Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 16-22.

Unknown n.d., Risk matrix (online), Available: <https://bblearn.griffith.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-

315586-dt-content-rid-

464549_1/courses/2603ENV_3131_GC/Example%20of%20Risk%20matrix%20from%20HRM_Risk-Management-Guide_161804.pdf> (31 may 2013)

Whalley, W. R., Dumitru, E. & Dexter, A. R. 1995, 'Biological effects of soil compaction', Soil and Tillage Reserach, vol. 35, no. 1-2, pp. 53-68.

Williams, J., Stubbs, T. & Milligan, A. 2012a, Some ways forward for coal seam gas and natural

resource management in Australia (online),

Available:

<http://www.wentworthgroup.org/uploads/An%20analysis%20of%20CSG%20production%2

0and%20NRM%20in%20Australia%20Oct%202012%20SUMMARY.pdf> (28 May 2013).

Williams, J., Stubbs, T. & Milligan, A. 2012b, An analysis of coal seam gas production and natural

resource management in Australia (online),

Available:

<http://www.wentworthgroup.org/uploads/An%20analysis%20of%20CSG%20production%2

0and%20NRM%20in%20Australia%20Oct%202012%20FULL.pdf> ( 28 May 2013).

20


Appendix 1 – Regional Ecosystem Maps:

Figure A3.1: CSG well location 1 – Regional Ecosystem Map

Source: (Queensland Government 2013)

21




22




23




24




25




26


Appendix 2 – Figures:

Figure A2.1: Bowra mulga lands

Source: (Australian Wildlife Conservancy n.d.)

Figure A2.2: Australia’s gas basins

Source: (Cameron, 2012)

27


Figure A2.3: Impact of coal seam gas mining to a localised area

Source: (Cameron 2012)