Santos Coal Seam Gas Fields Aquatic Ecology Impact Assessment
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Santos Coal Seam Gas Fields Aquatic Ecology Impact Assessment Prepared for: URS Australia Pty Ltd frc environmental PO Box 2363 Wellington Point Qld 4160 Telephone: + 61 7 3820 4900 Facsimile: + 61 7 3207 5640 frc Ref: 080702iv frc environmental Document Control Summary Project No.: 080711 Status: Report Project Director: John Thorogood Project Manager: Andrew Olds Title: Santos Coal Seam Gas Fields: Aquatic Ecology Impact Assessment Project Team: C. Jones, T. Napier-Munn, A. Olds, L. Thorburn, J. Thorogood, S. Walker Client: URS Australia Client Contact: Dan Simmons, Benita Blunden Date: February 2009 Edition: 080711Rv Checked by: John Thorogood Issued by: Andrew Olds Distribution Record URS Australia: 1 pdf and 1 word.doc This work is copyright. A person using frc environmental documents or data accepts the risk of: a) Using the documents or data in electronic form without requesting and checking them for accuracy against the original signed hard copy version; and b) Using the documents or data for any purpose not agreed to in writing by frc environmental. Santos Coal Seam Gas Fields: Aquatic Ecology Impact Assessment frc environmental Contents Glossary 1 Executive Summary 4 1 Introduction 1.1 The GLNG Project 7 1.2 The CSG Fields 8 2 Relevant Legislation and Guidelines 2.1 Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 13 2.2 Queensland Water Act 2000 18 2.3 Queensland Fisheries Act 1994 18 2.4 Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992 19 3 Study Methodology 3.1 Study Area 20 3.2 Aquatic Habitat 28 3.3 Water Quality 28 3.4 Aquatic Flora 29 3.5 Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities 30 3.6 Fish Communities 32 3.7 Turtle Communities 35 3.8 Artesian Spring Communities 36 3.9 Other Aquatic Vertebrates 37 3.10 Limitations 37 4 Existing Environment 4.1 Aquatic Habitat 38 4.2 Water Quality 58 Santos Coal Seam Gas Fields: Aquatic Ecology Impact Assessment frc environmental 4.3 Aquatic Flora 68 4.4 Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities 75 4.5 Fish Communities 97 4.6 Turtle Communities 125 4.7 Artesian Spring Communities 132 4.8 Other Aquatic Vertebrates 161 4.9 Summary of Aquatic Environmental Values 162 5 Potential Impacts 5.1 Key Components of the Development of the CSG Fields 165 5.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Controls 166 6 References 180 Appendix A: Description of the Watercourse Sites Surveyed Appendix B: Introduction to the Data Analyses Used Appendix C: Copies of Survey Permits Appendix D: Description of the Artesian Spring Sites Surveyed Appendix E: Assessment of Potential Impacts Appendix F: Opportunities for Impact Avoidance, Minimisation and Mitigation Santos Coal Seam Gas Fields: Aquatic Ecology Impact Assessment frc environmental List of Tables Table 2.1 Threatened aquatic fauna and flora that are associated with Queensland’s Great Artesian Basin spring wetlands (EPA 2005). 17 Table 3.1 Date and type of survey completed at watercourse sites in the CSG Fields. 21 Table 3.2 Date and type of survey completed at spring sites in the CSG Fields. 25 Table 3.3 DNRW Reference Monitoring Sites in the Condamine – Upper Balonne, Upper Dawson and Comet Catchments. 31 Table 3.4 Fish survey effort at each site. 34 Table 4.1 Area of each of the catchments and sub-catchments that encompass the CSG Fields (Telfer 1995, Henderson 2000, Van Manen 2001). 45 Table 4.2 Percent cover of all aquatic macrophytes at each site in the Condamine – Upper Balonne Catchment, listed by growth form. 70 Table 4.3 Percent cover of all aquatic macrophytes at each site in the Upper Dawson Catchment, listed by growth form. 71 Table 4.4 Percent cover of all aquatic macrophytes at each site in the Comet Catchment, listed by growth form. 72 Table 4.5 Abundance of macrocrustaceans at each watercourse site in the Condamine – Upper Balonne, Upper Dawson, and Comet Catchments. 86 Table 4.6 Abundance of fish species at each site in the Condamine – Upper Balonne Catchment. 100 Table 4.7 Abundance of fish species at each site in the Upper Dawson Catchment. 100 Table 4.8 Abundance of fish species at each site in the Comet Catchment. 101 Table 4.9 Presence of fish species caught in the Condamine-Upper Balonne Catchment during previous studies. 105 Santos Coal Seam Gas Fields: Aquatic Ecology Impact Assessment frc environmental Table 4.10 Number and species of fish caught in the Upper Dawson Catchment during previous studies. 107 Table 4.11 Presence of fish species caught in the Comet Catchment during previous studies and the present survey. 110 Table 4.12 Timing of critical movements of fish known to inhabit the region (shaded cells indicate large numbers of fish are known to migrate) (Marsden and Power 2007, Cotterell 1998). 113 Table 4.13 Reported water quality tolerances of fish species captured in, or that are considered likely to occur in, the study area (data sourced from Pusey at al. 2004). 124 Table 4.14 Abundance of turtles at each site in the Upper Dawson Catchment. 125 Table 4.15 Abundance of turtles at each site in the Comet Catchment. 125 Table 4.16 Aquatic macrophytes at springs 1 – 15 in Upper Dawson Catchment, listed by growth form. 143 Table 4.17 Aquatic macrophytes at springs A – P in Upper Dawson Catchment, listed by growth form. 147 Table 5.1 Summary of potential impacts and mitigation controls for activities in the CSG Fields (Refer to Appendix E and F for more detail). 168 List of Figures Figure 1.1 CSG Field, Northern Section. 9 Figure 1.2 CSG Field, Southern Section. 10 Figure 1.3 The Fitzroy River Basin, showing the Comet and Dawson Catchments. 11 Figure 1.4 The Murray-Darling Basin, showing the Condamine Upper – Balonne Catchment. 12 Santos Coal Seam Gas Fields: Aquatic Ecology Impact Assessment frc environmental Figure 2.1 Location of mound spring communities in the CSG Fields. 16 Figure 3.1 Location of watercourse sites in the Condamine – Balonne Catchment. 22 Figure 3.2 Location of watercourse sites in the Upper Dawson Catchment. 23 Figure 3.3 Location of watercourse sites in the Comet Catchment. 24 Figure 3.4 Location of spring sites in the Upper Dawson Catchment. 27 Figure 4.1 Mean Habitat Bioassessment Scores for watercourse sites in the: Condamine – Upper Balonne, Upper Dawson and Comet Catchments. 38 Figure 4.2 Habitat Bioassessment Scores for watercourse sites in the: Condamine – Upper Balonne (Sites 1-11), Upper Dawson (Sites 12-21), and Comet (Sites 22-32) Catchments. 39 Figure 4.3 The dirt crossing at Commissioner Creek (Site 21) forms a physical barrier to water flows and aquatic fauna passage during periods of very low flow. 41 Figure 4.4 Obstructions upstream of the box culverts on Wallumbilla Creek (Site 4) are likely to restrict the passage of aquatic fauna. 41 Figure 4.5 The bridge pylons at a crossing on the Comet River (Site 30) are unlikely to restrict aquatic fauna movement. 41 Figure 4.6 Largely cleared riparian zone atop an erosion scarp at Yuleba Creek (Site 8). 42 Figure 4.7 Pasture grass growing right to the bank of Kinnoul Creek (Site 15). 43 Figure 4.8 Tree roots stabilised creek banks at many sites. 43 Figure 4.9 Overhanging vegetation, branch piles, and undercut banks at Hutton Creek (Site 17). 44 Figure 4.10 The Maranoa, Balonne and Condamine River Catchments. 46 Figure 4.11 The Dawson River Catchment. 47 Figure 4.12 The Comet, Nogoa and Mackenzie River Catchments. 48 Figure 4.13 Water temperature at watercourse sites in the: Condamine – Upper Balonne (Sites 1-11), Upper Dawson (Sites 12-21), and Santos Coal Seam Gas Fields: Aquatic Ecology Impact Assessment frc environmental Comet Catchments (Sites 22-32). Sites 28,29, 31, and 32 were dry. 61 Figure 4.14 Dissolved oxygen (percent saturation) at watercourse sites in the: Condamine – Upper Balonne (Sites 1-11), Upper Dawson (Sites 12-21), and Comet Catchments (Sites 22-32). Sites 28,29, 31, and 32 were dry. Guidelines are based on QWQG (EPA 2007a) and the ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000). 62 Figure 4.15 pH at watercourse sites in the: Condamine – Upper Balonne (Sites 1-11), Upper Dawson (Sites 12-21), and Comet Catchments (Sites 22-32). Sites 28,29, 31, and 32 were dry. Guidelines are based on QWQG (EPA 2007a) and the ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000). 63 Figure 4.16 Electrical conductivity at watercourse sites in the: Condamine – Upper Balonne (Sites 1-11), Upper Dawson (Sites 12-21), and Comet Catchments (Sites 22-32). Sites 28,29, 31, and 32 were dry. Guidelines are based on QWQG (EPA 2007a) and the ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000). 64 Figure 4.17 Turbidity at watercourse sites within in the: Condamine – Upper Balonne (Sites 1-11), Upper Dawson (Sites 12-21), and Comet Catchments (Sites 22-32). Sites 28,29, 31, and 32 were dry. Guidelines are based on QWQG (EPA 2007a) and the ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000). 65 Figure 4.18 Mat rush (Lomandra longifolia) grew at many of the sites in each of the three Catchments. 69 Figure 4.19 Common rush (Juncus usitatus) was the most widespread macrophyte in the study area. 69 Figure 4.20 Taxonomic richness for watercourse sites in the: Condamine – Upper Balonne (Sites 1-11), Upper Dawson (Sites 12-21), and Comet (Sites 22-32) Catchments. 76 Figure 4.21 PET richness for watercourse sites in the: Condamine – Upper Balonne (Sites 1-11), Upper Dawson (Sites 12-21), and Comet (Sites 22-32) Catchments. 78 Figure 4.22 SIGNAL 2 / Family Bi-plot for edge habitats in the: Condamine – Upper Balonne (Sites 1-11), Upper Dawson (Sites 12-21), and Comet (Sites 22-32) Catchments.