&6* :dwhu 5hohdvh wr (xurpedk &uhhn $vvhvvphqw ri ... · csg activities the approved for...

EPBC Act Self-Assessment ReportProposed Spring Gully CSG WaterRelease to Eurombah CreekAssessment of Potential Impacts Origin Energy Resources Limited

Document Control Summary NRA Environmental Consultants

Job No: F:\AAA\397_Origin\397001_APLNG Upst Proj Aq Ecol\397001.32_Spring Gully WTF Proposed REIA\Rpt\397001.32_EPBC SelfAssRpt_R02.docx

Status: Final

Project Manager: Paul Godfrey

Title: EPBC Act Self-Assessment Report – Proposed Spring Gully CSG Water Release to Eurombah Creek Assessment of Potential Impacts

Author/s: Paul Godfrey, Peter Buosi

Client: Origin Energy Resources Limited

Client Contact: Annemarie Skelly, Senior Environmental Advisor

Date of Issue: 13 February 2017

No. of Copies: 1 PDF

Dispatched Via: Email

Other Info or Requirements:

Final report supersedes and replaces all previous documentation prepared.

Report Summary

Key Words EPBC Act Self-Assessment, Spring Gully Water Treatment Facility, Receiving Environment, Coal Seam Gas, MNES, Matters of National Environmental Significance, Eurombah Creek.

Abstract Australia Pacific LNG operates the Spring Gully Water Treatment Facility (WTF) in the Spring Gully Development Area in south central Queensland. This report presents the findings of an assessment of potential impacts of treated coal seam gas water releases on Matters of National Environmental Significance (EPBC Act) in the Spring Gully WTF receiving environment.

Quality Assurance

Author Technical Review Editor Document

Version

Approved for Issue by QA Manager

Date Signature

Paul Godfrey BSc(Hons), PhD

Peter Buosi BAppSc(Hons)

Shannon Wetherall

BAppSc(Hons)

Kirsty Anderson BA(Hons)

R01 21/12/16

R02 13/2/17

© Natural Resource Assessments Pty Ltd This document is the property of Natural Resource Assessments Pty Ltd. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 all other rights are reserved. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Certified Integrated Management System AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008 (Quality) AS/NZS ISO 14001:2004 (Environment) AS/NZS 4801:2001 (Safety)

Limitations of this Report

The information in this report is for the exclusive use of Origin Energy Resources Limited, the only intended beneficiary of our work. NRA cannot be held liable for third party reliance on this document. This disclaimer brings the limitations of the investigations to the attention of the reader. The information herein could be different if the information upon which it is based is determined to be inaccurate or incomplete. The results of work carried out by others may have been used in the preparation of this report. These results have been used in good faith, and we are not responsible for their accuracy. The information herein is a professionally accurate account of the site conditions at the time of investigations; it is prepared in the context of inherent limitations associated with any investigation of this type. It has been formulated in the context of published guidelines, field observations, discussions with site personnel, and results of laboratory analyses. NRA’s opinions in this document are subject to modification if additional information is obtained through further investigation, observations or analysis. They relate solely and exclusively to environmental management matters, and are based on the technical and practical experience of environmental practitioners. They are not presented as legal advice, nor do they represent decisions from the regulatory agencies charged with the administration of the relevant Acts. Any advice, opinions or recommendations contained in this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole and are considered current as of the date of this document.

Table of Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 1

1.1 Existing release conditions ................................................................. 2

1.2 Location and study area ..................................................................... 3

1.3 Description of the Project ................................................................... 4

2. Existing environment ............................................................................... 6

2.1 Receiving environment ....................................................................... 6

2.2 Hydrology ........................................................................................... 6

2.3 Water quality ...................................................................................... 6

2.4 Watercourse springs .......................................................................... 7

2.5 Potential sources of contaminants ...................................................... 7

2.6 Environmental values ......................................................................... 7

2.7 Water quality objectives ..................................................................... 8

2.8 Receiving environment monitoring ..................................................... 9

3. Methods .................................................................................................. 12

3.1 Databases and literature .................................................................. 12

3.2 Significant impact assessment ......................................................... 13

4. Results .................................................................................................... 14

4.1 Summary of hydrological and water quality modelling results ........... 14

4.2 MNES potentially impacted by Spring Gully WTF treated CSG water releases .................................................................................................... 15

4.2.1 Listed threatened and migratory species ...................................... 16 4.2.2 Listed Threatened Ecological Communities .................................. 17 4.2.3 A water resource in relation to coal seam gas development ........ 18

4.3 Potential project-related impacts to MNES ....................................... 19

4.4 Significant impact determinations ..................................................... 19 4.4.1 White-throated Snapping Turtle .................................................... 19 4.4.2 A water resource in relation to coal seam gas .............................. 19

4.5 Cumulative impacts .......................................................................... 25

5. References .............................................................................................. 27

Tables

Table 1: Listed threatened and migratory species occurring, or potentially occurring, within the receiving environment .............................................. 16

Table 2: Significance test for impacts on the White-throated Snapping Turtle from the proposed action .............................................................................. 20

Table 3: Significance test for impacts on a water resource ...................................... 23

Figures

Figure 1: Spring Gully Water Treatment Facility receiving environment ................. 5

Appendices

Appendix A: Proposed treated CSG water release scenarios

Appendix B: Release water quality 2010-2016

Appendix C: Eurombah Creek stream flow records and Spring Gully WTF treated CSG water releases

Appendix D: REMP surface water quality data, 2011-2015

Appendix E: Water levels at Spring Gully WTF REMP sites

Appendix F: Eurombah Creek temperature data 2013-2016

Appendix G: EPBC Act Protected Matters Report

Appendix H: Ecology/biology information for the White-throated Snapping Turtle

Appendix I: Published boron toxicity data

Origin Energy Resources Limited EPBC Act Self-Assessment Report – Proposed Spring Gully CSG Water Release to Eurombah Creek Assessment of Potential Impacts

NRA Environmental Consultants 1 13 February 2017

1. Introduction

Origin Energy Resources Limited, on behalf of Australia Pacific LNG Pty Ltd (Australia Pacific LNG), proposes to develop coal seam gas (CSG) resources located in: • Petroleum Lease (PL) 414, 415, 416 and part of 418, known as the Spring Gully North-

West Development Area (NWDA) • PL 417, known as the Spring Gully North-East Development Area (NEDA) (Figure 1).

The Spring Gully North-West and North-East Development (referred to as ‘the Project’) is located approximately 70 km north-east of Roma in southern central Queensland. The Project involves the development of approximately 114 wells and associated gathering infrastructure, which will connect to the operating gas processing facilities (GPF) and water treatment facility (WTF), located on PLs 195 and 204, which form part of the existing Spring Gully CSG Project (Figure 1) (APLNG 2017a).

The following terms are used in this report to describe spatial extents (APLNG 2017a). • Spring Gully NWDA and NEDA – ‘the Project’. • Spring Gully NWDA – approximately 16,289 ha comprising PLs 414, 415, 416 and the

northern portion of PL418. • Spring Gully NEDA – approximately 23,135 ha encompassing PL417. • Approved Spring Gully CSG Project – the existing Spring Gully development located on

PLs 195, 200, 203, 204 and 268 (currently in application to replace PL203). • Spring Gully Regional Assessment Area – describes the area encompassed by previous

regional environmental studies and includes PLs 195, 200, 203, 204 268, 414 to 419 and Authority to Prospect (ATP) 592. These studies included the areas within the proposed development footprint.

Project context CSG activities for the approved Spring Gully CSG Project and the proposed Project are authorised by Environmental Authority (EA) EPPG00885313 (dated 11 December 2015) issued by the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) (APLNG 2017a). Releases under the EA are authorised up to 10.2 megalitres (ML) per day and 700 ML in any calendar year (Condition B3 of EA EPPG00885313) and managed in accordance with the Spring Gully Coal Seam Gas Water Management Plan (CWMP) (Revision 6) (APLNG 2017b). The CWMP (APLNG 2017b) has been developed in accordance with Section 126 of the Queensland Environmental Protection Act 1994 and conditions of the Spring Gully EA (APLNG 2017a). CSG water produced as part of the proposed Project will be managed via the following: • Beneficial use of water for Project activities (including construction, dust suppression and

landscaping and revegetation) in accordance with the General Beneficial Use Approval Associated Water (including coal seam gas water) (EHP 2014a).

• Irrigation in accordance with the General Beneficial Use Approval Irrigation of Associated Water (including coal seam gas water) (EHP 2014b).

• Aquifer injection of treated water into the Precipice sandstone.


2 NRA Environmental Consultants 13 February 2017

• Intermittent contingency release of treated water to the Eurombah Creek catchment when the inherent variability of irrigation demand means that a proportion of the treated water cannot be beneficially used.

The CWMP prioritises the beneficial use of CSG water, thereby minimising the quantity released to Eurombah Creek (APLNG 2017a).

Australia Pacific LNG proposes to release up to 280 ML per year of treated CSG water to the receiving environment as part of the Project. The treated CSG water released from the proposed Project will be incorporated within the existing EA authorised releases1 (APLNG 2017a). As a result, no change to the State approved release conditions will be required. Approval to extend the date beyond 31 March 2020 may be sought through an amendment application to EHP (APLNG 2017a). For the purposes of this impact assessment, it is conservatively assumed that releases to Eurombah Creek will occur until 2030 when the water production profile decreases to a level where intermittent release is no longer required. The maximum volume of water that can be treated at the WTF, the release point location, the discharge volume and the receiving environment area (ie Eurombah Creek catchment) will not change as a result of the proposed Project (APLNG 2017a).

As part of the Project, Australia Pacific LNG is required to assess potential impacts of the proposed releases on Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES), as prescribed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This includes determining potential impacts of the proposed Project on MNES associated with the aquatic ecosystem in the receiving environment.

Scope of works NRA Environmental Consultants (NRA) was engaged by Origin Energy Resources Limited (OERL) to determine whether the proposed Project, should it involve the release of 280 ML of treated CSG water per year until 2030, is likely to result in significant impacts on MNES in the receiving environment of the Spring Gully WTF. The assessment also includes consideration of the cumulative impact of the Project (ie release of 280 ML of water per year) with additional releases associated with the Approved Spring Gully CSG Project (up to 420 ML per year), totalling the current EA limit (ie 700 ML per year). The significance determination is made via a desk-based review of available information and pursuant to the ‘self-assessment’ process detailed in the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (DoE 2013a) and Significant Impact Guidelines 1.3 (DoE 2013b). This report presents the findings of an assessment against the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 and the aquatic ecology criteria of the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.3. An assessment against the hydrological and water quality criteria of Significant Impact Guidelines 1.3 is reported separately in the Spring Gully Development EPBC Referral Eurombah Creek Surface Water Impact Assessment – Spring Gully North-West and North East report (KCB 2017).

1.1 Existing release conditions Australia Pacific LNG has utilised the option of releasing treated CSG water to Eurombah Creek as a contingency to the beneficial use portfolio (APLNG 2017b).

1 ie up to 10.2 ML per day and 700 ML per annum.



A total volume of 2,746 ML was discharged to Eurombah Creek from December 2010 to March 2016, with releases occurring on 758 days (39% of the time period), at an average rate of 3.6 ML per day (APLNG unpublished data). A maximum daily discharge of 8.2 ML was recorded on 19 August 2012. The total volume and number of release days have declined between 2011 and 2015 (due to the increased volumes for beneficial use (APLNG 2017b)) from 668 ML to 471 ML (Appendix A)2, and from 200 to 113 days, respectively.

The quality of treated CSG water produced by reverse osmosis (RO) desalination at the Spring Gully Water Treatment Facility is summarised in the CWMP (APLNG 2017a). The quality of treated CSG water released to Eurombah Creek is required to meet the water quality contaminant limits specified in Schedule B: Table 2 of the Spring Gully EA (Condition B6) (APLNG 2017b)3. NRA understands that Australia Pacific LNG submitted an EA amendment application to EHP in December 2016 to alter the EA contaminant release limit for boron from 0.8 mg/L to 1.0 mg/L4 and increase the temperature differential (between points upstream and downstream of the release) from +/-2oC to +/-4oC5 (pers. comm. A. Skelly, Senior Environmental Advisor, Origin, 9 December 2016). For consistency, these proposed water quality contaminants limits have been applied for this MNES assessment.

Water quality results for release waters for December 2010 to March 2016 are summarised in Appendix B and provide an indication of the quality of previous treated CSG water releases to Eurombah Creek. The results show that release waters were fresh (<799 µs/cm), slightly acidic to moderately alkaline (pH range: 6.5-8.9) and occasionally with elevated boron concentrations (range: 0.200-0.940 mg/L) (ie above published guideline values for slightly-moderately disturbed freshwater ecosystems (ie 0.370 mg/L)).

1.2 Location and study area The Spring Gully Regional Assessment Area (ie PLs 195, 200, 203, 204 268, 414 to 419 and Authority to Prospect (ATP) 592) covers approximately 256,000 ha in south central Queensland, between the towns of Roma, Injune and Taroom (Figure 1). The Regional Assessment Area is in the Upper Dawson River catchment of the Fitzroy Basin.

Treated CSG waters from the Spring Gully WTF are released to Eastern Gully, a natural drainage channel that runs for 1.5 km before joining Eurombah Creek. The release structure lies approximately 85 km upstream of the confluence between Eurombah Creek and Dawson River.

The MNES assessment was confined to the Eurombah Creek catchment (ie the receiving environment of the proposed Project). Modelling results suggest that releases from the proposed Spring Gully WTF releases do not reach the Dawson River except in periods of natural flow

2 2011: 668 ML; 2012: 556 ML; 2013: 476 ML; 2014: 367 ML; 2015: 471 ML. 3 Schedule B: Table 2 – Contaminant Release Limits for Release Point. pH: 6.5-9.0 (Minimum and maximum range);

boron: 0.8 mg/L (maximum); electrical conductivity: 370 µS/cm (12 months daily average), 425 µS/cm (Maximum); temperature difference: ±20C (Maximum temperature difference between the location (709584E, 7122194N) downstream of the Eastern Gully confluence and the location (709483 E, 7122084 N) upstream of the Eastern Gully confluence; calcium: 5.0 mg/L (Minimum); turbidity: 50 NTU (Maximum); dissolved oxygen: 2 mg/L (Minimum); chloride: 175 mg/L (Maximum); sodium: 115 mg/L (Maximum); sulphate: 5 mg/L (Maximum); alkalinity: Nil; sodium adsorption ratio: Nil.

4 Supported by a desk-based assessment which determined that a limit of 1.0 mg/L for boron posed a low risk to aquatic ecosystem health of Eurombah Creek (Section 2.6).

5 Supported by a desk-based assessment which demonstrated that the +/-4oC temperature differential was within the range of natural variation for Eurombah Creek (APLNG 2016b).



when the release water is greatly diluted by natural runoff contributions to the catchment (KCB 2017). The influence of releases that may reach the Dawson River during periods of catchment runoff are deemed to be insignificant in relation to potential impacts on MNES.

1.3 Description of the Project The proposed Project involves releases of up to 280 ML of treated CSG water per year until 2030. An assessment of the cumulative impacts of the Project were based on releases up to the current EA limit (ie 700 ML per year). No other discharge or take of water is known to occur within the receiving environment (APLNG 2017b).

The Spring Gully Development EPBC Referral Eurombah Creek Surface Water Impact Assessment – Spring Gully North-West and North East report (KCB 2017) presents the results of hydrological (flow velocity and water level) modelling that was undertaken to inform the assessment of potential impacts of the proposed Project on MNES. The modelling involved dry weather and wet weather scenarios and three Spring Gully WTF release scenarios − Project only (ie 280 ML of water per year), current conditions (ie 500 ML of water per year) and the cumulative scenario (ie 700 ML of water per year) – using a HEC-RES model (Section 4.1.1). Results of the Spring Gully WTF release simulations for the Project only and cumulative release scenarios, which were used as inputs in the HEC-RAS model to assess flow velocities and water levels in Eurombah Creek (KCB 2017), are presented in Appendix A.



2. Existing environment

2.1 Receiving environment The Spring Gully WTF releases into Eurombah Creek via a 1.5 km natural drainage channel known as Eastern Gully (Figure 1) (APLNG 2014a). Eurombah Creek catchment is located at the headwaters of the Dawson River catchment in the Fitzroy River basin. Eurombah Creek flows in an easterly to north-easterly direction, joining the Dawson River approximately 85 km downstream of the Spring Gully WTF release point.

The Spring Gully CWMP (APLNG 2017b) presents an overview of land use in the Spring Gully Development Area using Queensland Land Use Mapping Program (QLUMP) data (Queensland Government 2016) and site-based knowledge. It shows that surrounding land use of the receiving environment is predominantly grazing and CSG development, with limited non-irrigated cropping, several cattle feedlots and rural residential development. The Queensland Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 (EPP (Water)) nominates the aquatic ecosystem of the Upper Dawson River – Taroom Area Southern Tributaries (Table 1, EHP 2011) (which includes Eurombah Creek catchment) as moderately disturbed.

2.2 Hydrology Eurombah Creek is an ephemeral system that is subject to infrequent flows (ERM 2003, KCB 2017).

Flow in Eurombah Creek is recorded by the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mine gauge at Brookfield (130376A), located approximately 50 km downstream of the Spring Gully WTF release point (location shown on Figure 1). Stream flow records for the Brookfield gauge from November 2011 to March 2016 are presented in Appendix C. The records for this period reveal extended periods of no creek flow (between April and November) interspersed by high flows in which the time to peak and recession of these flow events was rapid.

Eurombah Creek forms a series of disconnected waterholes during the dry season (ERM 2003, KCB 2017).

2.3 Water quality Monitoring of surface water quality in Eurombah Creek has been undertaken since August 2011 for the Spring Gully Receiving Environment Monitoring Program (REMP) for the approved Spring Gully Development Area. Monitoring is undertaken upstream and downstream of the Spring Gully WTF release point (monitoring sites shown on Figure 1). Summaries of background (upstream) water quality results (2011 to 2014) are reported in the 2013, 2014 and 2015 annual reports (FRC 2014, NRA 2016a, 2016b) and show that background water quality was typically within published guideline values for the protection of moderately disturbed aquatic ecosystems, with occasional exceedences for electrical conductivity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, ammonia and dissolved metals (ie aluminium, copper, vanadium and zinc).



2.4 Watercourse springs The Underground Water Impact Report for the Surat Cumulative Management Area 2016 report (DNRM 2016) identifies one watercourse spring (W59) on Eurombah Creek. Watercourse spring W59 is located on a section of Eurombah Creek, approximately 12-19 km downstream of the Spring Gully WTF release point and has a source aquifer nominated as the Upper Hutton Sandstone (DNRM 2016). Watercourse spring wetlands associated with the Upper Hutton Sandstone do not qualify as the EPBC Act listed Threatened Ecological Community the community of native species dependent on natural discharge of groundwater from the Great Artesian Basin (Fensham et al. 2010).

Potential hydrological impacts of the proposed Project on watercourse spring W59 were described in KCB (2017) as follows.

A minor decrease in Eurombah Creek water levels is predicted for the Project only scenario (280 ML/year WTF release) in comparison to current conditions (500 ML/year WTF release), ranging from -0.2 cm to -0.6 cm. In relation to W59 watercourse spring downstream of the Spring Gully WTF release location, the decrease in the water level is not predicted to have any impact on the W59 watercourse spring. This spring is sourced by the Upper Hutton Sandstone, and the decrease in creek levels is not anticipated to affect the spring source.

Modelling results for the Project only release scenario (ie 280 ML of water per year) indicate that releases are not likely to result in impacts to the hydrology of watercourse spring W59 (KCB 2017). REMP monitoring results of past releases (2011 to 2015) indicate no long-term discernible impacts to the aquatic ecosystem condition of Eurombah Creek (FRC 2012, 2013, 2014, NRA 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2016d). Watercourse springs have not been considered further for this assessment.

2.5 Potential sources of contaminants Potential contaminants of treated CSG water at Spring Gully are included in the Spring Gully CWMP (Tables 2-4 of APLNG 2017b) and the Spring Gully REMP (Table 14 of APLNG 2014a).

Surrounding land use in Eurombah Creek catchment contributes to the water quality and aquatic habitat conditions of Eurombah Creek (FRC 2013, 2014, NRA 2016a, 2016b). Cattle grazing and vegetation clearing are a potential source of contaminants to Eurombah Creek, particularly for elevated turbidity, aluminium (associated with increased suspended sediment) and nutrients (ERM 2003, APLNG 2014a, FRC 2014, NRA 2016a, 2016b). Catchment disturbances also contribute to stream bank erosion and appear to influence creek conditions for zooplankton through changes to turbidity levels (NRA 2016a, 2016b); this influence is important when assessing potential impacts associated with treated CSG water from the Spring Gully WTF.

2.6 Environmental values The EPP Water provides for ecologically sustainable management of Queensland waters by determining the environmental values (EVs) of waters and stating the corresponding Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) for different indicators of water quality.



EVs for the Dawson River are listed under Schedule 1 of Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 Dawson River Sub-basin Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives Basin No. 130 (part), including all waters of the Dawson River Sub-Basin except the Callide Creek catchment (EHP 2011). The EVs assigned to waters of the Upper Dawson River − Southern Tributaries (which includes Eurombah Creek) are as follows. • Aquatic ecosystems – moderately disturbed. • Human use:

− stock water − farm supply/use − human consumer of aquatic food − drinking water − industrial use − cultural and spiritual values − recreation and aesthetics.

Australia Pacific LNG evaluated land use and EVs for the Eurombah Creek catchment and determined that there was no drinking water service provider and irrigated cropping in the catchment and determined that drinking water and irrigated cropping EVs for the surface waters of Eurombah Creek are deemed to be not applicable (APLNG 2016a, 2016b)6. For consistency, drinking water and irrigated cropping have not been considered further for this assessment.

2.7 Water quality objectives WQOs adopted for the receiving environment of the Spring Gully WTF are taken from the Upper Dawson River sub-regional water quality guidelines (EHP 2011)7 or site-specific WQOs (calculated for calcium)8 and are used to assess whether the quality of treated CSG water releases from the Spring Gully WTF are protective of the receiving environment EVs and whether releases impact on those EVs.

A site-specific WQO for boron of 1 mg/L for the nearby Condamine River REMP (APLNG 2016b) and the Dawson River (Halcrow 2012 as cited in Acqua Della Vita 2016) has been derived from single chemical Direct Toxicity Assessments (DTAs)9 (Acqua Della Vita 2016). Australia Pacific LNG recently commissioned a desk-based study to evaluate the transferability of these site-specific boron WQOs to Eurombah Creek (study completed by

6 The closest drinking water service provider to the release point lies on the Dawson River at Gyranda Weir, more

than 200 km downstream of the release point (APLNG 2017b). 7 The WQOs in EHP (2011) are sourced from a combination of documents, including regional studies,

Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (QWQG) (EHP 2009) and Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000).

8 The calcium WQO is based on the calcium contaminant release limit in the Spring Gully EA (EPPG00885313).

9 These assessments incorporated algae, aquatic plants, invertebrates and/or fish as test organisms and followed the ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000) guideline value derivation approach, where the sensitivity of a suite of at least five toxicity test species is used to predict the concentrations that would protect a nominated proportion of species in the environment. The Dawson River and Condamine River site-specific guideline values indicate that these watercourses can receive boron concentrations above the default (published) water quality guideline value with low risk to aquatic ecosystems.



Acqua Della Vita 2016). The review considered the quality of release and receiving waters between the three study areas as part of the review. The study conclusion was as follows.

Given the similarity between the receiving environments and release waters (in particular Eurombah Creek and the Dawson River) and also between the release waters, and the DTA and Condamine Rivers, this demonstrates that the same results could also be applied to Eurombah Creek. Eurombah Creek, is a tributary of the Dawson River, has similar receiving environment water quality and is therefore is likely to have a similar response to the boron. As release limits and WQOs are designed to be conservative in order to protect the receiving environment, a release limit of 1mg/L is considered to be suitable for the Spring Gully release.

This conclusion is supported by the REMP Autumn 2016 survey results, which concluded that the biological indicators showed no discernible impact from treated CSG waters with elevated boron concentration (0.94 mg/L) released to Eurombah Creek in March 2016, eight weeks prior to the REMP survey (NRA 2016d).

2.8 Receiving environment monitoring The Spring Gully REMP has been implemented since 2011 to monitor and record the effects of treated CSG water releases from Spring Gully WTF on the receiving environment and to identify and describe the extent of any impacts to local EVs. The results are relevant for the current assessment given the similarities in release volumes between past and proposed releases (Section 2.2).

The REMP monitoring locations are shown on Figure 1, and the results have been reported for the 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 annual reporting periods (FRC 2012, 2013, 2014, NRA 2016a, 2016b) and the summer and autumn 2016 reporting periods (NRA 2016c, 2016d). The results are summarised as follows. • Surface water quality results for receiving sites were generally below WQOs for the

protection of moderately disturbed freshwater ecosystems10 or control (upstream) site results (Appendix D). Exceedances of the WQOs or control site results as a result of releases were as follows. − Major ions (calcium, magnesium, potassium), total hardness (as CaCO3), nutrients

(total nitrogen and total phosphorus), total dissolved solids, silicon, turbidity and alkalinity were lower at receiving sites compared to control (upstream) sites, with readings/values typically increasing with distance downstream of the release point (FRC 2014, NRA 2016a). The results suggest that releases have dilution effects on the receiving environment water quality.

− Dissolved boron concentrations at receiving sites occasionally (13 of 80 sampling occasions) exceeded the published WQO (0.370 mg/L, 95% species protection) (ie ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000) and background concentrations (range: <0.005-0.115 mg/L, Appendix D) but not the proposed site-specific WQO (1.0 mg/L, Section 2.6).

10 The WQOs adopted for the REMP are taken from published guidelines (ie Dawson River Sub-Basin

EVs and WQOs Guidelines (EHP 2011), Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (QWQG) (EHP 2009) and Australian Water Quality Guidelines (AWQG) (ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000)) for aquatic ecosystem protection.



• Sediment quality results for receiving sites show that sample values for most parameters were below the published (ie Simpson et al. 2013) guideline values or within the range recorded at control sites for the same surveys (for parameters without guideline values). Where there were exceedances of the published guideline values or control site results, these exceedances were considered to be due to natural mineralisation and not related to releases of treated CSG water (NRA 2016a, 2016b). The exception was total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH), which was recorded in the stream sediment and release waters during the 2011 reporting period (FRC 2012).

• Aquatic habitat results suggest no discernible impact from treated CSG water releases, with habitat bioassessment scores11 for receiving sites comparable to control sites.

• Site condition assessment results indicated no discernible impact on bank stability as a result of treated CSG water releases. Bank disturbance due to cattle traffic and flood flows was evident at receiving environment and control (upstream) sites (FRC 2014, NRA 2016a, 2016b).

• Phytoplankton biomass results (measured as chlorophyll-a concentrations) indicated no discernible impact from releases, with chlorophyll-a concentrations comparable between control and receiving sites.

• Water level assessments indicated that releases potentially resulted in more stable water levels in the receiving environment compared to upstream conditions (FRC 2014, NRA 2016b). Water level results for the 2012 and 2013 reporting periods showed that water levels at receiving sites remained approximately at the watermark12 compared with a decrease of up to 1.0 m at control sites for the same period (Appendix E). The receiving environment coincides with an area of known groundwater influence (pers. comm. Matt Kernke, Senior Environmental Advisor – Technical, Australia Pacific LNG, 15 February 2016); however, the extent to which releases and/or groundwater contributed to the elevated water levels in the receiving environment was unclear (FRC 2014).

• Aquatic macroinvertebrate results generally indicate no long-term discernible impacts from treated CSG water releases13. Aquatic macroinvertebrate abundance at receiving site SGR3 (site closet to the release point) for the 2013 reporting period surveys was less variable (compared to control sites) between the four (summer, autumn, winter and spring) 2013 surveys. This was possibly due to stable water levels; however, it was unclear whether stable water levels were directly related to releases or other factors (eg ground water influence) (FRC 2014). Monitoring in 2014 and 2015 showed that aquatic macroinvertebrate abundances at site SGR3 were comparable to control sites and no ongoing trend was apparent.

• Zooplankton results were spatially and temporally variable, with results for most surveys indicative of no water quality impact from releases. Lower abundances of zooplankton were recorded at the three receiving sites (ie SGR3, SGSW20 and SGSW21) closest to the release point (compared to control sites) during the autumn and/or winter 2014 surveys when there had been releases preceding the surveys. Monitoring undertaken in the spring 2014 survey showed that zooplankton abundances at receiving sites were comparable to control sites and no ongoing trend was apparent.

11 Following the Queensland AusRivAs habitat assessment protocol (DNRM 2001). 12 The watermark is the normal water inundation level in a stream, and is shown by the limit of terrestrial

grasses, or by eroded area, or boundary in bank sediment types (DNRM 2001). 13 The REMP study design for aquatic macroinvertebrates includes spatial (receiving environment and

control (upstream) sites) and temporal comparisons of aquatic macroinvertebrate community composition, taxa richness, total abundance, PET taxa richness and SIGNAL 2 (APLNG 2014a).



In addition to seasonal REMP monitoring, Australia Pacific LNG collects daily in-river temperature measurements (using loggers deployed at sites upstream and downstream of Eurombah Creek-Eastern Gully Confluence) because the temperature of treated CSG water release can be elevated compared to Eurombah Creek waters (APLNG 2016b). Temperature measurements for the control (upstream) site are presented in Appendix F and demonstrate considerable temporal variability in Eurombah Creek, with temperature varying daily by up to 7oC and across the year by as much as 20oC. These natural temperature differences were much greater than the differences recorded during releases between control and receiving environment sites which varied, on average, by 0.5oC (2.4oC maximum) over the monitoring period.



3. Methods

3.1 Databases and literature A desk-based review of relevant and available information, including database records, mapping and published literature, was undertaken.

The desk-based review considered information from the following sources. • Results from database searches.

− EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool (DoEE 2016a). An EPBC Act Protected Matters Report (Appendix G) was generated for the Spring Gully WTF receiving environment ie from the release point downstream to the Dawson River-Eurombah Creek confluence.

− EHP Wildlife Online database (EHP 2016a). To obtain coverage of the Spring Gully WTF receiving environment, a 30 km search radius was applied to centre point -25.9692, 149.3349.

− EHP Species Profile. All location records were obtained for the White-throated Snapping Turtle (Elseya albagula) (EHP 2016b).

− Atlas of Living Australia (ALA) database (ALA 2016). The same search area as the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool was applied.

• Regional Ecosystem Description Mapping (version 8), including mapping and descriptions of Broad Vegetation Groups (EHP 2016c).

• Published water quality guidelines. − Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 Dawson River Sub-basin Environmental

Values and Water Quality Objectives Basin No. 130 (part), including all waters of the Dawson River Sub-Basin except the Callide Creek catchment (EHP 2011).

− Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (QWQG) (EHP 2009). − National Water Quality Guidelines (ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000).

• Site specific documents/data. − Spring Gully Receiving Environment Monitoring Program design report (APLNG

2014a). − Spring Gully Receiving Environment Monitoring Program annual reports 2011, 2012,

2013, 2014 and 2015 (FRC 2012, 2013, 2014, NRA 2016a, 2016b). − Spring Gully Coal Seam Gas Water Management Plan (CWMP) (Revision 6) (APLNG

2017a). − Spring Gully Development EPBC Referral Eurombah Creek Surface Water Impact

Assessment – Spring Gully North-West and North East report (KCB 2017). − Ground truthed Regional Ecosystem Description Mapping (APLNG unpublished data).

• Published ecotoxicological references and databases (eg USEPA ‘ECOTOXicology knowledgebase’ (USEPA 1994)).

• Google Earth imagery.



3.2 Significant impact assessment The assessment of potential impacts of the Project on MNES (provided in Section 4.2) included assessment against the ‘significant impact criteria’ in the following EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines. • Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (DoE 2013a). • Significant Impact Guidelines 1.3 (DoE 2013b).

The WQOs and risk-based approaches nominated in published water quality guidelines were used to assess whether the quality of water released by the proposed action would be suitable for the protection of the receiving environment EVs and whether releases are likely to impact on those EVs.

This impact assessment considered the hydrological and water quality modelling results (KCB 2017) as well as the findings of five years (2011-2015) of REMP monitoring of past releases that were comparable to the proposed Project releases in terms of release volume.



4. Results

4.1 Summary of hydrological and water quality modelling results

The Spring Gully Development EPBC Referral Eurombah Creek Surface Water Impact Assessment – Spring Gully North-West and North East report (KCB 2017) presents the results of hydrological (flow velocities and water levels) and water quality modelling that was undertaken to inform the assessment of potential impacts of the proposed Project on MNES.

The hydrological modelling involved dry weather and wet weather scenarios14 and three Spring Gully WTF release scenarios − Project only (ie 280 ML of water per year), current conditions (ie 500 ML of water per year) and the cumulative scenario (ie 700 ML of water per year) – using a HEC-RES15 model (KCB 2017). The methods, including assumptions/limitations associated with the simulations, and results are presented in KCB (2017). Potential impacts of the Project only release scenario (ie 280 ML of water per year) on the surface water flow regime of Eurombah Creek is described in KCB (2017) as follows.

Project only Spring Gully WTF release in Eurombah Creek has been conservatively predicted to result in a 0.30% to 0.44% decrease in stream flow, a 0.005 m/s to 0.008 m/s decrease in average flow velocities and a reduction in creek levels of up to 0.6 cm in comparison to the current conditions Spring Gully WTF release (500 ML/year).

Therefore, the proposed development is unlikely to result in any significant impact to the current surface water flow regime of Eurombah Creek; as the predicted flow rates, flow velocities and creek levels have slightly decreased from current conditions. Additionally, as flows within Eurombah Creek are intermittent and no downstream users of the water resources have been identified, a significant impact to the flow regime as a result of the Project WTF release is not predicted.

Assessment of potential impacts to water quality in Eurombah Creek as a result of the proposed Spring Gully WTF releases was conducted using a mass balance water quality model. Potential impacts of the Project only release scenario (ie 280 ML of water per year) on surface water quality of Eurombah Creek is described in KCB (2017) as follows.

Water quality concentrations for the parameters identified in the Spring Gully EA (EPPG00885313), were predicted along Eurombah Creek for the median and 1 in 20 year, wet year scenarios. Results from this modelling indicate:

14 Simulations were based on annual rainfall cycles, with the dry weather year scenario based on median

year annual rainfall and the wet weather year scenario based on the 95th percentile year annual rainfall. 15 HEC-RES is a computer program that models the hydraulics of water flow through natural rivers. The

assessment was undertaken by KCB (2017), and input data for the assessment included: (i) channel characteristic parameters (eg Manning’s coefficient) (sourced from EECO (2007)), (ii) channel morphology (sourced from LiDAR data) and (iii) catchment discharge data (ie runoff from natural sub-catchments that contribute to Eurombah Creek), which was simulated based on an Australian Water Balance Model that was developed for this assessment (KCB 2017) and calibrated against the DNRM Brookfield Gauging Station (pers. comm. C. Strochotta, KCB, 16 December 2016).



• On average chemical loading from the Spring Gully WTF release during flow periods in Eurombah Creek is diluted by the natural runoff from the Eurombah Creek catchment resulting in downstream water quality concentrations lower than the contaminant release limits (Spring Gully EA (EPPG00885313)), with greater dilution (i.e. lower concentrations) predicted for the 1 in 20 year, wet year conditions in comparison to the median year conditions. However, these water quality concentrations are higher than the water quality from the catchment upstream of the Spring Gully WTF release location (i.e. background water quality) due to the chemical load from the WTF release. In comparison to the applicable WQOs for the Project (Table 1-1), the predicted water quality concentrations would: − be compliant for pH, EC, calcium and sulphate concentrations; and, − exceed the current boron WQO concentration (0.37 mg/L). This exceedance is due to

the adopted WTF release boron concentration (1 mg/L), which results in a predicted average boron concentration ranging from 0.39 mg/L to 0.67 mg/L.

• In comparison to average current conditions water quality concentrations (500 ML/year Spring Gully WTF release) from monitoring locations downstream of the Spring Gully WTF release location, the predicted water quality concentrations from Point 5 (modelled location immediately downstream of the WTF release location) would be: − similar for pH; − slightly lower for boron, sodium, sulphate, chloride and electrical conductivity; and, − slightly higher for calcium.

• Spring Gully WTF release during “no flow” periods, under both climate scenarios, in the Eurombah Creek catchment is predict to result in the transfer of the WTF chemical load to the confluence of the Dawson River. However, this is a result of the conservatism associated with the water balance / water quality model which retains the WTF release in the system (i.e. no losses from the system). In reality, this is unlikely to occur as losses associated with seepage, evaporation and storage accumulation would limit the extent of the WTF release downstream flow.

4.2 MNES potentially impacted by Spring Gully WTF treated CSG water releases

The desk-based review determined that the following MNES do not occur in the Spring Gully WTF receiving environment (Appendix G) or are not likely to be directly impacted as a result of the proposed Project: • World Heritage properties. • National Heritage places. • Wetlands of international importance. • Commonwealth marine areas. • The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. • Nuclear actions (including uranium mining).

No further assessment is necessary for these MNES.

The remaining MNES, which may be relevant to the proposed Project, are: • listed threatened species and ecological communities • listed migratory species



• a water resource, in relation to CSG development and large coal mining development.

Each of these MNES is addressed below.

4.2.1 Listed threatened and migratory species Listed threatened and migratory species that occur, or potentially occur, within the Spring Gully WTF receiving environment, which may be impacted by the proposed activity, are listed in Table 1. Other listed threatened species identified in the EPBC Act Protected Matters Report (Appendix G) are terrestrial species and are not likely to be present in the receiving environment of the proposed Project, while the other migratory species listed in the EPBC Act Protected Matters Report are terrestrial or marine migratory species (Appendix G) and are not likely to be affected by the Project.

Table 1: Listed threatened and migratory species occurring, or potentially occurring, within the receiving environment

Species EPBC Act Status Occurrence

White-throated Snapping Turtle (Elseya albagula) Critically Endangered Present

Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea) Critically Endangered/Migratory

Potentially present1

Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis) Endangered/Migratory Potentially present1

Fork-tailed Swift (Apus pacificus) Migratory Potentially present1

White-throated Needletail (Hirundapus caudacutus) Migratory Potentially present1

Latham’s Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii) Migratory Potentially present1 1 Based on desk-based review of database records and available information.

The White-throated Snapping Turtle has been recorded in the study area, approximately 4.5 km downstream of the release point, during a REMP survey16. Therefore, an impact assessment significance determination has been completed for the White-throated Snapping Turtle and is presented in Section 4.2.1.

The nearest ALA and EHP Wildlife Online records for the wetland birds, Australian Painted Snipe17 and Curlew Sandpiper18, are more than 30 km from the Spring Gully WTF receiving environment. • The Curlew Sandpiper is a non-breeding migrant to Australia that mainly occurs on

intertidal mudflats in sheltered coastal areas; however, it is sometimes recorded inland in Queensland (TSSC 2015). The receiving environment is likely to represent, at best, marginal habitat for this species.

• The Australian Painted Snipe is patchily distributed across northern and eastern Australia, with scattered records from central and south-western Australia (Barrett et al. 2003, Garnett et al. 2011, TSSC 2013). The species’ distribution and ecology is poorly known because the

16 One White-throated Snapping Turtle was recorded at REMP site SGSW22 in September 2012 (pers.

comm. FRC Environmental, 19 October 2012). 17 -25.5° latitude; 149.5° longitude (ALA 2016). 18 -27.358° latitude; 151.100° longitude (EHP 2016a).



Australian Painted Snipe is cryptic in behaviour and highly nomadic. When breeding, these birds prefer temporary freshwater or brackish wetlands with low vegetation (avoiding tall, dense reeds) during the flush of productivity that follows recent flooding by freshwater (Tzaros et al. 2012). The habitat preferences of the Australian Painted Snipe are less specialised during the non-breeding period, with birds occurring in recently flooded, temporary wetlands and various fresh to slightly brackish wetlands (Tzaros et al. 2012). The Australian Painted Snipe may occasionally use artificial habitats such as reservoirs, farm dams, sewage ponds, inundated grassland and irrigation channels (Tzaros et al. 2012, Marchant & Higgins 1993). The receiving environment is likely to represent, at best, marginal habitat for this species.

The Spring Gully WTF receiving environment contains, at best, marginal habitat for the Curlew Sandpiper and Australian Painted Snipe, and neither species is expected to occur within the receiving environment on a regular or predictable basis. Furthermore, potential changes in water quality and habitats are not considered to be of sufficient scale to significantly impact on individuals that may episodically use the receiving environment, and these species are not considered further in this report.

The Fork-tailed Swift, White-throated Needletail and Latham’s Snipe are migratory species (Appendix G, ERM 2016) that may occur in the broader area encompassing the receiving environment. The water releases are not likely to negatively impact these species and, together with other migratory species (Appendix G), they are not considered further in this report.

4.2.2 Listed Threatened Ecological Communities Listed Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs) are known, or predicted, to occur within the broader landscape at the Spring Gully Regional Assessment Area (Appendix G).

Three19 of the four identified TECs are terrestrial and are not likely to be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed CSG water releases from Spring Gully.

Queensland Government Regional Ecosystem Mapping (EHP 2016c) indicates that a Regional Ecosystem (RE) type (RE 11.3.3) that potentially correlates with the ‘Coolibah – Black Box Woodlands of the Darling Riverine Plains and the Brigalow Belt South Bioregions’ (hereafter Coolibah-Black Box Woodlands) TEC20 is present in the riparian zone on the mid to lower reaches of the receiving environment, from a point approximately 25 km downstream of the release point to the Dawson River-Eurombah Creek confluence. To qualify as the TEC, the on-ground extent of RE 11.3.3 would need to satisfy specific criteria relating to patch size, species composition and community structure as defined in TSSC (2011). These criteria can only be confirmed via field assessment.

The Coolibah-Black Box Woodlands, and the broader TEC, are found on periodically waterlogged floodplains, swamp margins, ephemeral wetlands, and stream levees (TSSC 2011). The preferred hydrological regimes are described in TSSC (2011) as follows. • Coolibah persists where there is long dry interflood conditions as well as periodic flooding.

The duration of flooding events that Coolibah needs or can tolerate is not fully understood, though will be influenced by soil type and may be in the order of weeks. The species may

19 Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and codominant); Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt

(North and South) and Nandewar Bioregions; and Weeping Myall Woodlands. 20 Listed as endangered under the EPBC Act.



require approximately one flood in 10-20 years to survive. It is intolerant of long-term water-logged soils or flooding.

• The frequency of floods required to support Black Box is once every 3-5 years, though it can tolerate reduced frequencies such as one in 7-10 years if there is no reduction of flood duration. Flood durations to support Black Box are 4-6 months. Tree death of Black Box can result from long periods without flooding, as a result of lack of water and accumulation of salt, as well as extended periods of flooding/inundation (12-18 months).

Potential impacts of the proposed Project on the hydrology (flow velocities, water levels and river-floodplain connectivity) and bank stability of Eurombah Creek were described in KCB (2017) as follows.

• Potential impacts to river / floodplain connectivity as a result of the Spring Gully WTF release for the Project are unlikely. The predicted decrease in the Eurombah Creek water levels for the Project is up to 0.6 cm, in comparison to current conditions. However, the magnitude of the predicted water level decrease is anticipated to be within the seasonal variability of water levels within the creek, therefore, the river / floodplain connectivity is unlikely to change as a result of the Spring Gully WTF release for the Project.

• The flow velocities predicted from the HEC-RAS simulations were assessed on a Hjulström Curve (Boulton et. al., 2014) to assess the potential impact to the Eurombah Creek banks as a result of changes in the flow velocities. The predicted average flow velocity for the current condition scenario (500 ML/year WTF release) varies from 0.187 m/s, during median rainfall conditions, to 0.272 m/s during the 1 in 20 year, wet year, rainfall conditions. In comparison, the Project only scenario varies from 0.179 m/s to 0.267 m/s; while the cumulative scenario varies from 0.193 m/s to 0.276 m/s for the median and 1 in 20 year, wet year, rainfall conditions, respectively. These flow velocities, when applied to creek systems comprising sand, silt and clay (similar to Eurombah Creek) are below the critical erosion velocity for these particle sizes (i.e. ~0.4 m/s for sand, ~200 m/s for clay). Therefore, changes in the flow velocities as a result of the Project and cumulative scenarios does not pose an erosion risk to the creek.

Significant impacts on the Coolibah-Black Box Woodlands TEC as a result of the Project only release scenario (ie 280 ML per year) are not anticipated. Modelling results indicate that releases are not likely to result in significant impacts to the surface water flow regime and water quality of Eurombah Creek (KCB 2017). The Project only release scenario is comparable to past releases in terms of release volume. REMP monitoring results of past releases (2011 to 2015) indicate no long-term discernible impacts to the aquatic ecosystem condition of Eurombah Creek as a result of treated CSG water releases (FRC 2012, 2013, 2014, NRA 2016a, 2016b). The Coolibah-Black Box Woodlands TEC has not been considered further for this assessment.

4.2.3 A water resource in relation to coal seam gas development Treated CSG water is produced as an ancillary activity to the extraction of CSG in the Spring Gully Development Area. Releases of treated CSG water to Eurombah Creek occur when surplus treated water remains after beneficial use. Therefore, the release of treated CSG water from the Spring Gully WTF to Eurombah Creek is an action that has the potential to impact on a water resource MNES. The impact assessment significance determination for ‘a water resource’ is presented in Section 4.2.2.



4.3 Potential project-related impacts to MNES Potential impacts associated with the proposed CSG water releases on MNES are considered to comprise: • reduced instream and riparian habitat quality • increased erosion/reduced stream bank stability • increased water levels • changes in water quality • reduced food availability.

4.4 Significant impact determinations The opinions expressed in this section are based on the technical and practical experience of expert environmental practitioners. They are not presented as legal advice. Nor do they represent decisions from the regulatory agencies charged with the administration of the relevant acts.

4.4.1 White-throated Snapping Turtle Potential impacts of the proposed Project on the White-throated Snapping Turtle were assessed against ‘significant impact criteria’ in the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (DoE 2013a). The results of this assessment are presented in Table 2, and a description of the species’ biology/ecology is provided in Appendix H.

In summary, significant impacts to the White-throated Snapping Turtle as a result of the Project only release scenario (ie 280 ML per year) are not anticipated as the proposed treated CSG water releases are not likely to fragment or reduce the area occupied by the species, adversely affect habitat for the species or interfere with its breeding cycle.

4.4.2 A water resource in relation to coal seam gas Potential impacts of the proposed action on a water resource (ie Eurombah Creek) were assessed against ‘significant impact criteria’ in the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines 1.3 (DoE 2013b). The results of the assessment against aquatic ecology aspects of the criteria are presented in Table 3. An assessment against the hydrological and water quality aspects of the criteria is reported in KCB (2017).

In summary, significant impacts to the aquatic ecology of Eurombah Creek as a result of the proposed Project release scenario (ie 280 ML of water per year) are not anticipated. Modelling results indicate that releases are not likely to result in significant impacts to the surface water flow regime and water quality of Eurombah Creek (KCB 2017), and the proposed boron concentrations in release waters (up to 1.0 mg/L) pose a low risk to the aquatic ecosystem of Eurombah Creek (Section 2.6). The proposed Project release scenario is comparable to past releases (2011 to 2015) in terms of release volume. REMP monitoring results of past releases (2011 to 2015) indicate no long-term discernible impacts to the aquatic ecosystem condition of Eurombah Creek (FRC 2012, 2013, 2014, NRA 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2016d).



Table 2: Significance test for impacts on the White-throated Snapping Turtle from the proposed action Criteria1 Response 1. Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a

population The White-throated Snapping Turtles that occur in Eurombah Creek are part of the Fitzroy River catchment population. The estimated area of occupancy of the Fitzroy River catchment population is 2,150 km of riverine habitat (TSSC 2014). The species occurs throughout the permanent freshwater reaches from the Fitzroy Barrage (near Rockhampton) to the uppermost spring fed pool in the MacKenzie and Dawson sub-catchments (Limpus et al. 2011). Eurombah Creek is on the south-western edge of the White-throated Snapping Turtle’s distribution according to the Department of the Environment and Energy mapping (CoA 2016). The length of Eurombah Creek considered for this assessment is equivalent to approximately 0.04% of the species’ area of occupancy in the Fitzroy catchment. The ephemeral flow regime and aquatic habitats found in Eurombah Creek are represented in other headwater streams of the Fitzroy River catchment (Hydrobiology 2010, APLNG 2014a). As discussed in Criteria 4 and 5, the potential water quality and habitat changes to Eurombah Creek, resulting from the proposed 280 ML per year release scenario are not of the type and scale that would likely result in the long-term decrease in the size of the species’ populations at the sub-catchment and catchment scales.

2. Reduce the area of occupancy of the species OR

3. Fragment an existing population into two or more populations

The length of Eurombah Creek considered for this assessment is a small proportion of riverine habitat occupied by the White-throated Snapping Turtle in the Fitzroy River catchment (~0.04%) and is located on the periphery of the species’ distribution (CoA 2016). As discussed in Criteria 4 and 5, the potential water quality and habitat changes to Eurombah Creek resulting from the proposed CSG water releases are not likely to adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the White-throated Snapping Turtle or interfere with the breeding cycle of the species, or cause the species to avoid occupying Eurombah Creek. Therefore, the area of occupancy of the White-throated Snapping Turtle is not likely to be reduced, and the population is not likely to be fragmented into two or more populations, by the Project.

4. Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species

Important habitats for the White-throated Snapping Turtle include riffle zones, refugial pools, elevated alluvial (sand and loam) deposits, in-stream macrophytes, woody debris (logs) and oxygenated water, which the species requires for foraging, refugia, reproduction, feeding, shelter and cloacal ventilation (Limpus et al. 2011). Modelling results for the Project only release scenario (ie 280 ML of water per year) indicate that releases are not likely to result in significant impacts to the surface water flow regime and water quality of Eurombah Creek (KCB 2017). The Spring Gully REMP results for the 2011 to 2015 reporting periods indicate no long-term discernible impacts on the aquatic ecosystem EV of Eurombah Creek (FRC 2012, 2013, 2014, NRA 2016a, 2016b), including effects on habitats that may be used by the White-throated Snapping Turtle. The



Criteria1 Response following is noted. • There has been no discernible impact on bank stability. The bank erosion noted at receiving environment

sites appeared to be due to disturbances from cattle traffic and natural flood flows. • Sections of stream bank above the watermark (ie the ‘normal’ inundation level) have not been inundated

by releases. • There has been no apparent reduction in refugial pools as a result of releases. • In-stream macrophytes are sparse in Eurombah Creek, and those present have shown no apparent effect

from releases to date. • Surface water dissolved oxygen results showed no apparent effects from releases. As the proposed release scenario (ie 280 ML of water per year) would be comparable to previous releases, and as REMP monitoring (2011 to 2015) has indicated no long-term discernible impact on the Eurombah Creek aquatic ecosystem from releases to date, the proposed Project is not likely to adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the White-throated Snapping Turtle.

5. Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population The breeding cycle of the White-throated Snapping Turtle is linked to the availability of food resources (primarily in-stream macrophytes) and the quality of nesting habitats (Limpus et al. 2011). This species breeds from March to September, using elevated alluvial (sand and loam) deposits from prior flooding events as nesting sites (Limpus et al. 2011). Ecology/biology studies from the Fitzroy catchment identified that the mean (vertical) height that nests were located above the wetted margin of the stream was 2 m (± s.d. 0.6; range 1.2-2.5 m) (Limpus et al. 2011). Results from these studies also suggest that reproductive output of adults is lower during periods of limited food resource (eg in-stream macrophytes, filamentous algae and fruits from riparian trees) availability (Limpus et al. 2011). Modelling results for the Project only release scenario (ie 280 ML of water per year) indicate that releases are not likely to result in significant impacts to the surface water flow regime and water quality of Eurombah Creek (KCB 2017). The Spring Gully REMP results for the 2011 to 2015 reporting periods indicate no long-term discernible impacts on the aquatic ecosystem EV of Eurombah Creek (FRC 2012, 2013, 2014, NRA 2016a, 2016b), including effects on habitats that may influence the breeding cycle of the White-throated Snapping Turtle. The following is noted. • Sections of stream bank above the watermark (ie the ‘normal’ inundation level) have not been inundated

by releases. • In-stream macrophytes showed no apparent effect from previous releases. • Previous releases have not resulted in the growth of emergent macrophytes that could prevent breeding

adults from accessing nesting sites on river banks. • Concentrations of boron in the release waters (below the site-specific guideline value of 1 mg/L



Criteria1 Response (Section 2.6) are not likely to pose a high risk to turtles from chronic toxicity2.

As the proposed release scenario (ie 280 ML of water per year) would be comparable to previous releases, and as REMP monitoring (2011 to 2015) has indicated no long-term discernible impact on the ecosystem condition of Eurombah Creek from releases to date, the proposed Project is not likely to disrupt the breeding cycle of the White-throated Snapping Turtle.

6. Modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline

As described in Criterion 1, the predicted extent of releases would influence a small proportion of habitat available for the White-throated Snapping Turtle at the catchment scale (0.04%). The releases are not likely to destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitats required by the species to the extent the species is likely to decline.

7. Result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the critically endangered or endangered species’ habitat

The principal threat to the White-throated Snapping Turtle is the loss of eggs and hatchlings via trampling by livestock and nest predation by feral (eg pigs, foxes, dogs and cats) and native (eg water rats and varanids) predators (TSSC 2014). Terrestrial and aquatic weeds can prevent turtles from accessing nests on elevated banks (Limpus et al. 2011). The proposed action is not likely to result in the establishment of weeds as release waters are low in nutrients and are non-erosive. Australia Pacific LNG has a vehicle and mobile plant weed hygiene procedure (QEUP-1000-PRO-ENV-025) for staff and contractors accessing the Spring Gully Development Area, this is intended to minimise the risk of spread of weeds across the Spring Gully Development Area.

8. Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline

Releases of treated CSG waters from the Spring Gully WTF are not likely to introduce a disease that may cause the White-throated Snapping Turtle to decline.

9. Interfere with the recovery of the species A formal recovery plan has not been prepared for this species (DoEE 2016b). Releases of Spring Gully WTF treated CSG waters are not likely to interfere with the management strategies in the Draft Management Plan for the conservation of freshwater turtles in the Fitzroy River catchment (Limpus et al. 2007), which aim to address the threats (ie deterioration in habitat and water quality) that impact on the population dynamics and habitats of the turtle species across the entire Fitzroy catchment.

1 EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (DoE 2013a). 2 To the best of NRA’s knowledge, there is no published data on the toxicity of boron to turtles (USEPA 1994). The Condamine DTA and other toxicity assessments included fish and

amphibians as test species (Appendix I). These are the closest taxonomic groups to aquatic reptiles for which there is available data for boron toxicity. The results show that the EC10/LC1021 concentrations of boron for vertebrate groups (range: 2-102 mg/L, Appendix I) were higher than concentrations recorded from the Spring Gully WTF receiving environment (range: <0.005-0.478 mg/L) and at the licenced release point (range: <0.005-0.94 mg/L) from 2010-2016.

21 The measure of toxicity being estimated: EC10 = concentration causing a 10% effect on the test endpoint as determined by point estimation; and LC10 = concentration that results in 10%

mortality of the test organism.



Table 3: Significance test for impacts on a water resource Criteria1 Response 5.4 Guidance on changes to water quality A significant impact on a water resource may occur where, as a result of the action: a) there is a risk that the ability to achieve relevant local or regional water quality

objectives would be materially compromised, and as a result the action:

i. creates risks to human or animal health or to the condition of the natural environment as a result of the change in water quality

The assessment of potential significant impacts against this criterion is covered in the surface water hydrology and water quality assessment completed by Kloen Crippen Berger (KCB) (KCB 2017).

ii. substantially reduces the amount of water available for human consumptive uses or for other uses, including environmental uses, which are dependent on water of the appropriate quality

The assessment of potential significant impacts against this criterion is covered in the surface water hydrology and water quality assessment completed by KCB (KCB 2017).

iii. causes persistent organic chemicals, heavy metals, salt or other potentially harmful substances to accumulate in the environment


iv. seriously affects the habitat or lifecycle of a native species dependent on a water resource, or

The Project only release scenario (ie 280 ML of water per year) is not likely to seriously affect the habitat or lifecycle of a native species. Modelling results for the Project only release scenario indicate that releases are not likely to result in significant impacts to the surface water flow regime and water quality of Eurombah Creek (KCB 2017), and the proposed boron concentrations in release waters (up to 1.0 mg/L) pose a low risk to the aquatic ecosystem of Eurombah Creek (Section 2.6). The proposed Project release scenario is comparable to past releases in terms of release volume. REMP monitoring results of past releases (2011 to 2015) indicate no long-term discernible impacts to the aquatic ecosystem condition of Eurombah Creek (FRC 2012, 2013, 2014, NRA 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2016d).

v. causes the establishment of an invasive species (or the spread of an existing invasive species) that is harmful to the ecosystem function of the water resource, or

The proposed Project only release scenario (ie 280 ML of water per year) is not likely to result in the establishment of invasive aquatic weeds and fish species (or the spread of an existing invasive species). Poor water quality, including reduced dissolved oxygen levels and elevated nutrient levels, and changes in habitat and flow conditions may contribute to the establishment of invasive aquatic weeds and fish species. Modelling results for the Project only release scenario (ie 280 ML of water per year) indicate that releases are not likely to result in significant impacts to the surface water flow regime and water quality of Eurombah Creek (KCB 2017).



Criteria1 Response The proposed Project release scenario is comparable to past releases (2011 to 2015) in terms of release volume. The Spring Gully REMP results for the 2011 to 2015 reporting periods indicate no long-term discernible impacts to habitat condition (beyond background levels), including establishment of weeds, as a result of releases.

b) there is a significant worsening of local water quality (where current local water quality is superior to local or regional water quality objectives), or


c) high quality water is released into an ecosystem which is adapted to a lower quality of water.


1 Significant Impact Guidelines 1.3 (DoE 2013b).



4.5 Cumulative impacts

The Spring Gully Development EPBC Referral Eurombah Creek Surface Water Impact Assessment – Spring Gully North-West and North East report (KCB 2017) presents the results of hydrological (flow velocities and water levels) and water quality modelling that was undertaken to assess the cumulative impact of the Project (ie release of 280 ML of water per year) with additional releases (up to 420 ML per year) totalling the current EA limit (ie 700 ML per year). Interpretation of the modelling results for the cumulative impact release scenario (ie 700 ML of water per year) is described in KCB (2017) as follows.

Predicted Cumulative Flow and Levels The 700 ML/year Spring Gully WTF release rate into Eurombah Creek was simulated in the catchment water balance model (AWBM) and the HEC-RAS model to assess the contribution of the WTF to changes in the creek flow rate, flow velocities and water levels. Two simulations based on the median annual rainfall and the 1 in 20 year, wet year rainfall were undertaken for the 700 ML/year WTF release. Results from the modelling indicated: • an increase in the Eurombah Creek flow is observed immediately downstream of the Spring

Gully WTF release location (Point 5) as a result of the cumulative WTF release, contributing 0.37% of the creek flow during median rainfall conditions and 0.25% of the creek flow during the 1 in 20 year, wet year rainfall conditions, in comparison to the median and 1 in 20 year, wet year rainfall conditions, for the current Spring Gully WTF release contributions (500 ML/year);

• average flow velocities within Eurombah Creek would increase by 0.006 m/s under median conditions and 0.004 m/s under the 1 in 20 year, wet year, conditions as a result of the Spring Gully WTF release in comparison to the median and 1 in 20 year, wet year, rainfall conditions, for the current Spring Gully WTF release contributions (500 ML/year), respectively; and,

• the average water level rise in Eurombah Creek as a result of the Spring Gully WTF release during the median and 1 in 20 year, wet year conditions are both less than 0.5 cm in comparison to the current conditions (500 ML/year Spring Gully WTF release).

The 700 ML/year WTF release rate represents 1.34% and 0.92% of the flows present in the river during a median rainfall and1 in 20 year, wet year rainfall. This shows that the natural runoff of the Eurombah Creek catchment governs the characteristics of flow within the creek, with minimal contribution anticipated from the WTF release for both Project only and cumulative scenarios. Although the cumulative scenario results in a slight increase in flow rate, flow velocity and water level of Eurombah Creek compared with current conditions, this change is unlikely to significantly impact the downstream receiving environment.

Predicted Cumulative Water Quality Assessment of the cumulative impacts on the Eurombah Creek water quality was conducted using the AWBM, updated with the water quality components, based on the Spring Gully WTF release of 700 ML/year. Input water quality concentrations adopted for the Project only scenario are the same for the cumulative scenario. Results from the modelling indicate: • Chemical loading from the Spring Gully WTF release during flow events in Eurombah

Creek is diluted by the natural runoff resulting in downstream water quality concentrations lower than the contaminant release limits (Spring Gully EA (EPPG00885313)), but slightly higher than the Project only predicted concentrations. In comparison to the applicable WQOs for the Project (Table 1-1), the predicted average water quality concentrations would:



− be compliant for pH, EC, calcium and sulphate concentrations; and, − exceed the current boron WQO concentration (0.37 mg/L). This exceedance is a due to

the adopted WTF release boron concentration (1 mg/L), which results in a predicted average boron concentration ranging from 0.41 mg/L to 0.68 mg/L. A DTA (Origin, 2014) was conducted in accordance with ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) guidelines to specifically assess the impact of boron and this concluded that a level of 1 mg/L was acceptable as the WQO. Origin are currently seeking an amendment to the Spring Gully EA with EHP on this basis, and if approved will request to adopt a WTF release limit of 1 mg/L for boron.

Significant impacts to the Eurombah Creek receiving environment from the cumulative release scenario (ie 700 ML of water per year) are not anticipated. Modelling results indicate that the cumulative release scenario is not likely to result in significant impacts to the surface water flow regime and water quality of Eurombah Creek (KCB 2017). REMP monitoring (2011 to 2015) has indicated no long-term discernible impact on the aquatic ecosystem condition of Eurombah Creek from releases to date, including results from 2011 (FRC 2012) in which the release profile from that year (ie 668 ML per year) is comparable to the proposed cumulative release scenario (ie 700 ML per year).



5. References

Acqua Della Vita 2014. Condamine River DTA of boron and treated CSG water, Acqua Della Vita Pty Ltd, Australia.

Acqua Della Vita 2016. Spring Gully CSG Water Management 2016. Technical memo. Evaluation of boron protective concentrations for the Condamine and Dawson River release schemes and applicability to the Spring Gully CSG Water Management scheme. Acqua Della Vita Pty Ltd, Australia, 13 November 2016.

ALA 2016. Atlas of Living Australia. Accessed 13 December 2016, www.ala.org.au.

ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. National Water Quality Management Strategy, Paper No. 4, Vol 1. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council & Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Canberra, October 2000.

APLNG 2014a. Australia Pacific LNG Spring Gully Receiving Environment Monitoring Program (REMP): Eurombah Creek (Q-8200-15-MP-0001) (Revision 3, dated 8 August 2014). Report prepared by Australia Pacific LNG.

APLNG 2014b. Australia Pacific LNG Upstream Phase 1 Receiving Environment Monitoring Program: Talinga and Condabri Central Water Treatment Facility Discharge to Condamine River. Revision 4 (dated 8 August 2014). Report prepared by Australia Pacific LNG.

APLNG 2016a. Technical Memorandum. Contaminant Release (boron) and Eurombah Creek Surface Water Values. Prepared by Australia Pacific LNG, 8 November 2016.

APLNG 2016b. Environmental Authority EPPG00885313 Amendment Application Boron and Temperature (difference) Release Limits. Supporting Information Report for the amendment of the Spring Gully release limits for Boron and temperature, 31 November 2016.

APLNG 2017a. Spring Gully North-West and North-East Development. EPBC Act Referral prepared by Australia Pacific LNG, January 2017.

APLNG 2017b. Spring Gully Coal Seam Gas Water Management Plan. Australia Pacific LNG Upstream Phase 1 (Revision 6) (dated 8 February 2017). Report prepared by Australia Pacific LNG.

Barrett, G. Silcocks, A, Barry, S., Cunningham, R., & Pouter, R. 2003. The New Atlas of Australia Birds. Royal Australian Ornithologists Union, Hawthorn East.

CoA 2016. Species of National Environmental Significance 10km Grids, Version 3. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

DNRM 2001. Queensland Australian River Assessment System (AusRivAS). Sampling and processing manual. Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Rocklea.

DNRM 2016. Underground Water Impact Report for the Surat Cumulative Management Area 2016. The Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment, Department of Natural Resources and Mines. Queensland 2016.

DoE 2013a. Matters of National Environmental Significance: Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1. Department of the Environment, Canberra.

DoE 2013b. Significant Impact Guidelines 1.3: Coal seam gas and large coal mining developments – impacts on water resources. Department of the Environment, Canberra.

http://www.ala.org.au/



DoEE 2016a. Protected Matters Search Tool. Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra. Report generated 13 December 2016, https://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/ protected-matters-search-tool.

DoEE 2016b. Species Profile and Threats Database. Elseya albagula – Southern Snapping Turtle, White-throated Snapping Turtle. Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra. Accessed 18 December 2016, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/ publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=81648.

EECO 2007. Spring Gully Coal Seam Gas Field Assessment of Discharging Reverse Osmosis Permeate to Eurombah Creek. Report prepared for Origin Energy Limited by EECO Environmental Engineering, May 2007.

EHP 2009. Queensland Water Quality Guidelines 2009 (Version 3). Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Brisbane, July 2013.

EHP 2011. Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 Dawson River Sub-basin Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives Basin No. 130 (part), including all waters of the Dawson River Sub-Basin except the Callide Creek catchment. Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, September 2011.

EHP 2014a. General Beneficial Use Approval Associated Water (including coal seam gas water). Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, May 2014.

EHP 2014b. General Beneficial Use Approval – Irrigation of Associated Water (including coal seam gas water). Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, April 2014.

EHP 2016a. Wildlife Online Extract. For the area within approximately 30 km of -25.96°S, 142.8349°E. Queensland Government, Brisbane. Report generated 13 December 2016, https://environment.ehp.qld.gov.au/report-request/species-list/.

EHP 2016b. Species profile – Elseya albagula (Chelidae). Accessed 13 December 2016, https://environment.ehp.qld.gov.au/species-search/details/?id=30272.

EHP 2016c. Regional Ecosystem Mapping Version 8. Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Brisbane, accessed 21 December 2016.

ERM 2003. Durham Coal Seam Gas Project – Creek Discharge Trial Environmental Management Plan. Report prepared for Oil Company of Australia by ERM, July 2003.

ERM 2016. Spring Gully North-West and North-East Development Areas. Matters of National Environmental Significance. Report prepared for Origin Energy Resources Limited Oil by ERM, November 2016.

Fensham, R.J, Ponder, W.F. and Fairfax, R.J. 2010. Recovery plan for the community of native species dependent on natural discharge of groundwater from the Great Artesian Basin. Report to Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management, Brisbane.

FRC 2012. Eurombah Creek Aquatic Ecology Surveys (in accordance with Q-8200-15-MP-0002 Receiving Environment Monitoring Program (REMP): Eurombah Creek). REMP Annual Report (draft). Reported prepared by FRC Environmental on behalf of Origin Energy, February 2012.

FRC 2013. Eurombah Creek Aquatic Ecology Surveys (in accordance with Q-8200-15-MP-0002 Spring Gully Receiving Environment Monitoring Program: Eurombah Creek). Annual Report 2012. Reported prepared by FRC Environmental on behalf of Origin Energy, February 2013.

https://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/protected-matters-search-tool

https://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/protected-matters-search-tool

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=81648

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=81648

https://environment.ehp.qld.gov.au/report-request/species-list/

https://environment.ehp.qld.gov.au/species-search/details/?id=30272



FRC 2014. Eurombah Creek Aquatic Ecology Surveys (in accordance with Q-8200-15-MP-0002 Spring Gully Receiving Environment Monitoring Program: Eurombah Creek Revision 2). Annual Report 2013. Reported prepared by FRC Environmental on behalf of Origin Energy, June 2014.

Garnett, S.T., Szabo, J.K. & Dutson, G. 2011. The action plan for Australian Birds 2010. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia.

Hydrobiology 2010. Australia Pacific LNG Project Environmental Impact Statement Volume 5: Attachments Attachment 17: Aquatic Ecology, Water Quality and Environmental Impact Statement Geomorphology Impact Assessment – Gas Fields.

KCB 2017. Spring Gully Development EPBC Referral Eurombah Creek Surface Water Impact Assessment – Spring Gully North-West and North East. Report (draft) prepared by Kloen Crippen Berger for Australia Pacific LNG Pty Ltd, 23 January 2017.

Limpus, C. J., Limpus, D. J., Parmenter, C. J., Hodge, J., Forest, M. and McLachlan, J. 2007. Draft Management Plan for the conservation of freshwater turtles in the Fitzroy River catchment. Department Environment Protection Agency, Brisbane.

Limpus, C. J., Limpus, D. J., Parmenter, C. J., Hodge, J., Forest, M. and McLachlan, J. 2011. The Biology and Management Strategies for Freshwater Turtles in the Fitzroy Catchment, with particular emphasis on Elseya albagula and Rheodytes leukops: A study initiated in response to the proposed construction of Rookwood Weir and the raising of Eden Bann Weir. Department of Environment and Resource Management, Brisbane.

Marchant, S. and Higgins, P.J. (eds). 1993. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds, Vol 2, Raptors to Lapwings. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

NRA 2016a. Receiving Environment Monitoring Program: Eurombah Creek. Spring Gully. Annual Report – 2014. Report prepared by NRA Environmental Consultants for Australia Pacific LNG Pty Ltd, 15 January 2016.

NRA 2016b. Spring Gully Receiving Environment Monitoring Program: Eurombah Creek Annual Report 2015. Report prepared by NRA Environmental Consultants for Australia Pacific LNG Pty Ltd, 20 October 2016.

NRA 2016c. Spring Gully Receiving Environment Monitoring Program: Eurombah Creek. Interim Report – Summer 2016. Report (Draft) prepared by NRA Environmental Consultants for Australia Pacific LNG Pty Ltd, 23 November 2016.

NRA 2016d. Spring Gully Receiving Environment Monitoring Program: Eurombah Creek. Interim Report Autumn 2016. Report prepared by NRA Environmental Consultants for Australia Pacific LNG Pty Ltd, 2 September 2016.

Queensland Government 2016. Queensland Land Use Mapping Program (QLUMP). Queensland Government data. Accessed 16 December 2016, https://data.qld.gov.au/dataset/queensland-subterranean-aquatic-fauna-database.

Simpson, S. L., Batley, G. E. & Chariton, A. A. 2013. Revision of the ANZECC/ARMCANZ Sediment Quality Guidelines. CSIRO Land and Water Science Report 08/07. Report prepared for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, revised May 2013.

Takahashi, E, McGregor, G. & Rogers, S. 2012. Stream ecosystem health response to coal seam gas water release: Direct toxicity assessment. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

TSSC 2011. Commonwealth Listing Advice on Coolibah - Black Box Woodlands of the Darling Riverine Plains and the Brigalow Belt South Bioregions. Threatened Species Scientific

https://data.qld.gov.au/dataset/queensland-subterranean-aquatic-fauna-database



Committee, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Canberra, ACT.

TSSC 2013. Conservation advice, Rostratula australis (Australian painted snipe). Threatened Species Scientific Committee, Canberra.

TSSC 2014. Conservation advice, Elseya albagula, White-throated Snapping Turtle. Threatened Species Scientific Committee, Canberra.

TSSC 2015. Conservation advice, Calidris ferruginea, curlew sandpiper. Threatened Species Scientific Committee, Canberra.

Tzaros, C., Ingwersen, D. & Rogers, D. 2012. Australian painted Snipe Rostratula australis (Gould, 1838). In: Queensland’s Threatened Animals (Eds. L. K. Curtis, A. J, Dennis, K. R. McDonald, P. M. Kyne & S. J. S. Debus). CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia.

USEPA 1994. AQUIRE (Aquatic toxicity information retrieval) United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, Minnesota, USA.

Appendix A: Proposed treated CSG water

release scenarios

Origin Energy Resources Limited EPBC Act Self-Assessment Report – Spring Gully CSG Water Release to Eurombah Creek Assessment of Potential Impacts

NRA Environmental Consultants Appendix A 1 13 February 2017

Source: KCB (2017).

Figure 1: Spring Gully WTF treated coal seam gas water released to Eurombah Creek, January 2011 to December 2015 (top graph), and the modelled Project only (ie 280 ML per year) and cumulative (ie 700 ML per year) release scenarios (bottom graph)

01020304050607080

ML/

wee

k

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101

106

111

116

121

126

131

136

141

146

151

156

161

166

171

176

181

186

191

196

201

206

211

216

221

226

231

236

241

246

251

256

261

ML/

wee

k

Weeks

700 ML/year WTF Release 280 ML/year WTF Release

Appendix B: Release water quality 2010-2016


NRA Environmental Consultants Appendix B 1 13 February 2017

Table 1: Spring Gully Water Treatment Facility release water quality results collected at the licence release point by Australia Pacific LNG, December 2010 – March 2016

Parameter Units

2010 (Dec) 2011 2012 2013

Cou

nt

Min

20th

%ile

50th

%ile

80th

%ile

95th

%ile

Max

Cou

nt

Min

20th

%ile

50th

%ile

80th

%ile

95th

%ile

Max

Cou

nt

Min

20th

%ile

50th

%ile

80th

%ile

95th

%ile

Max

Cou

nt

Min

20th

%ile

50th

%ile

80th

%ile

95th

%ile

Max

Dissolved Oxygen1 mg/L 2 9.8 - - - - 10 22 7.90 8.60 9.15 9.98 10.95 11.00 - - - - - - - 26 3.56 4.36 5.38 6.08 7.55 7.63

Electrical Conductivity1 µs/cm 4 170 176 191 215 23 237 45 77 158 184 240 582 799 188 152 290 325 353 398 501 134 191 262 297 333 353 398

pH1 - - - - - - - - 45 6.5 6.9 7.2 7.5 7.8 8.0 188 6.8 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.1 8.9 134 6.8 7.3 7.5 7.7 7.9 8.5 Temperature1 °C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 189 12.0 16.0 20.0 26.0 28.2 29.5 134 12 15.9 19.7 24 26.6 29.5 Turbidity1 NTU 2 1 - - - - 1 23 <1 1 1 1 1 1 6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 26 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.4 Total dissolved solids mg/L 2 88 - - - - 119 23 55 80 96 116 259 365 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total alkalinity as CaCO3

mg/L 4 14 17 27 41 48 50 45 12 18 31 46 52 67 19 22 38 40 43 51.5 65 31 21 31 38 46 70 79

Sodium adsorption ratio - 4 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 45 0.7 1.6 2.2 3.1 4.6 24.0 19 2.8 4.3 4.7 6.0 7.0 11 30 2.6 3.6 4.4 5.5 6.7 11.5

Silicon as SiO2 mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Calcium mg/L 4 7.7 8.7 10.7 13.2 14.6 15 45 <0.5 6.8 8.7 12.2 78 97 186 6 8 9.6 11.6 15.8 22 134 5.2 7.5 8.4 11.6 14.8 17.3 Magnesium mg/L 4 1.9 2.1 2.6 3.6 4.2 4.4 45 <0.5 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 2 1 <0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - Potassium mg/L 2 0.6 - - - - 0.6 33 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.2 1.7 2 <0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - Sodium mg/L 4 19 21.4 23.5 24.4 24.9 25 45 15 19.8 27 31 36.6 49 4 <0.5 27.2 46.5 54.4 61.6 64 31 34 43 50 57 60 61 Chloride mg/L 4 46 47.8 52.5 58.8 62.0 63.0 45 25 40.8 46.0 58.2 168.0 220.0 19 52.0 61.8 70.0 76.4 81.0 90.0 31 44.0 57.0 72.0 82.0 94.0 106.0 Sulfate mg/L 2 <1 - - - - <1 43 43 <0.5 <1 <1 <1 <5 17 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 31 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Barium (total) mg/L 4 <0.01 0.01 0.012 0.013 0.013 0.013 45 0.006 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.034 0.097 8 0.03 0.034 0.041 0.057 0.064 0.0643 8 0.018 0.024 0.031 0.035 0.037 0.038 Boron (total) mg/L 4 0.320 0.332 0.355 0.370 0.370 0.370 45 0.200 0.282 0.340 0.444 0.550 0.560 24 0.310 0.356 0.400 0.480 0.530 0.530 39 0.230 0.356 0.430 0.520 0.611 0.640

Manganese (total) mg/L 4 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.007 0.008 45 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 8 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.002 0.003 8 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Parameter Units 2014 2015 2016 (Jan-Mar)

Cou

nt

Min

20th

%ile

50th

%ile

80th

%ile

95th

%ile

Max

Cou

nt

Min

20th

%ile

50th

%ile

80th

%ile

95th

%ile

Max

Cou

nt

Min

20th

%ile

50th

%ile

80th

%ile

95th

%ile

Max

Dissolved Oxygen1 mg/L 14 4.5 5.42 6.7 7.7 8.1 8.1 23 4.5 5.3 6.2 6.8 10.2 13.9 3 7.25 7.362 7.53 7.974 8.196 8.27

Electrical Conductivity1 µs/cm 109 223 274 303 348 385 390 109 3.4 265 300 380 411 424 11 343 365 388 414 417.5 420

pH1 - 109 6.6 7.4 7.8 8.0 8.3 8.4 109 6.5 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.6 8.0 11 6.7 7.1 7.2 7.9 8.2 8.3 Temperature1 °C 94 13.0 18.3 22.9 25.5 28.0 29.5 109 14 20.78 25 27.8 29.1 30.9 11 21.7 24.5 26.6 28.7 29.9 30.7 Turbidity1 NTU 14 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.8 1.8 22 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 13.1 3 0.15 0.154 0.16 0.178 0.187 0.19

Total dissolved solids mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 20 26 31.8 35 42.2 141.8 42 28 29 35.6 46.5 54 59.0 61.0 3 49 51.4 55 56.2 56.8 57

Sodium adsorption ratio - 20 3.1 3.7 4.2 5.3 12.3 119 27 2.8 3.6 4.0 4.6 5.6 5.7 3 4.24 5.184 6.6 6.804 6.906 6.94

Silicon as SiO2 mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Calcium mg/L 108 5.5 7.7 11.3 14.3 19.0 22.3 109 7.4 10.8 12.1 14.6 19.1 28.6 11 7.44 8.04 8.64 10.4 17.56 17.6

Magnesium mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Potassium mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sodium mg/L 20 39.0 44.8 51.5 61.6 141.1 1510 28 37.0 43.0 50.0 64.0 68.3 74.0 3 64 64.8 66 66 66 66

Chloride mg/L 20 59.0 64.8 76.0 85.2 152.4 97.0 28 47.0 67.0 80.0 91.0 99.3 101.0 3 71.0 71.4 72 89.4 98.1 101

Sulfate mg/L 20 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 28 <1 <1 <1 <1 3.95 14 4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Barium (total) mg/L 6 0.029 0.030 0.037 0.048 1.437 1.9 1 0.024 - - - - - 1 0.072 - - - - -

Boron (total) mg/L 25 0.260 0.360 0.440 0.482 0.548 2.000 27 0.370 0.492 0.570 0.618 0.688 0.790 4 0.700 0.820 0.915 0.934 0.939 0.940

Manganese (total) mg/L 6 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1 <0.001 - - - - - 1 <0.001 - - - - - Source: Australia Pacific LNG. 1 Parameter determined in the laboratory (2010-2012) or in situ (2013-2016). - No value.

Appendix C: Eurombah Creek stream flow records and Spring Gully WTF treated CSG water releases


NRA Environmental Consultants Appendix C 1 13 February 2017

Figure 1: Eurombah Creek stream flow (ML/day) measured at the DNRM Brookfield gauging station (130376A), November 2011 to March 2016

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

1/12

/201

01/

01/2

011

1/02

/201

11/

03/2

011

1/04

/201

11/

05/2

011

1/06

/201

11/

07/2

011

1/08

/201

11/

09/2

011

1/10

/201

11/

11/2

011

1/12

/201

11/

01/2

012

1/02

/201

21/

03/2

012

1/04

/201

21/

05/2

012

1/06

/201

21/

07/2

012

1/08

/201

21/

09/2

012

1/10

/201

21/

11/2

012

1/12

/201

21/

01/2

013

1/02

/201

31/

03/2

013

1/04

/201

31/

05/2

013

1/06

/201

31/

07/2

013

1/08

/201

31/

09/2

013

1/10

/201

31/

11/2

013

1/12

/201

31/

01/2

014

1/02

/201

41/

03/2

014

1/04

/201

41/

05/2

014

1/06

/201

41/

07/2

014

1/08

/201

41/

09/2

014

1/10

/201

41/

11/2

014

1/12

/201

41/

01/2

015

1/02

/201

51/

03/2

015

1/04

/201

51/

05/2

015

1/06

/201

51/

07/2

015

1/08

/201

51/

09/2

015

1/10

/201

51/

11/2

015

1/12

/201

51/

01/2

016

1/02

/201

61/

03/2

016

Disc

harg

e (M

L)

Brookfield

REMP field survey

Appendix D: REMP surface water quality data,

2011-2015


NRA Environmental Consultants Appendix D 1 13 February 2017

Table 1: Spring Gully REMP control site water quality results for selected parameters from the 2011 to 2015 annual report periods

Parameter Units WQO2

2011 2012 2013

Cou

nt

Min

20th

%ile

50th

%ile

80th

%ile

95th

%ile

Max

Cou

nt

Min

20th

%ile

50th

%ile

80th

%ile

95th

%ile

Max

Cou

nt

Min

20th

%ile

50th

%ile

80th

%ile

95th

%ile

Max

Dissolved oxygen1 % saturation 85-110 4 71.1 80.0 88.4 100.3 110.9 114.5 10 33.7 47.2 70.8 87.3 104.5 115.9 13 31.2 44.0 68.5 79.7 92.0 99.1

Electrical Conductivity1 µs/cm 370 (base flow) 4 673 723 759 763 766 767 10 351 439 464 543 586 612 13 521 566.6 605 757.4 842.6 950 pH1 - 6.5-8.5 4 7.75 7.86 8.01 8.10 8.12 8.13 10 6.51 6.82 7.24 7.54 7.77 7.77 13 6.4 6.546 7.50 7.886 8.218 8.32 Temperature1 OC 30 4 13.2 14.6 19.0 22.8 23.1 23.2 10 12.5 16.2 18.9 25.0 26.4 26.9 13 13.6 19.2 20.8 26.6 29.3 29.8 Turbidity1 NTU 50 4 4.3 6.1 7.9 9.6 10.9 11.3 9 1.5 6.7 13.3 77.2 190.0 206.0 12 9.6 11.6 17.4 24.5 25.5 25.8 Total dissolved solids mg/L - 4 365 392 460 532 557 565 12 140 165 275 290 308 320 13 268 287 345 392 453 473 Total alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L - 4 228 234 270 316 330 335 12 105 129 163 170 180 185 13 120 153 183 200 227 235 Sodium adsorption ratio - - 4 2 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.5 12 0.55 1.0 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.1 13 1.8 2.1 2.6 3.2 3.7 3.7 Silicon as SiO2 mg/L - 4 2.6 2.7 3.6 4.5 4.6 4.6 12 4.0 5.0 7.0 8.2 23.8 26.5 13 2.6 3.1 3.5 3.9 4.5 4.8 Calcium mg/L >5D 4 48.5 49.7 62.5 77.3 80.5 81.5 12 23.0 30.2 33.0 36.8 40.1 41.5 13 19.0 24.3 33.5 41.4 42.5 43.5 Magnesium mg/L - 4 13.5 14.7 17.3 19.0 19.0 19.0 12 4.9 6.2 6.9 8.0 8.8 8.9 13 6.7 7.9 9.9 11.4 13.4 14.0 Potassium mg/L - 4 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.1 12 6.0 6.8 7.2 7.5 9.0 9.1 13 6.6 7.5 8.8 10.1 11.4 12.0 Sodium mg/L - 4 73.5 81.6 92.8 99.1 99.8 100.0 12 21.5 25.4 40.5 52.0 59.9 61.0 13 46.0 59.8 76.3 107.0 126.7 139.0 Chloride mg/L - 4 81.0 93.9 103.8 106.0 107.1 107.5 12 14.5 19.5 48.8 67.9 75.5 81.5 13 69.5 76.8 97.5 114.0 135.3 145.0 Sulfate mg/L 5 4 6.0 6.9 9.8 12.2 12.4 12.5 12 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.4 4.2 4.5 13 <0.4 1.0 2.0 2.0 6.6 15.0 Total nitrogen mg/L 0.62 4 0.150 0.330 0.475 0.560 0.628 0.650 12 0.275 0.400 0.575 0.850 1.045 1.100 13 0.325 0.510 0.750 0.900 1.580 2.750 Total phosphorus mg/L 0.07 4 0.020 0.020 0.025 0.047 0.067 0.074 12 0.015 0.020 0.040 0.117 0.266 0.280 13 0.030 0.049 0.058 0.068 0.162 0.315 Barium (total) mg/L - 4 0.170 0.176 0.215 0.256 0.263 0.265 12 0.105 0.112 0.128 0.130 0.142 0.145 13 0.084 0.145 0.165 0.190 0.224 0.250 Barium (filtered) mg/L - 4 0.170 0.173 0.213 0.254 0.259 0.260 12 0.001 0.100 0.118 0.129 0.135 0.140 13 0.074 0.102 0.134 0.157 0.170 0.180 Boron (total) mg/L 0.37 4 0.026 0.027 0.038 0.048 0.048 0.048 12 0.017 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.038 0.039 13 <0.005 <0.005 0.029 0.048 0.052 0.054 Boron (filtered) mg/L 0.37 4 0.032 0.034 0.039 0.042 0.042 0.043 12 0.019 0.026 0.029 0.032 0.033 0.034 13 <0.005 <0.005 0.033 0.042 0.049 0.051 Manganese (total) mg/L 1.9 4 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.007 0.010 0.012 12 0.003 0.004 0.007 0.011 0.054 0.057 13 0.0595 0.137 0.165 0.324 0.743 1.350 Manganese (filtered) mg/L 1.9 4 0.026 0.030 0.036 0.040 0.042 0.042 12 0.017 0.030 0.054 0.096 0.152 0.160 13 0.001 0.001 0.009 0.031 0.145 0.282


2014 2015

Cou

nt

Min

20th

%ile

50th

%ile

80th

%ile

95th

%ile

Max

Cou

nt

Min

20th

%ile

50th

%ile

80th

%ile

95th

%ile

Max

Dissolved oxygen1 % saturatio

85-110 11 41.9 57.7 61.4 123.0 139.6 154.1 12 36.1 52.1 67.0 91.8 101.2 109.4

Electrical Conductivity1 µs/cm 370 (base flow) 11 150 165 235 705 880.5 970 12 155 270 422 474.4 601.1 688 pH1 - 6.5-8.5 10 6.55 6.932 7.425 7.984 8.0495 8.09 12 6.83 7.32 7.55 7.958 8.166 8.32 Temperature1 OC 30 11 9.8 11.7 19.0 29.7 31.3 32.8 12 15.0 16.1 22.1 27.4 30.6 32.1 Turbidity1 NTU 50 11 7.7 10.7 14.9 27.9 51.0 56.7 12 4.9 8.7 15.8 202.0 474.1 495.0 Total dissolved solids mg/L - 11 113 143 166 430 481 523 12 196 218 239 324 663 715 Total alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L - 11 88 95 111 179 219 222.5 12 65 75 129 162 165 166 Sodium adsorption ratio - - 5 0.63 0.8 1.8 3.7 4.6 5.0 12 0.66 0.8 1.1 1.3 2.3 2.5 Silicon as SiO2 mg/L - 11 0.6 2.9 4.2 5.1 5.3 5.5 12 0.7 3.0 4.4 5.4 5.7 6.0 Calcium mg/L >5∆ 11 20.0 21.0 25.5 42.5 49.3 52.0 12 11.0 16.8 37.0 40.6 72.3 75.0 Magnesium mg/L - 11 4.0 4.0 5.5 14.0 14.8 15.5 12 2.0 3.4 7.0 8.0 20.9 22.0 Potassium mg/L - 11 4.0 5.0 6.0 11.0 19.0 20.0 12 4.0 4.4 6.0 6.0 8.9 10.0 Sodium mg/L - 11 12.0 15.0 17.5 55.0 110.0 120.0 12 9.0 14.0 27.0 31.2 86.8 95.0 Chloride mg/L - 11 8.0 10.0 10.5 127.5 156.3 177.5 12 5.0 15.6 25.5 35.4 289.0 322.0 Sulfate mg/L 5 11 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 3.5 4.0 12 <1.0 <1.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 Total nitrogen mg/L 0.62 11 0.550 0.650 0.750 1.250 2.500 3.000 12 0.300 0.400 0.600 0.980 1.145 1.200 Total phosphorus mg/L 0.07 11 0.030 0.035 0.050 0.055 0.100 0.110 12 0.010 0.040 0.050 0.158 0.216 0.260 Barium (total) mg/L - 11 0.056 0.071 0.096 0.195 0.235 0.236 12 0.111 0.116 0.139 0.184 0.241 0.259 Barium (filtered) mg/L - 11 0.076 0.083 0.181 0.230 0.244 0.255 12 0.044 0.059 0.100 0.146 0.229 0.249 Boron (total) mg/L 0.37 (1.0)^ 11 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.025 0.048 0.056 12 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Boron (filtered) mg/L 0.37 (1.0)^ 11 <0.05 <0.05 0.043 0.080 0.100 0.115 12 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.050 Manganese (total) mg/L 1.9 11 0.020 0.037 0.154 0.224 0.741 1.256 12 0.013 0.038 0.100 0.189 0.280 0.310 Manganese (filtered) mg/L 1.9 11 0.003 0.009 0.030 0.052 0.612 1.125 12 0.002 0.003 0.009 0.019 0.128 0.173



Source: Australia Pacific LNG. Results which are bold and underlined are above the Water Quality Objective (WQO) (or outside the WQO range) for the protection of moderately disturbed aquatic ecosystems. The median (stressors) or 95th percentile (toxicants) of the control site values has been used for comparison against the WQO, per the

QWQG (EHP 2009). 1 Analyte determined in situ. 2 WQOs for the protection of moderately disturbed aquatic ecosystems as nominated in the Spring Gully Receiving Environment Monitoring Program: Eurombah Creek design report (APLNG 2014a). ^ Site-specific guideline value based on the results of single chemical Direct Toxicity Assessments (DTAs) for the nearby Condamine River (Acqua Della Vita 2014) and Dawson River (Halcrow 2012 as cited in FRC 2014) REMPs. ∆ WQO for calcium represents a minimum value. Results for replicate sample values collected per site and survey in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 reporting periods were averaged prior to calcualting summary statistics. - No value.



Table 2: Spring Gully REMP receiving site water quality results for selected parameters from the 2011 to 2015 annual report periods


2011 2012 2013

Cou

nt

Min

20th

%ile

50th

%ile

80th

%ile

95th

%ile

Max

Cou

nt

Min

20th

%ile

50th

%ile

80th

%ile

95th

%ile

Max

Cou

nt

Min

20th

%ile

50th

%ile

80th

%ile

95th

%ile

Max

Dissolved oxygen1 % saturation 85-110 6 55.4 88.2 95.1 101.0 102.8 103.4 20 66.9 80.3 92.9 116.3 132.8 166.5 30 7.0 70.4 84.6 102.9 136.7 185.3

Electrical Conductivity1 µs/cm 370 (base flow) 6 518 544 627.5 679 845.5 901 20 440 533.8 609.5 699.6 809.45 1217 30 321 417.8 498 849.6 1098.4 1156 pH1 - 6.5-8.5 6 7.18 7.97 8.085 8.27 8.375 8.41 20 6.36 7.248 7.715 7.85 8.07 8.45 30 6.54 7.08 7.47 7.986 9.09 9.51 Temperature1 OC 30 6 15.0 16.4 17.7 19.8 22.2 23.0 20 11.8 13.9 18.6 26.9 28.7 29.3 30 12.8 16.5 22.5 27.1 30.3 32.3 Turbidity1 NTU 50 6 9.7 10.6 11.3 77.7 90.3 94.5 20 2.1 5.1 9.5 19.9 33.1 43.3 28 3.6 5.6 7.4 11.5 29.8 127.0 Total dissolved solids mg/L - 6 298 343 388 440 491 508 24 155 249 340 412 486 675 30 163 219 263 435 562 658 Total alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L - 6 163 190 230 260 279 285 24 72 120 145 208 309 367.5 30 59 82 96 155 270 370 Sodium adsorption ratio - - 6 2.15 2.2 2.2 2.4 5.6 6.7 24 0.05 1.8 2.6 4.1 5.0 18.5 30 2.5 4.1 5.3 6.9 13.1 25.5 Silicon as SiO2 mg/L - 6 0.8 1.8 2.6 3.3 3.4 3.4 24 0.0 1.9 5.2 7.8 8.5 11.5 30 0.7 1.0 1.6 2.8 5.0 8.4 Calcium mg/L >5D 6 23.5 33.5 40.5 53.0 55.3 56.0 24 7.4 19.6 29.8 45.7 77.0 84.0 30 4.3 10.2 12.5 17.1 27.8 35.0 Magnesium mg/L - 6 6.1 9.0 10.3 12.0 12.8 13.0 24 1.6 3.8 6.5 11.0 17.3 18.0 30 0.5 1.0 2.3 4.4 9.3 12.0 Potassium mg/L - 6 4.1 4.1 4.7 5.6 6.4 6.7 24 1.3 3.4 5.6 7.7 8.5 8.7 30 0.6 1.0 1.9 3.7 5.6 6.2 Sodium mg/L - 6 66.0 88.0 89.8 101.5 152.9 170.0 24 36.5 56.8 71.3 85.4 115.9 250.0 30 40.0 68.1 79.0 122.0 184.3 240.0 Chloride mg/L - 6 79.5 86.0 89.3 92.0 113.0 120.0 24 29.5 75.8 90.3 120.0 152.8 160.0 30 59.5 81.9 94.2 142.0 175.0 190.0 Sulfate mg/L 5 6 4.0 6.0 8.5 9.5 12.9 14.0 24 1.0 2.0 4.0 7.1 10.9 18.5 30 0.6 1.5 2.0 5.6 15.7 23.0 Total nitrogen mg/L 0.62 6 0.175 0.225 0.350 0.400 0.438 0.450 24 0.100 0.300 0.400 0.600 0.793 1.000 30 0.050 0.073 0.225 0.810 1.128 1.600 Total phosphorus mg/L 0.07 6 0.020 0.025 0.038 0.060 0.079 0.085 24 0.010 0.030 0.035 0.047 0.087 0.090 30 0.010 0.030 0.035 0.041 0.074 0.225 Barium (total) mg/L - 6 0.110 0.120 0.138 0.180 0.188 0.190 24 0.064 0.079 0.113 0.172 0.230 0.245 30 0.041 0.049 0.059 0.078 0.129 0.175 Barium (filtered) mg/L - 6 0.100 0.110 0.130 0.170 0.178 0.180 24 0.058 0.072 0.103 0.154 0.203 0.240 30 0.021 0.043 0.051 0.072 0.108 0.150 Boron (total) mg/L 0.37 6 0.038 0.053 0.112 0.122 0.150 0.159 24 0.020 0.066 0.107 0.168 0.331 0.349 30 <0.005 0.083 0.314 0.416 0.444 0.481 Boron (filtered) mg/L 0.37 6 0.044 0.060 0.099 0.133 0.139 0.142 24 0.020 0.061 0.101 0.206 0.350 0.370 30 <0.005 0.047 0.297 0.402 0.419 0.445 Manganese (total) mg/L 1.9 6 0.002 0.002 0.006 0.029 0.123 0.155 24 <0.001 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.022 0.120 30 0.020 0.034 0.051 0.092 0.176 0.201 Manganese (filtered) mg/L 1.9 6 0.040 0.041 0.060 0.079 0.166 0.195 24 0.028 0.034 0.053 0.109 0.130 0.140 30 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.009 0.038 0.092

Parameter Units WQO2 2014 2015

Cou

nt

Min

20th

%ile

50th

%ile

80th

%ile

95th

%ile

Max

Cou

nt

Min

20th

%ile

50th

%ile

80th

%ile

95th

%ile

Max

Dissolved oxygen1 % saturatio

85-110 20 47.8 59.7 81.5 97.9 107.1 145.5 19 36.1 54.3 64.7 90.2 104.8 108.9

Electrical Conductivity1 µs/cm 370 (base flow) 20 305 339.4 474.5 834.2 1510.6 1598 19 269 308.2 433 560.2 778.5 1188 pH1 - 6.5-8.5 20 6.3 6.956 7.335 7.928 8.371 9.34 19 7.05 7.322 7.51 7.878 8.433 8.64 Temperature1 OC 30 20 7.6 13.6 22.2 28.4 32.9 33.7 19 14.4 17.2 24.4 27.4 30.2 30.4 Turbidity1 NTU 50 20 2.9 3.9 5.9 12.1 22.1 128.0 19 7.9 10.0 19.9 86.4 269.9 278.0 Total dissolved solids mg/L - 19 238 262 323 422 776 930 19 151 211 244 291 416 625 Total alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L - 19 78 97 126 174 373 440.5 19 72 91 132 159 237 337 Sodium adsorption ratio - - 10 4.9 5.8 7.1 14.1 22.4 23.1 19 1.08 1.3 2.0 4.4 9.0 15.9 Silicon as SiO2 mg/L - 19 0.8 1.5 2.5 3.9 6.0 16.0 19 0.5 2.5 3.8 4.5 5.1 5.2 Calcium mg/L >5∆ 19 7.9 13.3 18.0 22.6 28.3 71.5 19 11.0 15.6 21.0 29.4 32.0 32.0 Magnesium mg/L - 19 1.0 1.8 3.0 4.0 7.3 26.0 19 1.0 2.6 4.0 5.0 5.1 6.0 Potassium mg/L - 19 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.7 7.0 19 1.0 2.6 4.0 4.4 5.1 6.0 Sodium mg/L - 19 56.0 78.4 95.5 148.1 230.8 328.0 19 20.0 21.6 44.0 79.4 151.5 219.0 Chloride mg/L - 19 60.5 83.4 115.0 147.9 216.4 422.0 19 22.0 33.2 40.0 79.0 112.0 148.0 Sulfate mg/L 5 19 3.0 3.0 6.0 9.9 18.2 19.5 19 <1.0 1.4 4.0 5.0 14.2 25.0 Total nitrogen mg/L 0.62 20 0.075 0.200 0.425 0.640 0.715 1.000 18 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.800 1.255 2.700 Total phosphorus mg/L 0.07 20 0.008 0.015 0.023 0.037 0.101 0.115 18 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.116 0.163 0.350 Barium (total) mg/L - 20 0.041 0.059 0.069 0.083 0.123 0.319 19 0.058 0.074 0.102 0.118 0.128 0.134 Barium (filtered) mg/L - 20 0.035 0.053 0.085 0.157 0.198 0.309 19 0.051 0.063 0.072 0.091 0.104 0.109 Boron (total) mg/L 0.37 (1.0)^ 20 <0.05 0.209 0.273 0.317 0.431 0.472 19 <0.05 0.040 0.080 0.168 0.400 0.400 Boron (filtered) mg/L 0.37 (1.0)^ 20 <0.05 0.220 0.271 0.353 0.414 0.478 18 0.050 0.070 0.100 0.158 0.353 0.370 Manganese (total) mg/L 1.9 20 0.001 0.002 0.009 0.027 0.036 0.071 18 0.002 0.004 0.010 0.017 0.043 0.048 Manganese (filtered) mg/L 1.9 20 0.013 0.033 0.070 0.135 0.264 0.330 19 0.019 0.036 0.071 0.127 0.156 0.182



Source: Australia Pacific LNG. Results which are bold and underlined are above the Water Quality Objective (WQO) (or outside the WQO range) for the protection of moderately disturbed aquatic ecosystems. The median (stressors) or 95th percentile (toxicants) of the receiving environment site values has been used for comparison against the

WQO, per the QWQG (EHP 2009). 1 Analyte determined in situ. 2 WQOs for the protection of moderately disturbed aquatic ecosystems as nominated in the Spring Gully Receiving Environment Monitoring Program: Eurombah Creek design report (APLNG 2014a). ^ Site-specific guideline value based on the results of single chemical Direct Toxicity Assessments (DTAs) for the nearby Condamine River (Acqua Della Vita 2014) and Dawson River (Halcrow 2012 as cited in FRC 2014) REMPs. ∆ WQO for calcium represents a minimum value. Results for replicate sample values collected per site and survey in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 reporting periods were averaged prior to calcualting summary statistics. - No value.

Appendix E: Water levels at Spring Gully WTF

REMP sites


NRA Environmental Consultants Appendix E 1 13 February 2017

Table 1: Water levels at Spring Gully WTF REMP sites, Eurombah Creek, November 2012 – November 2013

Survey date Release (ML)^ Water level (m)#

Control Receiving environment SGSW14 SGSW15 SGR1 SGR3 SGSW20 SGSW21 SGSW22 SGSW34

5 to 7 November 2012 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 - - -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 21 to 23 January 2013 0.0 -0.5 - -1.0 - -0.3 -0.5 -0.1 -0.2 18 to 20 March 2013 70.2 0.0 0.0 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 to 18 May 2013 20.1 -0.5 - -1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 to 10 July 2013 91.9 -0.5 -0.5 -1.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 17 to 20 September 2013 26.1 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 7 to 10 November 2013 37.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2

Sources: FRC 2012, 2013, 2014; NRA 2016a, NRA 2016b; REMP photograph catalogue. ^ Total releases in megalitres (ML) from the Spring Gully Water Treatment Facility for the four weeks prior to REMP field survey. # Vertical distance in metres between the pool surface water level and the watermark1. eg -0.5 = 0.5 m below the watermark. - Not recorded.

1 The watermark is the ‘normal’ water inundation level in a stream shown by limit of terrestrial grasses, or by eroded area, or boundary in bank sediment types (DNRM 2001).

Appendix F: Eurombah Creek temperature data

2013-2016


NRA Environmental Consultants Appendix F 1 13 February 2017

Source: Australia Pacific LNG (unpublished data).

Figure 1: Eurombah Creek temperature (oC) results for control (upstream) and receiving environment sites, May 2013 – March 2016

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0Te

mpe

ratu

re (o C

)

Control

Receiving Environment

Appendix G: EPBC Act Protected Matters

Report

EPBC Act Protected Matters Report

This report provides general guidance on matters of national environmental significance and other mattersprotected by the EPBC Act in the area you have selected.

Information on the coverage of this report and qualifications on data supporting this report are contained in thecaveat at the end of the report.

Information is available about Environment Assessments and the EPBC Act including significance guidelines,forms and application process details.

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act

Acknowledgements

Buffer: 1.0Km

Matters of NES

Report created: 13/12/16 10:16:26

Coordinates

This map may contain data which are©Commonwealth of Australia(Geoscience Australia), ©PSMA 2010

CaveatExtra Information

DetailsSummary

http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/environment-assessments

Summary

This part of the report summarises the matters of national environmental significance that may occur in, or mayrelate to, the area you nominated. Further information is available in the detail part of the report, which can beaccessed by scrolling or following the links below. If you are proposing to undertake an activity that may have asignificant impact on one or more matters of national environmental significance then you should consider theAdministrative Guidelines on Significance.

Matters of National Environmental Significance

Listed Threatened Ecological Communities:

Listed Migratory Species:

4

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park:

Wetlands of International Importance:

Listed Threatened Species:

None

19

None

None

National Heritage Places:

Commonwealth Marine Area:

World Heritage Properties:

None

None

7

The EPBC Act protects the environment on Commonwealth land, the environment from the actions taken onCommonwealth land, and the environment from actions taken by Commonwealth agencies. As heritage values of aplace are part of the 'environment', these aspects of the EPBC Act protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of aCommonwealth Heritage place. Information on the new heritage laws can be found athttp://www.environment.gov.au/heritage

This part of the report summarises other matters protected under the Act that may relate to the area you nominated.Approval may be required for a proposed activity that significantly affects the environment on Commonwealth land,when the action is outside the Commonwealth land, or the environment anywhere when the action is taken onCommonwealth land. Approval may also be required for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth agencies proposing totake an action that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment anywhere.

A permit may be required for activities in or on a Commonwealth area that may affect a member of a listed threatenedspecies or ecological community, a member of a listed migratory species, whales and other cetaceans, or a member ofa listed marine species.


None

None

None

Listed Marine Species:

Whales and Other Cetaceans:

13

Commonwealth Heritage Places:

None

None

Critical Habitats:

Commonwealth Land:

Commonwealth Reserves Terrestrial:

NoneCommonwealth Reserves Marine:

Extra Information

This part of the report provides information that may also be relevant to the area you have nominated.

None

NoneState and Territory Reserves:

Nationally Important Wetlands:

NoneRegional Forest Agreements:

Invasive Species: 19

NoneKey Ecological Features (Marine)

http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/environment-assessments

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/permits-and-application-forms

Details

Listed Threatened Species [ Resource Information ]Name Status Type of PresenceBirds

Curlew Sandpiper [856] Critically Endangered Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Calidris ferruginea

Red Goshawk [942] Vulnerable Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Erythrotriorchis radiatus

Squatter Pigeon (southern) [64440] Vulnerable Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Geophaps scripta scripta

Painted Honeyeater [470] Vulnerable Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Grantiella picta

Star Finch (eastern), Star Finch (southern) [26027] Endangered Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Neochmia ruficauda ruficauda

Australian Painted Snipe [77037] Endangered Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Rostratula australis

Mammals

Large-eared Pied Bat, Large Pied Bat [183] Vulnerable Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Chalinolobus dwyeri

Northern Quoll, Digul [331] Endangered Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Dasyurus hallucatus

Corben's Long-eared Bat, South-eastern Long-earedBat [83395]

Vulnerable Species or species habitatmay occur within

Nyctophilus corbeni

For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from recoveryplans, State vegetation maps, remote sensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened ecologicalcommunity distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and point location data are used toproduce indicative distribution maps.

Listed Threatened Ecological Communities [ Resource Information ]

Name Status Type of PresenceBrigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant)

Endangered Community known to occurwithin area

Coolibah - Black Box Woodlands of the DarlingRiverine Plains and the Brigalow Belt South Bioregions

Endangered Community likely to occurwithin area

Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt(North and South) and Nandewar Bioregions

Endangered Community likely to occurwithin area

Weeping Myall Woodlands Endangered Community likely to occurwithin area

Matters of National Environmental Significance

Name Status Type of Presencearea

Greater Glider [254] Vulnerable Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Petauroides volans

Koala (combined populations of Queensland, NewSouth Wales and the Australian Capital Territory)[85104]

Vulnerable Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Phascolarctos cinereus (combined populations of Qld, NSW and the ACT)

Plants

Ooline [9828] Vulnerable Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Cadellia pentastylis

[55231] Endangered Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Tylophora linearis

Reptiles

Collared Delma [1656] Vulnerable Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Delma torquata

Ornamental Snake [1193] Vulnerable Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Denisonia maculata

Yakka Skink [1420] Vulnerable Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Egernia rugosa

Southern Snapping Turtle, White-throated SnappingTurtle [81648]

Critically Endangered Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Elseya albagula

Dunmall's Snake [59254] Vulnerable Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Furina dunmalli

Fitzroy River Turtle, Fitzroy Tortoise, Fitzroy Turtle,White-eyed River Diver [1761]

Vulnerable Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Rheodytes leukops

Listed Migratory Species [ Resource Information ]* Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list.Name Threatened Type of PresenceMigratory Marine Birds

Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Apus pacificus

Migratory Terrestrial Species

Oriental Cuckoo, Horsfield's Cuckoo [86651] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Cuculus optatus

White-throated Needletail [682] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Hirundapus caudacutus

Yellow Wagtail [644] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Motacilla flava

Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Myiagra cyanoleuca

Migratory Wetlands Species

Curlew Sandpiper [856] Critically Endangered Species or speciesCalidris ferruginea

Name Threatened Type of Presencehabitat may occur withinarea

Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Gallinago hardwickii

Listed Marine Species [ Resource Information ]* Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list.Name Threatened Type of PresenceBirds

Magpie Goose [978] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Anseranas semipalmata

Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Apus pacificus

Great Egret, White Egret [59541] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Ardea alba

Cattle Egret [59542] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Ardea ibis

Curlew Sandpiper [856] Critically Endangered Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Calidris ferruginea

Oriental Cuckoo, Himalayan Cuckoo [710] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Cuculus saturatus

Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Gallinago hardwickii

White-bellied Sea-Eagle [943] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Haliaeetus leucogaster

White-throated Needletail [682] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Hirundapus caudacutus

Rainbow Bee-eater [670] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Merops ornatus


Name Threatened Type of Presence

Yellow Wagtail [644] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Motacilla flava

Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Myiagra cyanoleuca

Painted Snipe [889] Endangered* Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Rostratula benghalensis (sensu lato)

Extra Information

Invasive Species [ Resource Information ]Weeds reported here are the 20 species of national significance (WoNS), along with other introduced plantsthat are considered by the States and Territories to pose a particularly significant threat to biodiversity. Thefollowing feral animals are reported: Goat, Red Fox, Cat, Rabbit, Pig, Water Buffalo and Cane Toad. Maps fromLandscape Health Project, National Land and Water Resouces Audit, 2001.

Name Status Type of PresenceBirds

Mallard [974] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Anas platyrhynchos

Rock Pigeon, Rock Dove, Domestic Pigeon [803] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Columba livia

House Sparrow [405] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Passer domesticus

Common Starling [389] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Sturnus vulgaris

Frogs

Cane Toad [83218] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Rhinella marina

Mammals

Domestic Cattle [16] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Bos taurus

Horse [5] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Equus caballus

Cat, House Cat, Domestic Cat [19] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Felis catus

Brown Hare [127] Species or speciesLepus capensis

Name Status Type of Presencehabitat likely to occur withinarea

House Mouse [120] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Mus musculus

Rabbit, European Rabbit [128] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Oryctolagus cuniculus

Black Rat, Ship Rat [84] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Rattus rattus

Pig [6] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Sus scrofa

Red Fox, Fox [18] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Vulpes vulpes

Plants

Prickly Acacia [6196] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Acacia nilotica subsp. indica

Lantana, Common Lantana, Kamara Lantana, Large-leaf Lantana, Pink Flowered Lantana, Red FloweredLantana, Red-Flowered Sage, White Sage, Wild Sage[10892]

Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Lantana camara

Parkinsonia, Jerusalem Thorn, Jelly Bean Tree, HorseBean [12301]


Parkinsonia aculeata

Parthenium Weed, Bitter Weed, Carrot Grass, FalseRagweed [19566]


Parthenium hysterophorus

Reptiles

Asian House Gecko [1708] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Hemidactylus frenatus

- non-threatened seabirds which have only been mapped for recorded breeding sites

- migratory species that are very widespread, vagrant, or only occur in small numbers

- some species and ecological communities that have only recently been listed

Not all species listed under the EPBC Act have been mapped (see below) and therefore a report is a general guide only. Where available datasupports mapping, the type of presence that can be determined from the data is indicated in general terms. People using this information in makinga referral may need to consider the qualifications below and may need to seek and consider other information sources.

For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from recovery plans, State vegetation maps, remotesensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened ecological community distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and pointlocation data are used to produce indicative distribution maps.

- seals which have only been mapped for breeding sites near the Australian continent

Such breeding sites may be important for the protection of the Commonwealth Marine environment.

Threatened, migratory and marine species distributions have been derived through a variety of methods. Where distributions are well known and iftime permits, maps are derived using either thematic spatial data (i.e. vegetation, soils, geology, elevation, aspect, terrain, etc) together with pointlocations and described habitat; or environmental modelling (MAXENT or BIOCLIM habitat modelling) using point locations and environmental datalayers.

The information presented in this report has been provided by a range of data sources as acknowledged at the end of the report.Caveat

- migratory and

The following species and ecological communities have not been mapped and do not appear in reports produced from this database:

- marine

This report is designed to assist in identifying the locations of places which may be relevant in determining obligations under the EnvironmentProtection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It holds mapped locations of World and National Heritage properties, Wetlands of Internationaland National Importance, Commonwealth and State/Territory reserves, listed threatened, migratory and marine species and listed threatenedecological communities. Mapping of Commonwealth land is not complete at this stage. Maps have been collated from a range of sources at variousresolutions.

- threatened species listed as extinct or considered as vagrants

- some terrestrial species that overfly the Commonwealth marine area

The following groups have been mapped, but may not cover the complete distribution of the species:

Only selected species covered by the following provisions of the EPBC Act have been mapped:

Where very little information is available for species or large number of maps are required in a short time-frame, maps are derived either from 0.04or 0.02 decimal degree cells; by an automated process using polygon capture techniques (static two kilometre grid cells, alpha-hull and convex hull);or captured manually or by using topographic features (national park boundaries, islands, etc). In the early stages of the distribution mappingprocess (1999-early 2000s) distributions were defined by degree blocks, 100K or 250K map sheets to rapidly create distribution maps. More reliabledistribution mapping methods are used to update these distributions as time permits.

-25.784683 149.502455,-25.787775 149.519622,-25.79643 149.527175,-25.804466 149.545027,-25.824865 149.572493,-25.881713 149.523741,-25.918156 149.510695,-26.018779 149.34178,-26.045926 149.280669,-26.041608 149.222991,-26.02063 149.172866,-26.056413 149.102141,-25.98854 149.065062,-25.952736 149.126174,-25.937917 149.189345,-25.971874 149.256636,-25.910127 149.36238,-25.873064 149.400145,-25.880478 149.440657,-25.852674 149.463317,-25.809412 149.482543,-25.784065 149.502455,-25.784683 149.502455

Coordinates

-Environment and Planning Directorate, ACT-Birdlife Australia-Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme

-Department of Parks and Wildlife, Western Australia

Acknowledgements

-Office of Environment and Heritage, New South Wales

-Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania

-Department of Land and Resource Management, Northern Territory-Department of Environmental and Heritage Protection, Queensland

-Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Victoria

-Australian National Wildlife Collection

-Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia

This database has been compiled from a range of data sources. The department acknowledges the followingcustodians who have contributed valuable data and advice:

-Australian Museum

-National Herbarium of NSW

Forestry Corporation, NSW-Australian Government, Department of Defence

-State Herbarium of South Australia

The Department is extremely grateful to the many organisations and individuals who provided expert adviceand information on numerous draft distributions.

-Natural history museums of Australia

-Queensland Museum

-Australian National Herbarium, Canberra

-Royal Botanic Gardens and National Herbarium of Victoria

-Geoscience Australia

-Ocean Biogeographic Information System

-Online Zoological Collections of Australian Museums-Queensland Herbarium

-Western Australian Herbarium

-Tasmanian Herbarium

-Northern Territory Herbarium

-South Australian Museum

-Museum Victoria

-University of New England

-CSIRO

-Other groups and individuals-Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart, Tasmania

-Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory

-Reef Life Survey Australia-Australian Institute of Marine Science-Australian Government National Environmental Science Program

-Australian Tropical Herbarium, Cairns

-Australian Government – Australian Antarctic Data Centre

-Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Inveresk, Tasmania

-eBird Australia

-American Museum of Natural History

© Commonwealth of Australia

+61 2 6274 1111

Canberra ACT 2601 Australia

GPO Box 787

Department of the Environment

Please feel free to provide feedback via the Contact Us page.

http://www.environment.act.gov.au/

http://birdlife.org.au/

http://www.environment.gov.au/science/bird-and-bat-banding

http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/

http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/

https://nt.gov.au/environment/environment-data-maps

http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/

http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/home

http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/Collections/ANWC

http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Home

http://australianmuseum.net.au/

http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/science/Herbarium_and_resources/nsw_herbarium

http://www.forestrycorporation.com.au/

http://www.defence.gov.au/

http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Science/Science_research/State_Herbarium

http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/

http://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr/herbarium/

http://www.rbg.vic.gov.au/science/herbarium-and-resources/national-herbarium-of-victoria

http://www.ga.gov.au/

http://www.iobis.org/

http://ozcam.org.au/

http://www.qld.gov.au/environment/plants-animals/plants/herbarium/

http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/plants-and-animals/wa-herbarium

http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/collections_and_research/tasmanian_herbarium

https://nt.gov.au/environment/native-plants/native-plants-and-nt-herbarium

http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/

http://museumvictoria.com.au/

http://www.une.edu.au

http://www.csiro.au/

http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/

http://www.magnt.net.au/

http://reeflifesurvey.com/reef-life-survey/rls-australia/

http://www.aims.gov.au/

https://www.environment.gov.au/science/nerp

https://www.ath.org.au/

https://data.aad.gov.au/

http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/qvmag/

http://ebird.org/content/australia/

http://www.amnh.org/

http://www.environment.gov.au/copyright-statement

http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/contact-us

Appendix H: Ecology/biology information for the

White-throated Snapping Turtle


NRA Environmental Consultants Appendix H 1 13 February 2017

Ecology/biology description for White-throated Snapping Turtle (Elseya albagula)

Distribution The White-throated Snapping Turtle (Elseya albagula) is endemic to the Fitzroy, Burnet and Mary river catchments (TSSC 2014). Genetic studies indicate that the population of the White-throated Snapping Turtle in the Fitzroy catchment has been separated from the Mary and Burnett catchments for an extended period, with the Fitzroy and the Mary-Burnet catchment populations considered to be separate Evolutionary Significant Units (CoA 2016).

Within the Fitzroy River catchment, the White-throated Snapping Turtle occurs throughout the permanent freshwater reaches from the Fitzroy Barrage near Rockhampton to the uppermost spring fed pool in the MacKenzie and Dawson sub-catchments (Limpus et al. 2011). The estimated area of occupancy of the Fitzroy catchment population is 2,150 km of riverine habitat (TSSC 2014). The best recognised population based on nesting assessments is located in the Fitzroy Barrage impoundment (Limpus et al. 2011).

Habitat use The White-throated Snapping Turtle is a habitat specialist, preferring flowing habitat where there is suitable shelter (eg woody debris) (EHP 2016). The species occurs in non-flowing waters, but typically at much reduced densities (Limpus et al. 2011).

Reproductive biology The White-throated Snapping Turtle breeds most years (provided there is sufficient food availability prior to the breeding season) during the dry season, between March and September/October (Limpus et al. 2011). The species nests primarily in elevated alluvial deposits formed from flooding events (Limpus et al. 2011). Previous work in the Fitzroy Catchment identified that the mean distance that nests were located away from water was 16.6 m (± s.d. 11.87; range 1.45-86.3 m) and the mean height above water was 2 m (± s.d. 0.6; range 1.2-2.5 m) (Limpus et al. 2011). Hatchlings emerge in December or January (Limpus et al. 2011).

The species occurs primarily as adults, suggesting poor recruitment of the early life history stages into the population (Limpus et al. 2011, TSSC 2014). The major contributing factors include the long egg incubation period of the species, the damage of nests from cattle trampling and nest predation by native and feral animals (TSSC 2014). Flooding of nesting habitat may also impact on hatchling success (Limpus et al. 2011).

Feeding ecology The one feeding ecology study on the White-throated Snapping Turtle shows that the species undergoes ontogenetic shifts in diet (Rogers 2000). Juveniles feed largely on benthic invertebrates before shifting to instream macrophytes, filamentous algae and fruits from riparian trees as adults (Rogers 2000). Reproductive output may be lower during periods of limited food resource availability.


NRA Environmental Consultants Appendix H 2 13 February 2017

References CoA 2016. Species of National Environmental Significance 10km Grids, Version 3. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

EHP 2016. White-throated Snapping Turtle. https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/animals-az/whitethroated_snapping_turtle.html. Date accessed: 21 October 2016.

Limpus C. J., Limpus D. J., Parmenter C. J., Hodge J., Forest M. and McLachlan J. 2011. The Biology and Management Strategies for Freshwater Turtles in the Fitzroy Catchment, with particular emphasis on Elseya albagula and Rheodytes leukops: A study initiated in response to the proposed construction of Rookwood Weir and the raising of Eden Bann Weir. Department of Environment and Resource Management, Brisbane.

Rogers, V.M. 2000. Dietary ecology including dietary resource partitioning of four species of chelid turtle in a tributary of the Fitzroy, central Queensland. B.Sc. Hons. School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton.

TSSC 2014. Conservation advice, Elseya albagula, White-throated Snapping Turtle. Threatened Species Scientific Committee, Canberra.

Appendix I: Published boron toxicity data


NRA Environmental Consultants Appendix I 1 13 February 2017

Table 1: Chronic toxicity taxa for freshwater vertebrate species to boron Taxonomic group Species Life stage Duration

(days) Toxicity measure^

(test end point) Toxicity value (mg/L) Reference

Amphibian Fowlers toad (Bufo fowleri) Embryo 7.5 LC10 (mortality and development) 55 Dyer 2001; Birge and Black 1977

Leopard frog (Rana pipiens) Embryo 7 LC10 (mortality and development) 48 Dyer 2001; Birge and Black 1977

Fish Goldfish (Cassarius auratus) Embryo 7 LC10 (mortality) 16 Dyer 2001; Birge and Black 1977

Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) Embryo 9 LC10 (mortality and

development) 5 Dyer 2001; Birge and Black 1977

Largemouth bass (Micropteris salmoides) Embryo 11 LC10 (mortality) 6 Dyer 2001; Birge and Black 1977

Eastern rainbowfish (Melanotaenia splendida) Embryo 10 EC10 (mortality) 102 Acqua Della Vita 2014

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Embryo 28 LC10 (mortality) 2 Dyer 2001; Birge and Black 1977

Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) Embryo 32 LC10 (mortality) 13 USEPA 2010

^ The measure of toxicity being estimated: EC10 = concentration causing a 10% effect on the test endpoint as determined by point estimation; and LC10 = concentration that results in 10% mortality of the test.


NRA Environmental Consultants Appendix I 2 13 February 2017

References Acqua Della Vita 2014. Condamine River DTA of boron and treated CSG water, Acqua Della Vita Pty Ltd, Australia.

Birge, W.J. & Black, J.A. 1977. Sensitivity of vertebrate embryos to boron compounds. EPA report EPA-560/1-76-008 Final Report, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances, Washington DC, USA, 67 pp.

Dyer, S.D. 2001 Determination of the aquatic PNEC0.05 for boron. Chemosphere. 44, 369-376.

USEPA 2010. Final Report on Acute and Chronic toxicity of nitrate, nitrite, boron, manganese, fluoride, chloride and sulfate to several aquatic animal species. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Report number EPA 905-R-10-002, Illinois, USA, 160 pp.

Cairns Office: Level 1, 320 Sheridan Street, PO Box 5678 Cairns QLD 4870

P: 61 7 4034 5300 F: 61 7 4034 5301

Townsville Office:Suite 2A, Level 1, 41 Denham Street, PO Box 539 Townsville QLD 4810

P: 61 7 4796 9444 F: 61 7 4796 9410

www.natres.com.au • [email protected]

Natural Resource Assessments Pty Ltd trading as NRA Environmental Consultants. ABN: 77 011 073 135Certified Integrated Management System: AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008 (Quality), AS/NZS ISO 14001:2004 (Environment), AS/NZS 4801:2001 (Safety).

&6* :dwhu 5hohdvh wr (xurpedk &uhhn $vvhvvphqw ri ... · csg activities the approved for...

Documents