Jessica Miller, M NRM 19 March 2018 Independent Scientific Panel Inquiry Locked Bag 33 Cloisters Square PERTH WA 6850 Submission to the WA Fracking Inquiry To whom it may concern, I am writing in response to the Independent Scientific Panel’s call for public submissions as part of the Inquiry into Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation in Western Australia 2017 (Fracking Inquiry). My expertise is in natural resource management, cultural resource management, ecology, and strategic environmental impact assessment and regulation (including working in the Australian Government on coal seam gas mining monitoring and audit). I am currently undertaking a Master of Philosophy research degree with The University of Queensland, focusing on the ecological impacts of forest roads for coal seam gas development on bird communities. As part of this research I am also reviewing the extent to which enigmatic impacts (e.g. cryptic, cumulative and indirect and secondary impacts) are accounted for in the Environmental Impact Statements of Australian coal seam gas developments. In addition, I currently work as an ecologist and environmental-cultural management expert for Environs Kimberley, based in Broome WA. Below I address a number of points within the Fracking Inquiry Terms of Reference, namely: the potential ecological impacts of fracking in WA; impacts on human health and wellbeing; and the extent to which such industries can be adequately regulated by governments. These points are made based on my own expertise as well as peer reviewed literature and government reports. As I do not have the resources to undertake a thorough literature review of all matters discussed here, I have included a range of resources I think should also be considered as part of my submission, and represent an introduction to the matters raised. These are attached to my online submission, and where necessary, with any additional attachments emailed to the panel. I attended the first public meeting for this inquiry, in Broome WA, on 27 February 2018. There I made a number of comments to the chair about ecological concerns related to potential development of fracking industries in WA. These concerns were noted, and some are iterated in this written submission. I ask the panel to note there is very little information on the ecological impacts of unconventional gas mining in Australia. What little research has been done, has targeted the coal seam gas industry, which is primarily based in Queensland. Regarding shale gas mining, which is the prime form of potential unconventional gas development in the northwest onshore environment, my review of online databases revealed no peer reviewed science about potential impacts of the industry on Australia’s biodiversity. I suspect the situation is almost as dire for research on impacts to culture and heritage, social fabric, mental health and individuals. This dearth of science is a familiar problem, it was the same one faced by regulators and decision makers when Australia’s coal seam gas industry began in earnest, around ten years ago. And still now science lags years behind development. For industries like coal seam gas and shale gas, prone to a high level of uncertainty around spatial location of infrastructure, and a dispersed footprint that results in disproportionately high ecological fragmentation and edge effects, it is imperative development only follows after rigorous scientific examination and policy development. Types of infrastructure include gas wells (each with access roads and gathering pipelines), larger transport pipelines and processing facilities. The Western Australian Government must continue to take a leadership role in best practice policy and regulation development, by first completing a comprehensive research program before deciding whether the fragile and ancient WA environment can withstand a new industry like fracking. Due to the lack of good science in Australia, I suggest the panel undertake a thorough literature review of the shale gas industry in other countries. This is one of the best methods currently available to the panel for understanding the potential risks to the environment. I also note that although this inquiry is referred to as a scientific inquiry, the panel must acknowledge the process itself is not at all scientific. It does not appear to require any empirical research to be undertaken as part of the process. This is a major flaw. An additional flaw is the fact that any findings or recommendations are not required to be implemented by the Environment Minister. Thus, as has been the case so far, any rigorous or at least somewhat independent investigation of the impacts of unconventional gas in WA plays second fiddle to political concerns and power. Residents in areas around Perth currently enjoy peace of mind thanks to a permanent fracking ban, while other Western Australians do not – and in many cases must spend time and resources making their own investigations into how a fracking industry might affect their futures. This flaw draws into question the entire process, fairness and usefulness of the inquiry. 1 Northern WA There is a lot to learn about the ecology of northern WA. Many faunal groups require a lot more taxonomic work to decide how many species exist and how they differ from each other. And due to the remoteness, and variable nature of its biotic and abiotic systems, it is likely there are still many undiscovered plants (not to mention invertebrates, including stygofauna). The WA Government is not currently funding its scientific organisations in a way that can address this lag, and so we must wait years to understand what actually exists up in the Kimberley and Canning Basin, after which come the necessary tasks of ascertaining their biology, ecology, levels of threat and best practice conservation methods. Northern WA is recognised for its irreplaceable culture and heritage value, paleontological importance, its biological diversity and stunning landscapes. These attributes are valued by Australians and people all around the world. These values must be protected if northern WA is to support thriving communities, maintain its successful tourism industry and provide a sustainable ecological bank for future generations to rely upon. 2 Ecological impacts Shale and tight gas development in Australian really only have one related case study that can be used to understand ecological risks from a regulatory and environmental impact assessment perspective. The coal seam gas mining industry in Queensland was allowed to progress with no preliminary assessment of the risks of the industry as a whole, to people and the environment. If the WA Government, Ministers and this fracking inquiry panel are to be considered as having undertaken due diligence and good quality policy development in the area of unconventional gas mining, they must begin this process with a whole-of-industry assessment of potential impacts. This means estimating the worst case scenarios if the industry was allowed to establish in WA. In the Canning Basin and across WA there is a need to understand not just how individual wells or developments might impact ecosystems, but how they might impact biodiversity collectively. Modelling for likely development scenarios, coupled with species habitat modelling and maps is a method that has already been used as a way of understanding impacts from regional development (e.g. for the Perth Peel Strategic Environmental Assessment undertaken by the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy). This sort of research should be done for the unconventional gas industry as a whole, prior to a decision by any WA Minister as to the acceptability of ecological impacts from this industry. Land-based unconventional gas extraction (I refer primarily to shale gas, tight gas and coal seam gas) has a range of ecological impacts, including those listed below. These impacts will affect most matters of biodiversity – threatened species, birds, reptiles, amphibians, aquatic species, ecosystems (including threatened and priority ecosystems): • Habitat loss (removal of habitat for infrastructure development) • Fragmentation of habitat • Edge effects • Spills and contamination • Cumulative impacts • Other enigmatic impacts (such as secondary, cryptic and offsite impacts – refer to Raiter et al., 2014 for definitions of these terms), and • Unforeseen impacts (unpredictable and perverse impacts). One need only refer to the publicly available species management plans, environmental returns and approval conditions of the major coal seam gas projects in Queensland, to understand the scale of ecological impacts likely to be caused by unconventional gas development in Western Australia. For many species this consists of thousands of hectares of habitat removal, and for other species, such as marine turtles, measuring the area or individuals impacted by coastal infrastructure development and shipping is almost impossible. Unfortunately the Australian and Queensland governments were woefully unprepared for the issues associated with estimating the impacts of these spatially/temporally massive projects. This is seen in the many variations to those projects’ approval conditions (virtually all of these are requests from proponents to increase their approved habitat clearance limits). The measurement of direct and indirect impacts is a complex and difficult task. As noted above, the major onshore unconventional developments in Australia have largely failed to provide transparent, repeatable