LAKE VERMONT NORTHERN EXTENSION Matters of National Environmental Significance Assessment Report

PREPARED FOR BOWEN BASIN COAL PTY LTD

APRIL 2016

Document History and Status

Issue Rev. Issued To Qty Date Reviewed Approved 1 0 BBC 1 29/09/14 GB GB 2 0 BBC 1 21/12/15 GB GB 3 0 BBC 1 01/01/16 GB GB

Author: Sally Croker Project Manager: Gareth Bramston Name of Client: Bowen Basin Coal Pty Ltd Name of Project: Lake Vermont Northern Extension Matters of National Environmental Title of Document: Significance Assessment Report Document Version: Final

This controlled document is the property of AustralAsian Resource Consultants Pty Ltd and all rights are reserved in respect of it. This document may not be reproduced or disclosed in any manner whatsoever, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of AustralAsian Resource Consultants Pty Ltd. AustralAsian Resource Consultants Pty Ltd expressly disclaims any responsibility for or liability arising from the use of this document by any third party.

Opinions and judgments expressed herein, which are based on our understanding and interpretation of current regulatory standards, should not be construed as legal opinions. Information obtained from interviews and contained in the documentation has been assumed to be correct and complete. AustralAsian Resource Consultants Pty Ltd does not accept any liability for misrepresentation of information or for items not visible, accessible, nor able to be inspected at the sites at the time of the site visits.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 i E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

LAKE VERMONT NORTHERN EXTENSION

MNES Assessment Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 STATUTORY CONTEXT ...... 1 1.2 APPROVAL PROCESS ...... 2 1.2.1 Commonwealth ...... 2 1.2.2 State (Queensland) ...... 4

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ...... 5 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION ...... 5 2.2 CURRENT LAND USE ...... 5 2.3 PROJECT ACTIVITIES ...... 8 2.3.1 Mining ...... 8 2.3.2 Processing ...... 8 2.3.3 Support Infrastructure ...... 9 2.3.4 Land Clearing...... 11 2.3.5 Flood Levee ...... 11 2.3.6 Phillips Creek Diversion ...... 11 2.3.6.1 Functional Design ...... 11 2.4 SITE WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ...... 14 2.4.1 Water Management Principles...... 14 2.4.2 Northern Extension Site Water Management Strategy ...... 15 2.4.3 Water Management Infrastructure ...... 15 2.4.3.1 Sediment Dam Design ...... 24 2.4.3.2 North Mine Water Dam Design ...... 24 2.4.4 Site Water Balance Model ...... 25 2.4.4.1 Water Demands ...... 25 2.4.4.2 Groundwater Inflow ...... 25 2.4.4.3 Overall Water Balance ...... 26 2.4.4.4 Imported Water Requirements ...... 27 2.4.5 Salinity Balance ...... 27 2.4.5.1 Stored Salinity ...... 29 2.4.6 Final Void Behaviour ...... 29 2.4.6.1 Long-term Water Levels ...... 29 2.4.6.2 Long-term Salinity ...... 30

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 ii E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

2.5 REHABILITATION ...... 30 2.5.1 Diversion Rehabilitation Strategy...... 31

3.0 MATTERS OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIALLY IMPACTED BY THE PROJECT ...... 32 3.1 WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTIES ...... 32 3.1.1 Nature and Extent of Likely Impact ...... 32 3.1.1.1 Significant Impact Criteria ...... 33 3.1.1.2 Potential Impact on World Heritage Properties ...... 33 3.2 NATIONAL HERITAGE PLACES ...... 33 3.2.1 Nature and Extent of Likely Impact ...... 33 3.2.1.1 Significant Impact Criteria ...... 33 3.2.1.2 Potential Impact on National Heritage Properties ...... 34 3.3 WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE ...... 34 3.4 GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK ...... 34 3.4.1 Nature and Extent of Likely Impact ...... 34 3.4.1.1 Significant Impact Criteria ...... 34 3.4.1.2 Potential Impact on Great Barrier Reef Marine Park ...... 35 3.5 COMMONWEALTH MARINE AREAS ...... 35 3.5.1 Nature and Extent of Likely Impact ...... 35 3.5.1.1 Significant Impact Criteria ...... 35 3.5.1.2 Potential Impact on Commonwealth Marine Areas ...... 36 3.6 NUCLEAR ACTIONS ...... 36 3.7 COMMONWEALTH LAND ...... 36 3.8 LISTED THREATENED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES ...... 36 3.8.1 Field Survey ...... 37 3.8.1.1 Flora Survey Methodology ...... 37 3.8.1.2 Ecological Communities Identified on the Project Site ...... 38 3.8.2 Nature and Extent of Likely Impact ...... 39 3.8.2.1 Significant Impact Criteria ...... 39 3.8.2.2 Potential Impact on Threatened Ecological Communities ...... 42 3.8.3 Management Commitments ...... 42 3.9 LISTED THREATENED SPECIES ...... 42 3.9.1 Field Survey ...... 43 3.9.1.1 Flora Survey Methodology ...... 43 3.9.1.2 Fauna Survey Methodology ...... 44 3.9.1.3 Threatened Species Identified on the Project Site ...... 47 3.9.2 Nature and Extent of Likely Impact ...... 48 3.9.2.1 Significant Impact Criteria ...... 48 3.9.2.2 Potential Impact on Threatened Species...... 49 3.9.3 Management Commitments ...... 59 3.10 LISTED MIGRATORY SPECIES ...... 59

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 iii E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

3.10.1 Field Survey ...... 60 3.10.1.1 Fauna Survey Methodology ...... 60 3.10.1.2 Migratory Species Identified on the Project Site ...... 60 3.10.2 Nature and Extent of Likely Impact ...... 61 3.10.2.1 Significant Impact Criteria ...... 61 3.10.2.2 Potential Impact on Migratory Species ...... 62 3.10.3 Management Commitments ...... 66 3.11 WATER RESOURCES ...... 66 3.11.1 Surface Water ...... 66 3.11.1.1 Drainage Network ...... 67 3.11.1.2 Wetlands ...... 67 3.11.1.3 Surface Water Quality ...... 68 3.11.1.4 Existing Flood Conditions ...... 75 3.11.2 Groundwater ...... 75 3.11.2.1 Groundwater Aquifers ...... 75 3.11.2.2 Groundwater Quality ...... 79 3.11.2.3 Aquifer Hydraulic Properties ...... 84 3.11.2.4 Groundwater Level ...... 85 3.11.2.5 Groundwater Yield ...... 85 3.11.3 Nature and Extent of Likely Impact ...... 86 3.11.3.1 Significant Impact Criteria ...... 86 3.11.3.2 Potential Impacts on Surface Water ...... 88 3.11.3.3 Potential Impacts on Groundwater ...... 97 3.11.4 Management Commitments ...... 103 3.11.4.1 Surface Water Management ...... 103 3.11.4.2 Groundwater Management ...... 106 3.11.5 Assessment of Risk ...... 107 3.11.5.1 Methodology ...... 108 3.11.5.2 Risk Assessment ...... 110

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION...... 112 4.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND SIGNIFICANCE ...... 112 4.1.1 Threatened Ecological Communities ...... 112 4.1.2 Threatened Species ...... 112 4.1.3 Migratory Species ...... 113 4.1.4 Water Resources ...... 113 4.1.4.1 Surface Water ...... 113 4.1.4.2 Groundwater ...... 114 4.2 MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT COMMITMENTS ...... 114 4.3 CONCLUSION ...... 115

5.0 REFERENCES ...... 116

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 iv E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Regional Location Plan ...... 6 Figure 2 Land Tenure associated with the Project ...... 7 Figure 3 Northern Extension Mine Infrastructure Plan ...... 10 Figure 4 Reach of Phillips Creek to be Diverted (in cross-section chainages) ...... 13 Figure 5 Cross-sectional Geometry of Existing and Diverted Channels ...... 14 Figure 6 SWMS Project Year 1 ...... 17 Figure 7 SWMS Project Year 4 ...... 18 Figure 8 SWMS Project Year 14 ...... 19 Figure 9 SWMS Project Year 24 ...... 20 Figure 10 SWMS Project Year 32 ...... 21 Figure 11 Site Water Management Infrastructure Layout Water Storages ...... 22 Figure 12 Vegetation Communities on the Project Site ...... 41 Figure 13 Registered Bores Within and Adjacent to the Project Boundary ...... 77 Figure 14 Existing Groundwater Monitoring Bores on the Project site ...... 78 Figure 15 1:50 Design Flood Change in Flood Level ...... 94 Figure 16 Modelled Groundwater Drawdown End of Mining (Year 32) ...... 101 Figure 17 Modelled Groundwater Drawdown 100 years post-mining ...... 102 Figure 18 Receiving Water Monitoring Locations ...... 105

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Decision-Making Process for Referred Actions ...... 2 Table 2 Changes to Channel Geomorphic Characteristics ...... 14 Table 3 Storage Capacities (Proposed and Existing) ...... 23 Table 4 DSA and MRL Volumes ...... 25 Table 5 Site Water Demands ...... 25 Table 6 Groundwater Inflow to Active Pits (end of operations) ...... 26 Table 7 Average Annual Water Balance for the Project ...... 26 Table 8 Inflow Salinity During Mining ...... 27 Table 9 Average Annual Salt Load Balance for each Project Stage ...... 28 Table 10 Final Void Water Storage Capacities and Inflow Rates ...... 30 Table 11 Matters of National Environmental Significance within 100 km ...... 32 Table 12 Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act within 100 km ...... 32 Table 13 Threatened Ecological Communities within 100 km ...... 37 Table 14 Threatened Species within 100 km ...... 42

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 v E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Table 15 Assessment of Likelihood of Occurrence and Impacts on EPBC Listed Bird Species ...... 51 Table 16 Assessment of Likelihood of Occurrence and Impacts on EPBC Listed Reptile Species ...... 53 Table 17 Assessment of Likelihood of Occurrence and Impacts on EPBC Listed Threatened Mammal Species ...... 55 Table 18 Assessment of Likelihood of Occurrence and Impacts on EPBC Listed Threatened Flora Species ...... 57 Table 19 Migratory Species within the Project Region ...... 59 Table 20 Assessment of Likelihood of Occurrence and Potential Impacts on Migratory Fauna Species Identified from Desktop Searches ...... 63 Table 21 Summary of Regional Water Quality Data for the Isaac River ...... 69 Table 22 Summary of Water Quality Data for Phillips Creek and Devlin Creek ...... 71 Table 23 Local Surface Water Quality ...... 73 Table 24 Design Peak Discharges ...... 75 Table 25 Local Groundwater Quality ...... 82 Table 26 Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity Values ...... 84 Table 27 IESC Information Requirements ...... 88 Table 28 Captured Catchment Area (Final Landform) ...... 89 Table 29 Changes to Channel Hydraulic Characteristics ...... 93 Table 30 Receiving Water Monitoring Points ...... 104 Table 31 Existing Standpipe Monitoring Bore Construction Details ...... 106 Table 32 Existing VWP Bore Construction Details ...... 107 Table 33 Measure of Consequence ...... 109 Table 34 Measure of Likelihood ...... 110 Table 35 Risk Analysis Matrix ...... 110 Table 36 Risk Assessment Water Resources ...... 111

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Lake Vermont North Mine Stage Plans ...... A Appendix B Phillips Creek Diversion Functional Design Report ...... B Appendix C Surface Water Impact Assessment ...... C Appendix D Groundwater Impact Assessment ...... D Appendix E Groundwater Summary Report ...... E Appendix F Flora and Fauna Report ...... F Appendix G Aquatic Ecology and Stream Morphology Assessment ...... G Appendix H Environmental Offset Strategy ...... H Appendix I Protected Matters Search ...... I

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 vi E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AARC AustralAsian Resource Consultants Pty Ltd

ACARP Australian Coal Association Research Program

AEP Annual Exceedance Probability

AHD Australian Height Datum

ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council

ARMCANZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand

AUSRIVAS Australian River Assessment System

BBC Bowen Basin Coal Pty Ltd

CHPP Coal Handling and Preparation Plant cm centimetre(s)

DEWHA (Commonwealth) Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts

DNRM (Queensland) Department of Natural Resources and Mines

DoE (Commonwealth) Department of the Environment

DSA Design Storage Allowance

DSEWPAC (Commonwealth) Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

DSITIA (Queensland) Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts

EA Environmental Authority

EC electrical conductivity

EHP (Queensland) Department of Environment and Heritage Protection

EP Act Environmental Protection Act 1994

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

EPP (Water) Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009

EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera

ERE Endangered Regional Ecosystem

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 vii E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area

GBR Great Barrier Reef

GBRMP Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

GDE groundwater dependent ecosystem

GPS Global Positioning System ha hectare(s)

HCC hard coking coal

IECA International Erosion Control Association

IESC Independent Expert Scientific Committee

ISQG Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines

JBT JBT Consulting Pty Ltd km kilometre(s)

L litre(s)

LP Act Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002

LTV Long-term Trigger Value m metre(s) mbgl metres below ground level

MDL Mineral Development Licence

ML Mining Lease

Ml megalitre(s)

Ml/a megalitre(s) per annum mm millimetre(s)

MNES Matter(s) of National Environmental Significance

MOV maximum operating volume

MRL Mandatory Reporting Level m/s metre(s) per second

MSES Matter(s) of State Environmental Significance

Mtpa Million tonnes per annum

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 viii E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

NC Act Nature Conservation Act 1994

NMWD North Mine Water Dam

PCI pulverised coal injection

QEOP Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy 2014

QWQG Queensland Water Quality Guidelines 2009

RE Regional Ecosystem

REMP Receiving Environment Monitoring Program

ROM Run of Mine

STV Short-term Trigger Value

SWMS Site Water Management System

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

TEP Transitional Environmental Program

VM Act Vegetation Management Act 1999

VWP vibrating wire piezometer

WQO water quality objective

WRM WRM Water & Environment Pty Ltd

µS/cm micro-Siemens per centimetre

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 ix E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

1.0

AustralAsian Resource Consultants Pty Ltd (AARC) was commissioned by Bowen Basin Coal Pty Ltd (BBC) to complete a Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) for the proposed Lake Vermont Northern Extension (the Project). This report provides an assessment of the potential impacts to Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) arising from the Project, for the purpose of enabling the Commonwealth Department of the Environment (DoE) to make an assessment of the Project based on referral information.

The Project is an extension of the existing Lake Vermont Coal Mine. The existing Mine encompasses two Mining Leases (MLs): ML 70331 and ML 70477 (Western Extension). The Northern Extension Project site is located immediately north of the existing mine within ML 70528, covering an area of approximately 3,700 hectares (ha).

The purpose of the proposed Project is to extend current mining activities at the Lake Vermont Mine into new resource areas located directly to the north. No change in the approved mining or production rate is proposed. An EA) (EPML00659513), pertaining to a new ML application by BBC over the subject land, was submitted to the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) for assessment and approval in October 2014. An Information Request was received in January 2015 and a subsequent Information Response was submitted to EHP in May 2015. EHP approved the EA amendment application on 28th September 2015. Specific conditions were included for management and mitigation of impacts on both State and Commonwealth environmental values. Activities with potential to impact on MNES will not be undertaken until the required Commonwealth approvals are in place.

1.1 STATUTORY CONTEXT

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) provides for the protection of MNES. Proj

Part 3 of the EPBC Act prescribes nine MNES:

World Heritage properties (ss.12 and 15A);

National Heritage places (ss.15B and 15C);

Ramsar wetlands of international importance (ss.16 and 17B);

Listed threatened species and communities (ss.18 and 18A);

Listed migratory species (ss.20 and 20A);

Nuclear actions (ss.21 and 22A);

A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development (ss. 24D and 24E);

Commonwealth marine environment (ss.23 and 24A); and

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) (ss.24B and 24C).

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 1 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

MNES which are potentially relevant to the Lake Vermont Northern Extension Project and are addressed in this assessment report include: nationally threatened species and ecological communities, migratory species, and water resources in relation to a large coal mining development.

1.2 APPROVAL PROCESS

1.2.1 Commonwealth

A pre-referral meeting was held on 26th June 2014 with the DoE in Canberra. Assessment of potential impacts on MNES determined that a significant impact on water resources was likely to be triggered by the Project. A subsequent phone meeting was also held on 2nd December 2015 to update DoE on changes prior to lodgement of this referral.

At the time of this referral, the Bilateral Agreement did not apply to the Queensland assessment or approval process for the Project (Major amendment with no EIS requirement). If the Project is declared a controlled action, it will be subject to a separate assessment and approval process under the EPBC Act.

Under the EPBC Act, a number of assessment processes may be implemented by the Commonwealth Government. Although yet to be determined, BBC considers that the most likely assessment pathways are either assessment based on referral information, or assessment based on preliminary documentation. This MNES Assessment Report has been included for submission with the EPBC Referral with the intention of enabling the Commonwealth Government to make an assessment based on referral information alone. Table 1 provides an overview of the decision-making process employed by the DoE to determine appropriate assessment approaches for referred actions (DoE 201a).

Table 1 Decision-Making Process for Referred Actions

Assessment Approach Matters Considered in Determining Referral Public Environmental Preliminary Appropriate Assessment Approach Information Environment Impact Documentation Only Report Statement Number of MNES affected (i.e. number of 1 or 2 Less than 3 Multiple Multiple controlling provisions) Low Medium High High Scale and nature of impacts, including the Short-term Short-term or Some Complex analysis complexity of issues impacts recoverable complexity required Degree of confidence with which these High High Medium low Medium low impacts can be predicted Adequacy and completeness of the Good Good Variable or low Variable or low information provided Extent to which potential relevant impacts have already been assessed under relevant High High Low unknown Low unknown state legislation Degree of public concern associated with Low Low Moderate high High the proposal Source: Adapted from DoE (2015a)

This MNES Assessment Report has been prepared in accordance with the following guidelines:

Significant impact guidelines 1.1: Matters of National Environmental Significance (DoE 2013a);

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 2 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Significant impact guidelines 1.3: Coal seam gas and large coal mining developments impacts on water resources (DoE 2013b);

Information Guidelines for the Independent Expert Scientific Committee (IESC) advice on coal seam gas and large coal mining development proposals (IESC 2014);

Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant) information sheet (Environment Australia 2001;

Significant impact guidelines for the endangered black-throated finch (southern) (Poephila cincta cincta) (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) 2009);

Draft Referral guidelines for the nationally listed Brigalow Belt reptiles (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPAC) 2011a);

EPBC Act referral guidelines for the vulnerable Koala (DoE 2014a);

EPBC referral guidelines for the endangered northern quoll, Dasyurus hallucatus (DSEWPAC 2011b);

Referral guideline for management actions in grey-headed and spectacled flying-fox camps (DoE 2015b);

Referral guideline for 14 birds listed as migratory species under the EPBC Act (draft) (DoE 2015c);

Industry guidelines for avoiding, assessing and mitigating impacts on EPBC Act listed migratory shorebird species (DoE 2015d);

Draft Outcomes-based Conditions Policy (DoE 2015e); and

Draft Outcomes-based Conditions Guidance (DoE 2015f).

Various specialist studies form the basis of the impact assessment described in this MNES Report. These assessments have been appended to this report and include:

Flora and Fauna Assessment (AARC 2016a);

Aquatic Ecology and Stream Morphology Assessment (AARC 2016b);

Groundwater Assessment (JBT Consulting Pty Ltd (JBT) 2016a);

Groundwater Summary (JBT 2016b);

Phillips Creek Diversion Functional Design Report (WRM Water & Environment Pty Ltd (WRM) 2016a);

Surface Water Impact Assessment (WRM 2016b); and

Environmental Offset Strategy (AARC 2016c).

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 3 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

1.2.2 State (Queensland)

Project approval is subject to assessment under the Queensland Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act). An EA Amendment Application (Major Amendment) was submitted for environmental approval of the Lake Vermont Northern Extension in October 2014. The Application and Information Stages of the Queensland approvals process have been completed.

The following specialist studies were completed to support the EA Amendment Application:

Flora and Fauna Assessment, Lake Vermont Northern Extension (AARC 2016a);

Aquatic Ecology and Stream Morphology Assessment, Lake Vermont Northern Extension (AARC 2016b);

Soil and Land Suitability Assessment, Lake Vermont Northern Extension (AARC 2014);

Groundwater Assessment, Lake Vermont North Extension (JBT 2016a);

Groundwater Summary, Lake Vermont Northern Extension (JBT 2016b);

Geochemical Waste Rock Characterisation, Lake Vermont Northern Extension (MBS Environmental 2014);

Phillips Creek Diversion Functional Design Report (WRM 2016a);

Surface Water Impact Assessment, Lake Vermont Northern Extension Project (WRM 2016b);

Air Quality Impact Assessment, Lake Vermont Coal Mine Extension (ASK Consulting Engineers 2014); and

Noise and Vibration Assessment, Lake Vermont Coal Mine Extension (ASK Consulting Engineers 2014).

These specialist studies provide supporting information to the EA Amendment Application for the Northern Extension Project. Studies related to flora and fauna, aquatic ecology, groundwater and surface water were also designed to assess potential for significant impacts on MNES and have been appended to this MNES Assessment Report. Additional information and clarification of existing information was provided to EHP in response to an Information Request during the assessment period. The Environmental Offset Strategy for the Project was submitted to EHP in May 2015. The report has been re-issued for submission with this EPBC Referral.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 4 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

2.0

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The Project proposes an extension of the Lake Vermont Coal Mine into new resource areas identified to the north. The Project is located in the Isaac Regional Council area in Central Queensland, approximately 18 kilometres (km) north-east of Dysart and 240 km west of Mackay. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the Project. The proposed area is situated within ML 70528, as shown in Figure 2.

2.2 CURRENT LAND USE

The current land use at the Project location is cattle grazing. Several dams, cattle yards and windmills are located on the Project site. The areas adjacent to the Project site are subject to extensive coal mining and exploration activities. Surface water use on and downstream of the site primarily consists of stock watering.

The Northern Extension is located entirely within Lot 2 SP260662, owned by BBC. An easement (Lot H SP260662) traverses ML 70528 near Phillips Creek, as indicated in Figure 2.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 5 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Figure 1 Regional Location Plan

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 6 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Figure 2 Land Tenure associated with the Project

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 7 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

2.3 PROJECT ACTIVITIES

The Lake Vermont Northern Extension Project consists of the development of approximately 64 Million tonnes (Mt) of hard coking coal (HCC) and pulverised coal injection (PCI) coal within the Rangal Coal Measures. Project production life is anticipated to be greater than 25 years based on current economic assessment of the resource.

The Northern Extension is proposed for development to supplement production from the existing Lake Vermont Mine, providing for an extended production life. Coal mined from the Project will be transported in trucks for processing through the existing Lake Vermont Mine infrastructure.

Product coal will continue to be transported by rail to Coal Export Terminals at Gladstone, Mackay or Bowen along Blackwater and Newlands rail lines. Production from the Project will augment Lake Vermont Mine operations, thereby extending the total operational life of the Lake Vermont Mine. Note that no increase in annual tonnage is proposed from the Lake Vermont Mine as a whole.

2.3.1 Mining

No change to the existing mining rate or method is proposed. The Project will involve open-cut mining within new resource areas using truck and excavator methods. Topsoil stripped prior to mining will be stockpiled for later use in rehabilitation.

Overburden will be drilled and blasted to the extent necessary to allow its efficient handling by truck and excavator, with the options of using draglines and electric shovels at a future time. Overburden will be relocated from above the coal seams to in-pit dumps and in out-of-pit spoil dumps located on site and contiguous with pit excavations. Interburden spoil and partings will be removed from the coal seam in a similar manner to overburden and placed within the pit. Spoil dumps will be constructed to achieve the same final landform criteria as the Lake Vermont Mine.

Coal will be exposed in a series of strips, ripped and loaded into haul trucks by excavators or front-end loaders, and transported to the ROM stockpile area.

Stage plans showing proposed mine development through the life of the Project are provided in Appendix A. By Year 4, it is proposed that mining will have commenced in the Northern Extension area. A section of Phillips Creek will need to be diverted to enable access to the underlying coal seams. During subsequent years, mining will extend throughout the northern ML. Mining is expected to cease in Year 32, providing for an estimated Project life of 28 years plus decommissioning and closure.

The Project timeline referenced in this application is based on the predicted commencement of Northern Extension activities in Year 4. This timeline is not intended as a fixed date and will vary subject to approval timeframes, market conditions and other factors beyond the control of the proponent.

2.3.2 Processing

No changes to processing activities or approved rates of production have been proposed. Activities associated with the existing coal handling and preparation include:

ROM coal crushing, conveying, blending and feeding to the preparation plant;

CHPP product transfer and stockpiling including stockpile bases;

Product coal stockpile reclamation and train loading;

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 8 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Disposal (storage) of coarse and fine rejects;

Return of water recovered from rejects emplacements to an environmental dam for recycling;

Power, pumping and instrumentation requirements; and

Reticulation of services and lighting within plant and relevant adjacent areas.

Handling of CHPP rejects will continue in accordance with current management practices using existing approved co-disposal cells on the Lake Vermont Mine.

2.3.3 Support Infrastructure

To facilitate mining within the Northern Extension area, the following infrastructure will initially be required:

Haul roads;

An initial flood protection levee along the southern side of Phillips Creek to protect mining operations;

A small diversion of Phillips Creek; and

Supporting infrastructure, such as erosion and sediment controls, water management dams and associated infrastructure (pumps and pipelines), and other access tracks and roads.

Other infrastructure requirements that will either occur later in the mine life or that are subject to further economic review include:

A low impact causeway crossing through Phillips Creek to access coal north of the creek; and

The small amount of power initially required for Project operations may be initially provided by on-site generator sets or subject to further economic evaluation, power may be sourced from the Ergon Energy electricity network reticulated to Lake Vermont North operations.

Processing will involve either hauling ROM coal to existing crushers at the Lake Vermont Mine or crushing and screening at the Project prior to hauling to Lake Vermont Mine. Crushed coal will be processed and dispatched utilising existing infrastructure.

Stage plans showing development of infrastructure over the Project life are provided in Appendix A. Figure 3 provides a concept overview of the approved Lake Vermont Mine and the Northern Extension Project for the entire life of mine.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 9 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Figure 3 Northern Extension Mine Infrastructure Plan

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 10 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

2.3.4 Land Clearing

The 2,500 ha within the proposed Northern Extension area. The site has previously been cleared for grazing with only small areas of remnant vegetation remaining along Phillips Creek, or surrounding local dams and Lake Vermont. The Project has been designed to minimise clearing and impacts on remnant vegetation.

During land clearing activities, topsoil will be removed and stockpiled. Smaller vegetation and grasses will be removed with topsoil and stockpiled in windrows nominally 2 metres (m) in height. Large vegetation will be pushed first and windrowed alongside the topsoil stockpile areas. Where necessary, stockpiles will be ripped and seeded to encourage water infiltration and prevent erosion.

2.3.5 Flood Levee

A 7.8 km long levee is proposed between Phillips Creek and the proposed mining operations / infrastructure. The levee will provide immunity from Phillips Creek flooding in a 1 in 1,000 Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) design flood, and has been located at the edge of the proposed disturbance area.

The flood levee alignment is shown in Figure 3. A minimum offset of 100 m between the high bank and the levee toe has been adopted in the design. The flood levee has been incorporated into the Functional Design Report (WRM 2016a) (Appendix B), discussed in further detail below.

Levee construction will be undertaken in stages throughout the development of the Northern Extension Project, commencing in Year 4 and completed within 10 years.

2.3.6 Phillips Creek Diversion

To access coal reserves in the Northern Extension, BBC proposes to divert a small section of Phillips Creek (approximately 2.45 km). The permanent diversion will be a regulated structure in natural ground, designed and managed in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) Guideline Works that interfere with water in a watercourse: watercourse diversions (DNRM 2014).

A Functional Design Report (Appendix B) for the diversion has been developed by WRM (2016a). The report addresses the requirements of the DNRM Guidelines and details the proposed geometry and geomorphology of the diversion.

The proposed stream diversion and levee alignments are shown in Figure 4. Construction of the diversion will be completed early in the mine life of the Northern Extension, as access to underlying coal is planned early in the schedule. This has the benefit of allowing long term diversion monitoring during the mine life, to ensure the final landform remains safe and stable prior to closure.

2.3.6.1 Functional Design

A functional design (WRM 2016a) has been prepared addressing the guideline objectives and design criteria. Key outcomes of the functional design include:

OUTCOME 1 The design incorporates natural features present in the local watercourses it replicates the channel length, slope and cross-sectional shape. It incorporates meanders with radii, amplitude and magnitude similar to existing meanders in the adjacent reaches and the reach to be diverted. A revegetation plan will be established which will incorporate local native vegetation to achieve bank stability.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 11 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

OUTCOME 2 As the diversion is located on the edge of the floodplain, and it incorporates the above features, it maintains the existing hydrologic characteristics of surface water and groundwater systems.

OUTCOME 3 The hydraulic characteristics of the design are comparable with those in the existing watercourse, and it is therefore suitable for the region in which the diversion is located.

OUTCOME 4 As the hydraulic characteristics are largely unchanged, the sediment transport regime will allow the watercourse diversion to be self-sustaining and is unlikely to result in material or serious environmental harm on upstream and downstream reaches.

OUTCOME 5 The watercourse diversion and associated structures maintain stability and functionality and are appropriate for all substrate conditions they encounter. The watercourse diversion and associated structures have been designed to maintain stability and functionality under the existing substrate conditions. The available information suggests the diverted channel is likely to encounter similar substrate conditions, but this will be confirmed in later design phases.

The functional design intends to achieve a stable diversion, requiring only minimal maintenance during mine operations. The design aims to achieve a state of dynamic equilibrium with the adjoining reaches such that ongoing management is not required post mining. The stability and performance of the diversion will be assisted by vegetation within the watercourse diversion and adjoining floodplain and will not include artificial structures for grade control.

Proposed Geometric and Geomorphic Design Characteristics

The proposed diversion ties in with the existing watercourse within the resource tenure boundary. The diversion alignment has been selected to maintain a minimum offset from the top of the proposed diversion bank to the toe of the levee of 100 m, whilst being well within the proposed ML boundary.

The proposed diversion channel has similar dimensions to the existing channel, and thus has similar design capacity. However, the combined effect of the proposed levee and diversion is to divert some additional flow to the northern floodplain of Phillips Creek, resulting in minor increases to the depth and duration of flooding.

The existing channel includes a large meander which contributes significantly to the length of channel being diverted. A number of meanders are to be reintroduced at the upstream end of the diversion which results in a length of channel and bed slope identical to the existing channel. The meanders have similar amplitude, wavelength, sinuosity, and bend radius to bends found in the existing creek channel.

The main channel has a similar geometry to the existing channel, but with flatter side slopes to improve the prospect of stabilisation through revegetation during construction. The channel base width is slightly less than the existing channel, and some initial undercutting of the base of the channel might therefore be expected until complete revegetation of the banks is achieved.

To achieve the same channel slope as the existing creek, the upstream end of the diversion is located approximately 500 m upstream of the proposed diversion plug / levee, at CH1200. Several small- radius bends were introduced into the channel to achieve the required length. This alignment will necessitate filling of the remnant channel which would otherwise link adjacent meanders (between CH1100 and CH1500). Longitudinal profiles of the bed invert of the proposed diversion and the diverted reach of the existing creek are shown in Figure 4. Table 2 shows a comparison of the existing and proposed geomorphic characteristics.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 12 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Source: WRM (2016a)

Figure 4 Reach of Phillips Creek to be Diverted (in cross-section chainages)

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 13 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Table 2 Changes to Channel Geomorphic Characteristics

Parameter Existing Creek Diversion Length (km) 2.45 2.45 Bed Grade (%) 0.12 0.12 Bed Width (m) 7.2 11.2 9.0 Top Width (m) 30 50 35 50 Depth to floodplain (m) 7 9 7 9 Meander Radius (m) > 60 > 50 Meander Sinuosity Index 1.7 1.7 Meander Wavelength (m) 200 270 Meander Amplitude (m) 75 340 50 225 Source: WRM (2016a)

The proposed diversion channel geometry is approximately 9 m deep and 6.5 m wide at the top of the bank (see Figure 5). The reduced slope ensures that post-construction, the side slopes are flat enough to be stabilised prior to full revegetation.

Source: WRM (2016a)

Figure 5 Cross-sectional Geometry of Existing and Diverted Channels

As the bedslope, channel geometry and hydraulic characteristics are similar to the existing channel, the proposed diversion will exhibit similar sediment transport characteristics to the existing channel.

The Functional Design Report (Appendix B) describes design concepts, pre- and post-diversion geomorphic and vegetation conditions, diversion geometry, hydraulic condition and impacts, flooding impacts and monitoring requirements (WRM 2016a).

2.4 SITE WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

2.4.1 Water Management Principles

The Site Water Management System (SWMS) for the Northern Extension is based on the following key principles, which are consistent with the existing system at the Lake Vermont Mine:

Divert clean catchment water around mining works to the extent practicable;

Use / recycle lesser quality water in preference to higher quality water;

Use potentially contaminated water in preference to imported raw water or uncontaminated water;

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 14 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Release water from site only in accordance with the conditions of the EA, such that the released water will not significantly impact on the values of the receiving waters or downstream properties;

Manage water storages and transfers within the site in order to:

o Maximise onsite storage to meet reasonably anticipated periods of wet and dry weather; and

o Minimise disruption to mining operations.

2.4.2 Northern Extension Site Water Management Strategy

A conceptual SWMS was developed for the Northern Extension by WRM (2016b) and is provided in Appendix C. The SWMS incorporates two major components:

1. A Mine Affected Water System, to capture runoff from active mining areas, co-disposal areas, mining industrial areas, un-rehabilitated spoil areas, in addition to groundwater inflows collected in-pit and processing plant water; and

2. A Stormwater System, capturing runoff from mostly undisturbed areas, established rehabilitation areas and external raw water.

The proposed water management system provides out-of-pit water storage dams to allow water accumulating in operational area to be pumped out. During very wet climate conditions, water will also accumulate in pit. Under these circumstances, contingency plans to release water in accordance with the existing EA conditions would be implemented if necessary.

Site water demands are supplied from the following sources:

CHPP and haul road dust suppression are supplied from the Mine Affected Water System preferentially. The Stormwater System is supplementary to these demands when the Mine Affected Water System cannot meet the full supply requirements;

The Stormwater System provides supply only for miscellaneous water demands; and

Where the SWMS cannot provide sufficient water supply for site demand, external raw water is used to supplement the Mine Affected Water and Stormwater Systems as required. Raw water is supplied by a SunWater pipeline. The current external raw water allocation is 2,250 megalitres per annum (Ml/a).

2.4.3 Water Management Infrastructure

The SWMS consists of infrastructure to provide catchment separation and manage water quality and

Stormwater drains to divert runoff from undisturbed catchments around areas disturbed by mining activities;

Stormwater dams to collect and treat runoff from undisturbed and rehabilitated catchment areas;

Mine Affected Water drains to divert water from overburden emplacement areas, CHPP and coal stockpile areas into the Mine Affected Water System; and

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 15 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

A Mine Affected Water System to store water pumped out of the pit and collect water from the CHPP and coal stockpile areas, and areas yet to be rehabilitated.

A site water balance model has been developed to determine the most appropriate design of the SWMS. The site water balance model is based on the previous model for the Lake Vermont Mine, updated to include details of the existing and proposed SWMS and mine layout plans. The site water balance forms the basis of impact assessment and infrastructure design for the site. Details of the site water balance are provided in Section 2.4.4.

Figure 6 Figure 10 provide schematic diagrams of the SWMS at Project Years 1, 4, 14, 24 and 32 of the Project life (WRM 2016b).

Figure 11 provides a schematic layout of proposed water management infrastructure for the Northern Extension. Staged development of the water management infrastructure over the Project life is provided in Appendix C (WRM 2016b).

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 16 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Figure 6 SWMS Project Year 1

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 17 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Figure 7 SWMS Project Year 4

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 18 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Figure 8 SWMS Project Year 14

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 19 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Figure 9 SWMS Project Year 24

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 20 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Figure 10 SWMS Project Year 32

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 21 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Figure 11 Site Water Management Infrastructure Layout Water Storages

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 22 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Table 3 shows the design storage capacities of both existing and proposed water storage facilities for the Project. Refer to Figure 11 for locations of all water storages.

Table 3 Storage Capacities (Proposed and Existing)

Fully Supply Operating Full Supply Storage Volume (Ml) Volume (Ml) Surface Area (ha) Northern Extension Project (Proposed) Mine Affected Water System Sediment Dam 5 (SD5) 559 0 14.9 Sediment Dam 6 (SD6) 435 0 11.7 Sediment Dam 7 (SD7) 113 0 3.2 North Mine Water Dam (North MWD) 3000 2800 33.3 Stormwater System Clean Water Dam North (North CWD) 100 0 5.5 Lake Vermont Mine (Existing) Mine Affected Water System Environmental Dam 1 (ED1) 1029 818 4.0 Environmental Dam 3 (ED3) 2127 1900 28.0 Co-Disposal Area 1 (CDA1) n/a n/a 23.5 Co-Disposal Area 2 (CDA2) n/a n/a 23.5 MIA Dam 83 0 1.4 Central Mine Water Dam (Central MWD) 350 300 7.2 South Mine Water Dam (South MWD) 475 300 12.0 North Spoil Dam 121 0 2.7 Sediment Dam 4 (SD4) 701 0 22.0 Stormwater System Raw Water Dam 150 60 1.8 Sediment Dam 1 (SD1) 465 0 35.0 Sediment Dam 2 (SD2) 384 0 32.0 Sediment Dam 3 (SD3) 300 0 32.0 Clean Water Dam South (CWD South) 2474 2474 90.0 Farm Dam 810 810 32.0 Western Extension (Approved) Mine Affected Water System Environmental Dam 4 (ED4) 2200 1900 57.2 Co-Disposal Area 3 (CDA3) n/a n/a 23.5 Co-Disposal Area 4 (CDA4) n/a n/a 23.5 MIA Dam 2 100 0 2.9 West Mine Water Dam (MWD West) 150 0 4.2 Sediment Dam B (SDB) 85 0 5.0 Stormwater System Sediment Dam A (SDA) 40 0 2.4 Sediment Dam C (SDC) 25 0 1.5

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 23 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Fully Supply Operating Full Supply Storage Volume (Ml) Volume (Ml) Surface Area (ha) Sediment Dam D (SDD) 55 0 3.3 Sediment Dam E (SDE) 50 0 3.0 Note: n/a not explicitly modelled. Source: WRM (2016b). modelling (refer to Table 3 above), sediments dams will not be used to store mine affected water. Rather, water from sediment dams may be pumped into mine affected water dams in order to manage water volumes and quality. This will help ensure that appropriate capacity is maintained and stored water quality in the sediment dams does not deteriorate over time.

2.4.3.1 Sediment Dam Design

Sediment dams proposed for the Northern Extension will be sized for a 1 in 10 AEP 24-hour duration design stormwater runoff volume, plus an additional 25% capacity for sediment storage. This equates to approximately 0.93 megalitres (Ml) per ha of catchment area. A summary of storage capacity is provided in Table 3. The dams have been sized for their maximum catchment area over the life of the Project.

2.4.3.2 North Mine Water Dam Design

A preliminary consequence category assessment for the proposed North Mine Water Dam (NMWD) has been conducted in accordance with the failure to contain criteria provided in the Manual for Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures (EHP 2016). All dams likely to contain contaminants with the potential to cause material or serious environmental harm must be designed to avoid contamination of water and land.

The NMWD will primarily provide storage for pit dewatering from the East and Satellite Pits (refer to Figure 11) following rainfall events, in addition to any groundwater inflows to the pits. Review of water quality data indicates that the expected open-cut pit groundwater inflows at the Project may be brackish, with a median EC of 5,700 micro-Siemens per centimetre (µS/cm). Due to the potential for harm at high salinities, the egulated storage (i.e. Significant Consequence Category).

Table 4 details the design storage allowance (DSA) volumes for the NMWD using the method of deciles provided in the Manual for Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures, along with the mandatory reporting level (MRL). The MRL is defined as the level of the dam above which there is available volume equivalent to the extreme storm surge (ESS) allowance (EHP 2016). The DSA volume was calculated using the 1 in 20 AEP three-month wet season rainfall depth (692 millimetres (mm)).

Given that NMWD receives pit dewatering from East Pit and Satellite Pit, the catchments to these pits have been included in the DSA calculations. Normal operation would see these pits dewatered to the NMWD and only when the NMWD is full would water be retained in-pit to prevent uncontrolled spills. The pit storage capacities have therefore not been included as part of the DSA capacity.

The MRL volume was calculated using the 1 in 10 AEP 72 hour design rainfall intensity of 2.79 mm/h (total rainfall depth of 201 mm) obtained from Australian Rainfall and Runoff (Pilgrim 1998).

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 24 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Table 4 DSA and MRL Volumes

Storage DSA Volume ESS / MRL Storage Catchment Area (ha) Capacity (Ml) (Ml) Volume (Ml) North Mine Water Dam 32.0 3000 221 64 East Pit 73.4 - 508 - Satellite Pit 137.4 - 951 - Total 242.8 3000 1680 - Source: WRM (2016b).

proposed capacity (3,000 Ml) is sufficient to contain the total DSA volume (1,680 Ml), even with the East Pit and Satellite Pit catchments included in the calculations. Additional storage capacity in NMWD has been provided to accommodate pump-back from the erosion and sediment control system, if necessary. The MRL volume for NMWD is only around 2% of its full storage capacity, and can be easily accommodated within the operating rules of the proposed storage.

2.4.4 Site Water Balance Model

The GoldSim Model developed for the Lake Vermont Mine was used to assess the dynamics of the water balance under varying rainfall and catchment conditions throughout the progression of the Project, based on the SWMS described in Section 2.4. Configuration of the model simulated the operation of major components of the SWMS. The site water balance model for the Project includes the existing Lake Vermont Mine.

Detailed water balance modelling methodology is provided in Appendix C.

2.4.4.1 Water Demands

Water demands calculated for the Project life include CHPP coal washing, haul road dust suppression, and other miscellaneous demands. Site water demands for various years of the Mine are detailed in Table 5.

Table 5 Site Water Demands

Water Use Year 1 Year 4 Year 14 Year 24 Year 32 CHPP 710 710 710 710 710 CDA Evaporation (average) 868 868 868 868 868 Haul Road Dust Suppression 1098 904 1256 910 825 Miscellaneous 109 109 109 109 109 Total Demand 2785 2591 2943 2597 2512 Source: WRM (2016b).

2.4.4.2 Groundwater Inflow

A Groundwater Impact Assessment, provided further in Appendix D, indicated that there will be small indicate any groundwater inflows. Groundwater inflows to the pits have been assumed to increase in a linear manner over time. The long-term groundwater inflow rates at the end of operations are shown in Table 6.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 25 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Table 6 Groundwater Inflow to Active Pits (end of operations)

Mining Pit Inflow Rate (Ml/day) Satellite Pit 0 East Pit 0 North Pit 1.5 B Pit 1.7 Central Pit 0.26 Source: WRM (2016b).

2.4.4.3 Overall Water Balance

The water balance averages produced by the site water balance model for key mine stage years are presented in Table 7 for 125 one year climatic realisations. The results demonstrate the adaptive capacity of the SWMS to changing mine stages and climatic variability.

Over the life of the Project, the results of the water balance indicate that small volumes of external water supply will be required at each stage of the Project, with the exception of Year 4. Coal processing forms the greatest demand for water on the site, while the greatest loss of water is caused by evaporation.

A net shortfall in the SWMS inflows versus outflows is evident prior to Year 24. Post-Year 24, however, average site inflows are in balance with average outflows. Total average inflows increase from approximately 4,000 Ml/a in Project Year 1 to around 7,000 Ml/a in Year 32. Total average outflows, however, remain relatively consistent over the life of the Project.

Table 7 Average Annual Water Balance for the Project

Process Year 1 Year 4 Year 14 Year 24 Year 32 Inflows (Volume Ml/a) Rainfall Runoff 3955 4326 5506 5688 5781 Groundwater Inflows 20 142 550 954 1249 Imported Water Supply 10 0 98 26 12 Total Inflows 3985 4468 6153 6668 7042 Outflows (Volume Ml/a) Evaporation 3253 3284 3425 3702 4325 Offsite Overflows Mine Affected System 0 0 0 0 0 Sediment Dams 0 158 38 49 3 Stormwater System 568 71 187 285 354 CHPP Processing / Co Disposal 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 Losses Haul Road Dust Suppression 1098 905 1256 907 821 Miscellaneous Demands 109 109 109 109 109 Total Outflows 6606 6105 6593 6631 7190 Change in Stored Inventory -2622 -1637 -440 +37 -149 Source: WRM (2016b).

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 26 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

The model of the SWMS has been configured to ensure Mine Affected water is contained within the system. Hence, the modelled results show no spills of Mine Affected water from the Mine Affected water dams (not including sediment dams) or from the active pits for any of the modeled realisations.

Sediment dams are dewatered to the Environmental Dams when required. When the Environmental Dams inventory exceeds their maximum operating volumes, sediment dams are allowed to discharge off site. Note that sizing of the proposed sediment dams is in accordance with the Best Practice Erosion and Sediment Control guideline (International Erosion Control Association (IECA) 2012).

2.4.4.4 Imported Water Requirements

Site water requirements are primarily sourced from the Mine Affected Water System and supplemented as required by the Stormwater System. However, in the event that both systems are not sufficient to meet operational water requirements, external raw water will be supplied by a SunWater pipeline and transferred to the Raw Water Dam.

SunWater) which is then transferred to the Raw Water Dam. When the volume of the Raw Water Dam is less than 40 Ml, imported raw water will transfer at a maximum rate of 100 L/s.

Potential imported water requirements have been assessed using forecast simulation. The results show that:

In any given year of the Lake Vermont Mine life, the current allocation of 2,250 Ml (at 100% allocation) is sufficient to meet imported water requirements;

There is a 95% chance that at least 50 Ml/a of imported water will be required from Project Year 6 onwards;

There is a 50% chance that at least 400 Ml/a of imported water will be required from Year 3 onwards; and

There is a 5% chance that more than 1300 Ml/a will be required from Project Years 4 to 7, which will subsequently decrease to 1200 Ml/a, until Year 15, and again to 800 Ml/a by Year 32.

2.4.5 Salinity Balance

For the purpose of the mine water management system salinity balance, runoff salinities have been adopted for each catchment land use classification based on the existing surface water monitoring program. Table 8 shows the adopted catchment runoff salinities as well as the adopted groundwater inflow salinity and raw water supply salinity, and the basis for these rates.

A conversion factor of 0.67 has been used for converting EC to Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) for consistency with the Groundwater Impact Assessment (JBT 2016a).

Table 8 Inflow Salinity During Mining

Source Salinity (µS/cm) Basis Mining pit 4,500 Median EC of active pit monitoring data Median EC of MIA Dam monitoring data over 2013 Hardstand / Pre-strip 900 to 2014 Tailings (Co-Disposal) 3,050 Average EC of only two samples at Co-Disposal

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 27 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Source Salinity (µS/cm) Basis Dam 1 taken during 2010 & 2011. Un-rehabilitated Spoil / Maximum EC of waste characterisation 640 Stockpile assessment 1 Natural / Undisturbed / 300 Median EC of Stormwater system monitoring data Topsoil Not enough data to determine assumed similar Rehabilitated Spoil 300 to Natural 2 Median EC of Isaac River at Deverill (NRM SunWater pipeline 240 monitoring data) Groundwater 5,750 Average EC of groundwater sampling data 3 Source: WRM (2016b). Notes: 1. Unrehabilitated spoil salinity generation rate is difficult to determine from site dam water quality monitoring data due to mixed catchment land uses and pit dewatering to spoil dams. The Lake Vermont Progressive Waste Characterisation Assessment (AARC 2013) reports the EC of spoil samples Note this is not the same as the long term Rehabilitated Spoil salinity which has been adopted for the final void salinity balance. It is likely that this value will reduce significantly over time. 3. Provided by JBT 2012.

Table 9 presents the average salt load balance for Project Years 1, 4, 14, 24 and 32, for 125 one year climatic realisations. The results indicate how the salt balance of the system adapts to changing mine stages and climatic variability.

Over the life of the Lake Vermont Mine, the results indicate the following:

A total average salt inflow to the SWMS increasing from 1,100 t/a to 6,200 t/a. In contrast, total average salt outflow decreases from 8,800 t/a to 6,600 t/a;

Rainfall runoff makes the greatest contribution to the salt balance in the SWMS. However, in later years, groundwater inflows make the greatest salt load contributions;

CHPP processing results in the greatest loss of salt from the SWMS; and

Average salt loads from sediment dam overflows are less than 40 t/a in any given year of the Lake Vermont Mine.

Table 9 Average Annual Salt Load Balance for each Project Stage

Process Year 1 Year 4 Year 14 Year 24 Year 32 Inflows (Volume t/a) Rainfall Runoff 1017 1567 2094 1662 1388 Groundwater Inflows 77 547 2117 3674 4813 External Raw Water Supply 2 0 16 4 2 Total Inflows 1095 2114 4227 5340 6203 Outflows (Volume t/a) Evaporation 0 0 0 0 0 Offsite Overflows Mine Affected System 0 0 0 0 0 Sediment Dams 0 39 11 13 1 Stormwater System 142 16 44 64 81 CHPP Processing 5045 5044 3602 4116 4314

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 28 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Process Year 1 Year 4 Year 14 Year 24 Year 32 Haul Road Dust Suppression 3622 2908 2606 2211 2172 Miscellaneous Demands 64 75 44 44 50 Total Outflows 8873 8082 6307 6449 6618 Change in Stored Salt Load -7778 -5968 -2080 -1108 -415 Source: WRM (2016b).

2.4.5.1 Stored Salinity

The salinity balance demonstrates that dams on the Project site typically do not accumulate salts over the life of the mine. The stored salinities of primary Mine Affected Water Storage dams are summarised below:

Environmental dams 1, 3 and 4 exhibit similar stored salinity results, with salinity values (measured as TDS) varying from 700 mg/L to 6,500 mg/L; and

In the NMWD, there is a low likelihood that stored salinity is high (i.e. >10,000 mg/L). High salinities typically occur when the stored volume in NWMD was less than approximately 150 ML.

For Stormwater System dams and sediment dams, the maximum salinity of overflow for each model realisation ranges from 400 1000 mg/L. For half of the model realisations, the maximum overflow salinity over the life of the Mine is less than 600 mg/L for all Stormwater System dams and sediment dams.

2.4.6 Final Void Behaviour

The location of Final Voids in the Northern Extension is shown in Figure 3 and Appendix A. The site water balance model was reconfigured in order to simulate the long-term water levels in each final void. Key components of the model included:

Rainfall, including direct rainfall to the void;

Evaporation from the water surface within the void;

Evapotranspiration and runoff from catchments;

Groundwater inflows from the regional water table (and outflows if the regional groundwater level is exceeded by the void water surface level); and

Salt fluxes in each component of flow, as well as a simple conservative solute balance.

The overflow levels of proposed final voids are above the Isaac River floodplain. The proposed Pit B void location is immediately south of Phillips Creek. A permanent diversion structure may need to be constructed at this location to prevent inundation of the void in the long-term. However, prior to construction of the void, an assessment and mitigation strategy will be developed to manage potential geotechnical risks and potential interaction with adjacent Phillips Creek alluvium.

2.4.6.1 Long-term Water Levels

As detailed in Table 10, long-term water levels in final voids are expected to stabilise between 82 m Australian Height Datum (AHD) and 101 m AHD after approximately 120 years. This is more than 75 m below the overflow level of the void. For the Satellite Pit void, however, the water level stabilises at

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 29 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

around 121 m AHD after approximately 60 years. This is approximately 40 m below the overflow level of this void.

Figure 11 shows the locations of all active pits and final pit voids.

Table 10 Final Void Water Storage Capacities and Inflow Rates

Floor Level Spill Level Adopted Regional Modelled Long-term Final Void (m AHD) (m AHD) Groundwater Level (m AHD) Water Level (m AHD) Central Pit 42 168 130 82 North Pit 2 180 138 101 B Pit -8 172 143 98 East Pit 32 168 140 88 Satellite Pit 86 162 146 121 Source: WRM (2016b).

2.4.6.2 Long-term Salinity

As shown in Table 10, the long-term final void water levels are predicted to be below the regional groundwater level. Consequently, salinity in void water is likely to increase over time due to continual inflows of groundwater with higher salt content than water in the void. Runoff containing dissolved salts will also contribute to increasing salinity in void water. Fluctuations will occur with wet periods and prolonged droughts.

Changes to salinity in the B Pit, North Pit and Satellite Pit (refer to Figure 3 for locations of final pit voids) are predicted to be similar. Modelled salinity in these voids fluctuated between approximately 14,000 mg/L and 20,000 mg/L at high void water levels, and between 10,000 mg/L and 13,000 mg/L at low water levels. In the East and Central Pits, the change in salinity is predicted to be less substantial. Modelled salinity fluctuated between 5,000 mg/L and 9,000 mg/L at high water levels, and between 4,000 mg/L and 5,000 mg/L at low water levels.

2.5 REHABILITATION

Rehabilitation strategies and methods for the Lake Vermont Mine were developed in accordance with Rehabilitation Requirements for Mining Projects (EHP 2014) and the Technical Guidelines for the Environmental Management of Exploration and Mining in Queensland (DME 1995). This same rehabilitation strategy will be applied to the proposed Northern Extension.

Rehabilitation will occur progressively over the life of the Project as operational land becomes available and will achieve the goals and objectives. This strategy will minimise the total disturbance existing at any point in time during the life of the mine. Benefits of this approach include:

Minimising erosion on the site;

Minimising dust emission from the site;

Reducing the time for which topsoil remains stockpiled leading to an increased regeneration from the seed bank;

Minimising the ecological impacts of clearing, such as reduced habitat for fauna; and

Minimising the social / visual impacts of the Project.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 30 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

The rehabilitation strategies currently applied at the Lake Vermont Mine have proven successful in practice and will also be applied to equivalent rehabilitation domains within the Northern Extension.

2.5.1 Diversion Rehabilitation Strategy

A specific rehabilitation strategy is proposed for the Phillips Creek diversion. Revegetation will be undertaken to ultimately achieve similar conditions to the existing stream.

The establishment and maintenance of riparian vegetation will be essential for bank stability early in the life of the diversion. Root systems from trees and shrubs provide much of the erosion resistance for channel widening from the shear stresses of flowing water, and grasses protect the soil surface from raindrop splash erosion and overland flows.

Tree and shrub root systems take time to establish and grass root systems cannot provide sufficient depth and strength to provide the necessary erosion protection in the long term. The revegetation design must therefore provide for the rapid establishment of high strength, deep root systems to protect the soil surface from raindrop splash and overland flows and provide for long term erosion protection and ecological function.

Revegetation works will include a combination of native grass, shrub and tree species. The potential benefits of a compost blanket or other soil ameliorant (to restart micro-biological soil processes and retain soil moisture) to aid rapid vegetation establishment will be considered during design. Vegetation to be seeded will include cover crops and non-invasive grass species for short and medium term erosion protection and native grasses, shrubs and trees for long term erosion protection.

Consideration will be given to planting and direct seeding of Vetiver Grass (Chrysopogan zizanioides). Vetiver Grass has been developed specifically for erosion control purposes. It is a stiff barrier grass that is planted in a similar manner to a shrub or tree. This particular cultivar is sterile and is tolerant to a wide range of soil conditions. Its greatest benefit is its rapid growth and massive root structure. The roots can grow 2 to 3 m deep in the first twelve months and have been measured to have a mean tensile strength of 75 MPa.

Native grass, tree and shrub species selected for long term rehabilitation will be representative of the riparian species currently inhabiting Phillips Creek. Eucalypt and Melaleuca trees will be established over a number of years and their root systems will take over the stream bank erosion protection role that the Vetiver Grass roots have provided in the short term. The trees may ultimately shade out the Vetiver Grass.

Where possible, existing vegetation will be preserved, and fallen timber or vegetation cleared as part of mining operations will be incorporated into the new channel to rapidly establish habitat.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 31 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

3.0

A Protected Matters Search, administered by the Commonwealth DoE, was conducted using a 100 km buffer around a central coordinate on the Project site. This search was used to ascertain the potential presence of MNES on and surrounding the Project site. A copy of the Protected Matters Search is provided in Appendix I.

Table 11 below lists the MNES identified within 100 km of the Northern Extension Project.

Table 11 Matters of National Environmental Significance within 100 km

MNES Number World Heritage Properties 0 National Heritage Places 0 Wetlands of International Importance 0 GBRMP 0 Commonwealth Marine Areas 0 Listed Threatened Ecological Communities 5 Listed Threatened Species 30 Listed Migratory Species 15

Table 12 identifies other matters protected by the EPBC Act that may occur within the 100 km buffer of the Northern Extension Project.

Table 12 Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act within 100 km

Other Matters Number Commonwealth Land 0 Commonwealth Heritage Places 0 Listed Marine Species 18 Whales and Cetaceans 0 Critical Habitats 0 Commonwealth Reserves 0

3.1 WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTIES

No World Heritage Properties are located within 100 km of the Project. The GBRMP is located approximately 110 km to the east of the Project.

3.1.1 Nature and Extent of Likely Impact

Any runoff or release from the proposed development area will enter the Isaac River catchment, and then flow south-east into the Fitzroy River. The Fitzroy River ultimately flows into the Coral Sea at Rockhampton, approximately 260 km south-east of the Project site.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 32 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

3.1.1.1 Significant Impact Criteria

The Significant impact guidelines 1.1: Matters of National Environmental Significance (DoE 2013a) define significant impact criteria for the assessment of impacts to World Heritage properties. These guidelines state that an action is likely to have a significant impact on the values of a World Heritage property if there is a real chance or possibility that it will cause:

One or more of the World Heritage values to be lost;

One or more of the World Heritage values to be degraded or damaged; or

One or more of the World Heritage values to be notably altered, modified, obscured or diminished.

3.1.1.2 Potential Impact on World Heritage Properties

Although the Fitzroy River Basin is the largest catchment draining into the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), the catchment does not contribute significant freshwater flows in comparison to other river systems located further north. The contribution of the Lake Vermont Northern Extension to sediment loads, nutrient loads and heavy metal concentrations entering the GBR at Rockhampton are likely to be negligible.

Investigations into the cumulative impacts of coal mining within the Fitzroy Basin on water quality were conducted by the Queensland Government in 2008. Outcomes of the investigation included a set of water conditions for the management of water discharges in order to achieve the water quality objectives (WQOs) of the Queensland Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 (EPP (Water)).

Where controlled releases are conducted, they will be required to meet these WQOs. No uncontrolled releases are likely to occur. Further discussion of water management and potential surface water impacts are discussed in Section 3.11.

No impacts on any of the world heritage values of the GBR are likely to occur as a result of the Lake Vermont Northern Extension.

3.2 NATIONAL HERITAGE PLACES

No National Heritage Places are located within 100 km of the Project. The GBRMP is located approximately 110 km to the east of the Project.

3.2.1 Nature and Extent of Likely Impact

Any runoff from the proposed development area will enter the Isaac River catchment, and then flow south-east into the Fitzroy River. The Fitzroy River ultimately flows into the Coral Sea at Rockhampton, approximately 260 km south-east of the Project site.

3.2.1.1 Significant Impact Criteria

The Significant impact guidelines 1.1: Matters of National Environmental Significance (DoE 2013a) define significant impact criteria for the assessment of impacts to National Heritage places. These guidelines state that an action is likely to have a significant impact on the values of a National Heritage place if there is a real chance or possibility that it will cause:

One or more of the National Heritage values to be lost;

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 33 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

One or more of the National Heritage values to be degraded or damaged; or

One or more of the National Heritage values to be notably altered, modified, obscured or diminished.

3.2.1.2 Potential Impact on National Heritage Properties

The contribution of the Lake Vermont Northern Extension to sediment loads, nutrient loads and heavy impact on any National Heritage Place is likely to occur as a result of the Lake Vermont Northern Extension.

The contribution of the Lake Vermont Northern Extension to sediment loads, nutrient loads and heavy metal concentrations entering the GBR at Rockhampton are likely to be negligible.

No impacts on any of the national heritage values of the GBR are likely to occur as a result of the Lake Vermont Northern Extension.

3.3 WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE

No Wetlands of International Importance are located within 100 km of the Project.

3.4 GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK

3.4.1 Nature and Extent of Likely Impact

Any runoff from the proposed development area will enter the Isaac River catchment, flowing south- east into the Fitzroy River. The Fitzroy River ultimately flows into the Coral Sea at Rockhampton, approximately 260 km south-east of the Project site.

3.4.1.1 Significant Impact Criteria

The Significant impact guidelines 1.1: Matters of National Environmental Significance (DoE 2013a) define significant impact criteria for the assessment of impacts to the GBRMP. These guidelines state that an action is likely to have a significant impact on the values of the GBRMP if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

Modify, destroy, fragment, isolate or disturb an important, substantial, sensitive or vulnerable area of habitat or ecosystem component such that an adverse impact on marine ecosystem health, functioning or integrity in the GBRMP results;

Have a substantial adverse effect on a population of a species or cetacean including its life cycle (for example, breeding, feeding, migration behaviour, life expectancy) and spatial distribution;

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 34 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Result in a substantial change in air quality or water quality (including temperature) which may adversely impact on biodiversity, ecological health or integrity or social amenity or human health;

Result in a known or potential pest species being introduced or becoming established in the GBRMP;

Result in persistent organic chemicals, heavy metals, or other potentially harmful chemicals accumulating in the marine environment such that biodiversity, ecological integrity, or social amenity or human health may be adversely affected; or

Have a substantial adverse impact on heritage values of the GBRMP, including damage or destruction of an historic shipwreck.

3.4.1.2 Potential Impact on Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

The contribution of the Lake Vermont Northern Extension to sediment loads, nutrient loads and heavy metal concentrations entering the GBR at Rockhampton are likely to be negligible.

No impacts on the GBRMP are likely to occur as a result of the Lake Vermont Northern Extension.

3.5 COMMONWEALTH MARINE AREAS

The closest Commonwealth marine area to the Project site is the GBRMP, located approximately 110 km to the east. Watercourses associated with the Project drain into the Coral Sea approximately 260 km south-east of the site.

3.5.1 Nature and Extent of Likely Impact

3.5.1.1 Significant Impact Criteria

The Significant impact guidelines 1.1: Matters of National Environmental Significance (DoE 2013a) define significant impact criteria for the assessment of impacts to the Commonwealth marine environment. These guidelines state that an action is likely to have a significant impact on the values of Commonwealth marine areas if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

Result in a known or potential pest species becoming established in the Commonwealth marine area;

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 35 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Modify, destroy, fragment, isolate or disturb an important or substantial area of habitat such that an adverse impact on marine ecosystem functioning or integrity in a Commonwealth marine area results;

Have a substantial adverse effect on a population of a marine species or cetacean including its life cycle (for example, breeding, feeding, migration behaviour, life expectancy) and spatial distribution;

Result in a substantial change in air quality or water quality (including temperature) which may adversely impact on biodiversity, ecological integrity; social amenity or human health;

Result in persistent organic chemicals, heavy metals, or other potentially harmful chemicals accumulating in the marine environment such that biodiversity, ecological integrity, social amenity or human health may be adversely affected; or

Have a substantial adverse impact on heritage values of the Commonwealth marine area, including damage or destruction of an historic shipwreck.

3.5.1.2 Potential Impact on Commonwealth Marine Areas

The contribution of the Lake Vermont Northern Extension to sediment loads, nutrient loads and heavy metal concentrations entering the GBR at Rockhampton are likely to be negligible.

No impact on any Commonwealth Marine Area is likely to occur as a result of the Lake Vermont Northern Extension.

3.6 NUCLEAR ACTIONS

No nuclear actions are proposed as part of the Project.

3.7 COMMONWEALTH LAND

The Protected Matters Search revealed no Commonwealth land exists within a 100 km buffer of the Project. No impact is likely.

3.8 LISTED THREATENED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES

The Protected Matters Search identified five Threatened Ecological Communities that could potentially occur on or within 100 km of the Project site. These communities are listed in Table 13.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 36 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Table 13 Threatened Ecological Communities within 100 km

Presence of Community Community Name Status Within 100 km Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant) E Known to occur Broad Leaf Tea-tree (Melaleuca viridiflora) woodlands in E May occur high rainfall coastal north Queensland Natural Grasslands of the Queensland Central Highlands E Likely to occur and the northern Fitzroy Basin Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North E Likely to occur and South) and Nandewar Bioregions Weeping Myall Woodlands E Likely to occur Note: E = Endangered.

3.8.1 Field Survey

3.8.1.1 Flora Survey Methodology

Database searches and an extensive literature review were conducted to characterise the Project site prior to field surveys and to identify potential threatened communities which may exist. The field surveys involved a baseline study of the Project site using standard floristic survey methods (Neldner et al. 2012). Two vegetation survey techniques (Secondary and Quaternary plots) were utilised during the field surveys.

Secondary surveys consist of a 20 m x 50 m transect, precisely marked using a Global Positioning System (GPS) and accurately measured with a marking tape. Data recorded at each Secondary site included a complete floral assemblage (all species observed from each vegetation layer). Species that fall outside the plot but are deemed typical of the community are also listed. Where a plant could not be positively identified to species level, a voucher specimen was collected for identification by the Queensland Herbarium. Relative abundance for individual woody species in each stratum, stem density, foliage projection cover and height of the tree and shrub layers was recorded. Percentage composition of each ground cover species was recorded in five 1 m x 1 m quadrats located at 10 m intervals along the transect line. A total of nine Secondary flora sites were assessed.

Quaternary or rapid vegetation survey sites consist of a single observation plot, marked into a GPS. At each plot, important features relevant to vegetation community mapping are noted, such as dominant species in the characteristic layers, vegetation structure, soil / landform and an intuitive classification of the regional ecosystems (REs). These plots are commonly used to ground truth desktop assessment and/or mapping previously completed for the local area. A total of 33 Quaternary assessments were conducted.

Vegetation (RE) maps of the Project site were produced following field surveys to a minimum scale of 1:10 000. The maps were developed based upon survey results, satellite images, aerial photographs, and geological maps featuring the Project site. Where possible, each RE is mapped as a homogenous polygon wherever it occurs on the Project site.

Further details of the Flora Survey Methodology, including site locations and maps, are provided in Appendix F.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 37 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

3.8.1.2 Ecological Communities Identified on the Project Site

The majority of the Project area has been subject to clearing for grazing. The survey found that remaining vegetation is largely limited to the riparian area of Phillips Creek, two large dams, and the area surrounding Lake Vermont in the east of the site.

Six of the vegetation communities are classified as remnant vegetation, as defined by the Queensland Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VM Act). Vegetation communities are briefly described below, along with their corresponding REs. Figure 12 illustrates the distribution of vegetation communities over the Lake Vermont Northern Extension site.

Community 1 RE 11.3.2

Community 1 is an open woodland dominated by Poplar Box (Eucalyptus populnea). This community exists as small sections of remnant vegetation on alluvial deposits around Lake Vermont in the east of the Project site. Community 1 covers a total area of 9.7 ha over the Project site. RE 11.3.2 has been extensively cleared or modified by grazing activities. The community does not constitute a Threatened Ecological Community as defined by the EPBC Act.

Community 2 RE 11.5.3

Community 2 is a low open woodland of Poplar Box (E. populnea) and Ghost Gum (Corymbia dallachiana) that occurs on Cainozoic sand plains. This vegetation community is found in one small patch in the west of the Project site, to the north of Phillips Creek. Community 2 covers a total area of 0.9 ha across the Project site. RE 11.5.3 has been extensively cleared or modified by grazing, and is subject to grazing pressure and Buffel Grass invasion (EHP 2013a). The community does not constitute a Threatened Ecological Community as defined in the EPBC Act.

Community 3 RE 11.3.25

Community 3 is a riparian woodland community dominated by River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis). The community occurs in a continuous thin strip along the banks of Phillips Creek. It is the largest remnant vegetation community on the Project site, covering an area of 184.5 ha. The total area of this community located in protected areas is classed as low. It is impacted by total grazing pressure and subject to invasion by Rubber Vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora) and Buffel Grass (EHP 2013a). The community does not constitute a Threatened Ecological Community as defined in the EPBC Act.

Community 4 RE 11.3.35

Community 4 occurs in the east of the Project site. It is the second largest remnant vegetation community on the Project site. It consists of a canopy dominated by Poplar Gum (Eucalyptus platyphylla Corymbia clarksoniana) and a patchy Paperbark (Melaleuca spp.) understorey. Community 4 covers a total area of 132.2 ha across the Project site. The extent of this community protected in reserves is low. In some areas it is invaded by Chinee Apple (Ziziphus mauritiana) and Rubber Vine (C. grandiflora) (EHP 2013a). The community does not constitute a Threatened Ecological Community as defined in the EPBC Act.

Community 5 RE 11.3.7

C. clarksoniana), Moreton Bay Ash (Corymbia tessellaris) and Ghost Gum (C. dallachiana) located on alluvial plains. This community exists in a single patch in the north-east of the Project site and is contiguous with Community 4. RE 11.3.7 covers an area of 43.9 ha over the Project site and is subject to grazing pressure and the introduction of Buffel Grass has displaced native species from the ground layer (EHP

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 38 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

2013a). The extent of RE 11.3.7 in reserves is low. The community does not constitute a Threatened Ecological Community as defined in the EPBC Act.

Community 6 RE 11.3.27 (Freshwater Wetlands)

This community occurs around small wetland areas / standing water bodies on the Project site. The largest area of Community 6 is located at Lake Vermont which partially overlaps the Project boundary. One very small patch of wetland is located south of Phillips Creek in the west of the Project site. Community 6 covers an area of 20.6 ha on the Project site. The community does not constitute a Threatened Ecological Community as defined in the EPBC Act.

Community 7 Regrowth Vegetation

A community of regrowth (non-remnant) vegetation was identified on the site, covering a limited extent (maximum area of 123.9 ha). Portions of this regrowth community were characterised as having Brigalow as the dominant tree species.

In accordance with the Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant) information sheet (Environment Australia 2001), Brigalow dominant vegetation is considered an Endangered Ecological Community under the EPBC Act, provided that a clearing permit is required under Queensland law, or the regrowth is more than 15 years old. Neither of these conditions applies to the regrowth vegetation on the Project site. Additionally, Brigalow regrowth is not considered part of the Brigalow Endangered Ecological Community if it is of poor quality. Ecological assessment of the regrowth vegetation on the Project site determined it to be severely degraded, with extensive dieback of the canopy. Ground cover was dominated by exotic pasture species. The largest patch of regrowth (located around the central dam) is extremely fragmented by tracks and fence lines. This regrowth vegetation is generally surrounded by cleared areas and isolated from the other remnant vegetation communities that occur on the site.

Therefore, on the basis of age, condition and status of regrowth vegetation on the Project site, the community does not constitute a Threatened Ecological Community as defined by the EPBC Act. Hence, the regrowth vegetation is not classified as a MNES.

Community 8 Non-remnant Grassland

Community 8 covers the majority of the Project site (3,264 ha). It is dominated by improved pasture species such as Buffel Grass (Cenchrus ciliaris). No native grass species were identified on the site. The community is of low environmental value. The community does not constitute a Threatened Ecological Community as defined in the EPBC Act.

3.8.2 Nature and Extent of Likely Impact

To determine the extent of impact on Threatened Ecological Communities by the proposed Northern Extension Project, a Flora and Fauna Assessment was undertaken by AARC (Appendix F). The Flora and Fauna Assessment included a desktop analysis of available literature and databases, followed by an ecological field survey conducted from 13th 21st May 2013.

Proposed impacts of the Project were assessed against the significant impact criteria provided below.

3.8.2.1 Significant Impact Criteria

The Significant impact guidelines 1.1: Matters of National Environmental Significance (DoE 2013a) define significant impact criteria for the assessment of impacts to endangered ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act. These guidelines state that an action is likely to have a significant impact

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 39 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

on a critically endangered or endangered ecological community if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

Reduce the extent of an ecological community;

Fragment or increase fragmentation of an ecological community, for example by clearing vegetation for roads or transmission lines;

Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of an ecological community;

Modify or destroy abiotic (non-living) factors (such as water, nutrients or soil) necessary for an substantial alteration of surface water drainage patterns;

Cause a substantial change in the species composition of an occurrence of an ecological community, including causing a decline or loss of functionally important species, for example through regular burning or flora or fauna harvesting;

Cause a substantial reduction in the quality or integrity of an occurrence of an ecological community, including, but not limited to:

o Assisting invasive species, that are harmful to the listed ecological community, to become established; or

o Causing regular mobilisation of fertilisers, herbicides or other chemicals or pollutants into the ecological community which kill or inhibit the growth of species in the ecological community; or

Interfere with the recovery of an ecological community.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 40 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Figure 12 Vegetation Communities on the Project Site

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 41 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

3.8.2.2 Potential Impact on Threatened Ecological Communities

No Threatened Ecological Communities, as listed under the EPBC Act, were identified on the Project site. The Flora and Fauna Assessment prepared for the Project concluded that no impacts to such communities will occur as a result of Project development.

On this basis the Northern Extension Project will not impact on any Listed Threatened Ecological Communities.

3.8.3 Management Commitments

BBC will implement the following strategies to minimise the likelihood of significant impacts on vegetation communities:

The clearing footprint will be minimised by limiting disturbance to only those areas required for mining and associated activities;

Disturbed areas will be progressively rehabilitated to minimise the area of land subject to disturbance at any one time. Mined areas will be landscaped and covered with stockpiled topsoil and revegetated with native or pasture species in accordance with the rehabilitation objectives;

Environmental offsets are proposed to offset impacts to riparian vegetation occurring along Phillips Creek which constitute Matters of State Environmental Significance (MSES); and

Weed species will be monitored to determine abundance and identify the presence of any new species. Weed controls will be implemented as required to protect ecological values.

3.9 LISTED THREATENED SPECIES

The Protected Matters Search identified 30 threatened species that could potentially occur on or within 100 km of the Project site. Queensland Government database searches identified one additional EPBC Act listed threatened species potentially occurring within 100 km of the Project site. These species are listed in Table 14.

Table 14 Threatened Species within 100 km

Presence of EPBC Act Scientific Name Threatened Species Species / Habitat Status within 100 km Birds Neochmia ruficauda ruficauda Star Finch (eastern) E Likely to occur Erythrotriorchis radiatus Red Goshawk V Known to occur Rostratula australis Australian Painted Snipe E Likely to occur Poephila cincta cincta Black-throated Finch (southern) E Likely to occur Geophaps scripta scripta Squatter Pigeon (southern) V Known to occur Grantiella picta Painted Honeyeater V May occur Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli Masked Owl (northern) V May occur Mammals Nyctophilus corbeni / South-eastern Long-eared Bat V May occur timoriensis

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 42 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Presence of EPBC Act Scientific Name Threatened Species Species / Habitat Status within 100 km Phascolarctos cinereus Koala V Known to occur Dasyurus hallucatus Northern Quoll E Known to occur Lasiorhinus krefftii Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat E - Roosting known to Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox V occur within area Reptiles Denisonia maculata Ornamental Snake V Likely to occur Egernia rugosa Yakka Skink V Likely to occur Furina dunmalli V Known to occur Delma torquata Collared Delma V May occur Rheodytes leukops Fitzroy River Turtle V May occur Elseya albagula Southern Snapping Turtle CE Known to occur Lerista allanae Allan's Lerista / Retro Slider E Known to occur Plants Aristida annua - V Known to occur Cadellia pentastylis Ooline V Likely to occur Cycas megacarpa - E Known to occur Cycas ophiolitica - E Likely to occur Daviesia discolor - V Likely to occur Dichanthium queenslandicum King Bluegrass E Known to occur Dichanthium setosum Bluegrass V Likely to occur Eucalyptus raveretiana Black Ironbox V Known to occur Omphalea celata - V Likely to occur Phaius australis Lesser Swamp-orchid E May occur Phalaenopsis rosenstromii Native Moth Orchid E May occur Samadera bidwillii Quassia V Likely to occur Note: CE = Critically Endangered; E = Endangered; V = Vulnerable.

3.9.1 Field Survey

3.9.1.1 Flora Survey Methodology

Database searches and an extensive literature review were undertaken in order to characterise the Project site prior to field surveys and to identify threatened species which may occur. The field surveys involved a baseline study of the Project using standard floristic survey methods (Neldner et al. 2012). Two vegetation survey techniques (Secondary and Quaternary plots) were utilised during the field surveys. No Commonwealth survey guidelines exist for threatened flora species considered likely to occur on the Project site.

Secondary surveys consist of a 20 m x 50 m transect, precisely marked using a GPS and accurately measured with a marking tape. Data recorded at each Secondary site included a complete floral assemblage (all species observed from each vegetation layer). Species that fall outside the plot but are deemed typical of the community are also listed. Where a plant could not be positively identified to species level, a voucher specimen was collected for identification by the Queensland Herbarium. Relative abundance for individual woody species in each stratum, stem density, foliage projection

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 43 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

cover and height of the tree and shrub layers was recorded. Percentage composition of each ground cover species was recorded in five 1 m x 1 m quadrats located at 10 m intervals along the transect line. Nine Secondary flora sites were assessed.

Quaternary or rapid vegetation survey sites consist of a single observation plot, marked into a GPS. At each plot, important features relevant to vegetation community mapping are noted, such as dominant species in the characteristic layers, vegetation structure, soil / landform and an intuitive classification of the vegetation (i.e. RE classification). These plots are commonly used to ground truth desktop assessment and/or mapping previously completed for the local area. A total of 33 Quaternary assessments were conducted.

The condition and quality of vegetation at each survey site was assessed. Attention was paid to identifying the presence of weeds, species of conservation significance or potential habitat for species of conservation significance. Targeted searches for EPBC Act listed flora species were undertaken upon identification of suitable habitat or growing conditions.

Further details of the Flora Survey Methodology are provided in Appendix F.

3.9.1.2 Fauna Survey Methodology

Database searches and an extensive literature review were undertaken in order to characterise the Project site prior to field surveys and to identify potential threatened species and habitat which may exist.

The field survey methodology for the Project was based on the Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Survey Guidelines for Queensland (Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (DSITIA) 2012). Targeted fauna techniques for reptiles, birds and Koalas are based on the methods prescribed in the (DSEWPAC 2011d), Survey (DEWHA 2010a) and EPBC Act referral guidelines for the vulnerable Koala (DoE 2014a), respectively. The Mammals (DSEWPAC 2011e) were not consulted as no mammal species identified in database searches at the time of the field survey (other than the Koala and bats) were considered likely to occur on the Project site. Acoustic detection methods were employed to target bat species likely to occur on the Project site.

Threatened fauna species, identified by the Protected Matters Search Tool and state database searches, were assessed for their likelihood of inhabiting or utilising the Project site. Species with the potential to be present on the site were targeted in the fauna survey:

Ornamental Snake;

South-eastern Long-eared Bat;

Yakka Skink;

Koala;

Masked Owl (northern);

Squatter Pigeon (southern);

Australian Painted Snipe; and

Red Goshawk.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 44 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Detailed fauna surveys were carried out within each of the vegetation communities / habitat types on the Project site. Fauna trapping was conducted at five survey sites. Habitat searches, bird surveys and camera trapping were conducted at an additional three targeted survey sites. Detailed descriptions of each survey site are presented in Appendix F along with maps of the site locations.

A description of the methodologies employed to survey the fauna occurring on the Project site is provided below. Detailed descriptions of each site and further detail of fauna survey methodology are provided in Appendix F.

Elliott Trapping small ground-dwelling mammals inhabiting the Project site during the field survey period. Traps were baited with a mixture of oats, honey, peanut butter, sesame oil and vanilla essence. At each site, 20 Elliott traps were deployed at strategically positioned locations. Each trap was positioned approximately 10 m from the next. The overall survey effort for Elliot trapping was 400 trap nights.

Cage Trapping

Cage traps are useful for capturing medium sized fauna that are unlikely to be caught in pitfall traps and funnel traps. Cage traps were used only at sites where automated cameras were not used. One cage trap was deployed at two fauna sites and baited with chicken necks. The overall survey effort for cage trapping was eight trap nights.

Automated Cameras

Automated camera trapping is a less invasive method of surveying medium and large-sized nocturnal terrestrial species. Cameras are usually attached to a tree in a position that offers an unobstructed dry cat food is pegged to the ground and positioned in clear view of the camera. Motion-sensing technology in the camera picks up movement by target fauna which then triggers an automatic photographic response. This is a highly effective survey method and is now widely used instead of cage trapping (DSITIA 2012). Automated cameras were deployed at three locations for four nights and at another two locations for one night. Survey effort was 14 camera trap nights.

Pitfall Trapping

A pitfall trap line was established at three of the survey sites to target small ground-dwelling fauna (reptiles, mammals and amphibians). Each line consisted of a 20 centimetre (cm) tall drift fence running along the ground and crossing the middle of four 20 litre (L) buckets buried flush with the soil surface. The bottom edge of each drift fence was buried to guide target animals towards the buckets. A small amount of soil, vegetation litter, a damp sponge and a small plastic pipe were placed in the bottom of each bucket to provide shelter and moisture for captured wildlife.

Funnel Trapping

Funnel traps are elongated box-shaped traps made of wire and fine mesh. They have two funnel shaped entrances which allow fauna to enter with ease but make exiting difficult. Funnel traps were positioned at four fauna sites in order to catch medium and large-sized terrestrial reptiles, snakes and some species of medium-sized skinks, dragons and geckos, which are able to climb out of pitfall traps. Funnel traps were placed at the end of each drift fence at all pitfall traplines and along fallen timber at targeted trap sites. Total funnel trap effort was 96 trap nights.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 45 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Micro-bat Surveying

Micro-bats (Microchiropterans) form an extremely diverse group of wildlife and the identification of individual species requires the use of specialised survey methods due to the superficial similarity of many species, their small size, and largely inaudible calls.

In order to navigate and hunt at night micro-bats use high frequency echolocation calls, most of which are above the frequency range audible to humans (i.e. ultrasound). These echolocation calls provide an opportunity to unobtrusively survey and identify micro-bats through the use of a specialised ultrasonic recorder such as a Songmeter. Such recorders were positioned to detect micro-bat calls at strategic locations throughout the Project site. Sound recordings were sent to an experienced bat-call analyst (Greg Ford of Balance! Environmental, Toowoomba, Queensland) for analysis.

Bird Surveying

A dedicated search for diurnal birds was conducted visually and aurally on mornings and afternoons of the survey in the immediate vicinity of each fauna transect. In addition, opportunistic diurnal searches were also conducted on foot in areas considered likely to have high avian diversity (e.g. vegetated dams), or likely to contain cryptic or threatened bird species. Approximately eight hours of diurnal bird searching was conducted during the survey.

Spotlighting

Spotlighting was carried out at night in various sections of the Project site in order to observe nocturnal wildlife (i.e. owls and arboreal mammals) unlikely to be detected by other survey methods. Two spotlighting techniques were employed:

1. Walk searches: Areas within the Project site considered likely to contain cryptic or threatened species, or high fauna diversity were investigated on foot. These areas were randomly traversed by two ecologists equipped with spotlights and binoculars, and wherever possible, bark crevices and tree hollows were examined. A slow walking speed (approximately 1 km per hour) was maintained across the length of the survey area to fully facilitate intensive listening and thorough visual searching. While this technique improves the likelihood of detecting small cryptic species, it is a time consuming activity that does not permit the coverage of large areas. The total spotlight hours undertaken on foot within the Project site was three person hours.

2. Vehicle searches: Spotlighting was also conducted from a slow-moving vehicle where established roads / tracks permitted driving through areas considered likely to have high wildlife diversity or cryptic or threatened species. One 55-watt 12-volt spotlight was used to scan roadside vegetation for arboreal and ground-dwelling wildlife. An advantage of this survey technique is the efficiency with which large areas can be covered. A total of one person hour of vehicle spotlighting was undertaken on the Project site during the survey.

Call Playback

The calls of nocturnal animals considered potentially present at the Project site were played during spotlighting. The following calls were played from a handheld speaker:

Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus);

Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae);

Barking Owl (Ninox connivens);

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 46 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Australian Owlet-nightjar (Aegotheles cristatus);

Spotted Nightjar (Eurostopodus argus);

Southern Boobook (Ninox novaeseelandiae);

Grass Owl (Tyto capensis);

Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua);

Rufous Owl (Ninox rufa);

Barn Owl (Tyto javanica);

Yellow-bellied Glider (Petaurus australis); and

Tawny Frogmouth (Podargus strigoides).

Habitat Searching

To further enhance the likelihood of detecting small cryptic species, opportunistic diurnal searches of likely micro-habitats were conducted at each transect and in other selected areas on the Project site. Searching techniques involved the rolling of rocks and logs, rustling through leaf litter, and peeling back of exfoliating bark from standing trees. In addition, notes were made on habitat features such as tree hollow numbers or the presence of fallen logs and bark. Observed animals were caught where possible to aid positive species identification.

Scat / Track Searching

At each survey site a search of the immediate area was conducted for evidence of the presence of wildlife through the identification of obvious tracks, scats and other signs of occupation (e.g. tree trunk scratchings).

Incidental Recordings

Throughout the survey period, numerous wildlife species were observed or heard on the Project site during the course of routine activities (i.e. driving between sites, checking traps, vegetation surveys etc.). Where required, a closer inspection of detected wildlife was carried out to ensure positive species identification. All incidental observations were recorded and appropriate notes were made on the surrounding habitat.

3.9.1.3 Threatened Species Identified on the Project Site

A total of 232 flora species were identified on the Project site during the field survey. A full list of the species observed is provided in Appendix F. None of these flora species were listed under the EPBC Act.

A total of 163 fauna species were identified on the Project site during the survey period. This consisted of six amphibians, 124 birds, 12 reptiles and 20 mammals. The survey did not identify any mammal, amphibian or reptile species of conservation significance under the EPBC Act.

One threatened (EPBC Act) bird species, the Squatter Pigeon (southern subspecies), was identified during the field survey of the Northern Extension area. The Squatter Pigeon (southern) (Geophaps scripta scripta) is listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act. A pair was observed in a cleared grassy

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 47 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

area near a small dam in the west of the Project site and in woodland near Lake Vermont (Appendix F).

3.9.2 Nature and Extent of Likely Impact

To determine the extent of likely impact on threatened species by the proposed Northern Extension Project, a Flora and Fauna Assessment was undertaken by AARC (Appendix F). The Flora and Fauna Assessment included a desktop analysis of available literature and databases followed by an ecological field survey completed 13th 21st May 2013.

Proposed impacts of the Project were assessed in accordance with the significant impact criteria provided below, and with consideration of relevant DoE threatened species referral guidelines.

3.9.2.1 Significant Impact Criteria

The Significant impact guidelines 1.1: Matters of National Environmental Significance (DoE 2013a) define significant impact criteria for the assessment of impacts to threatened species listed under the EPBC Act. The Guidelines state that an action is likely to have a significant impact on a threatened species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species;

Reduce the area of occupancy of an important population;

Fragment an existing important population into two or more populations;

Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species;

Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population;

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

Result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable species becoming established in the critically endangered, endangered or

Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline; or

Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.

The DoE has developed a number of guidelines to assist in applying the criteria outlined above to determine whether an action may significantly impact particular threatened species. Guidelines relevant to this MNES Assessment Report are briefly discussed below. Where applicable, these guidelines have been consulted in the assessment of potential impacts to threatened species.

Significant Impact Guidelines for the Endangered Black-throated Finch (southern) (Poephila cincta cincta)

Impacts to the Black-throated Finch (southern) may be significant if they disrupt access to and/or

The Significant impact guidelines for the endangered black-throated finch (southern) (Poephila cincta cincta) (DEWHA 2009) states that the character and quality of the habitat may be significantly diminished if an action results in:

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 48 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Net loss or degradation of water sources (either permanent or seasonal) in the locality;

Widespread or indiscriminate loss of trees, including known nest trees within 1 km of a water source;

-sustaining; and/or

The degradation of foraging habitat (grassland) where known Black-throated Finch (southern) records exist, including the intensification of biomass reduction or stocking rates.

Draft Referral Guidelines for the Nationally Listed Brigalow Belt Reptiles

The Draft Referral guidelines for the nationally listed Brigalow Belt reptiles (DSEWPAC 2011a) assist in the application of the significant impact guidelines to Brigalow Belt reptiles. The guidelines provide indicative thresholds for a number of species, including the Ornamental Snake, Yakka Skink, ake and the Collared Delma, to determine whether there is a high, low or uncertain risk of significant impacts.

EPBC Act Referral Guidelines for the Vulnerable Koala

The EPBC Act referral guidelines for the vulnerable Koala (DoE 2014a) states that an action may significantly impact the Koala if it:

Adversely affects habitat critical to the survival of the Koala; and/or

Interferes substantially with the recovery of the koala through the introduction or exacerbation of key threats in areas of habitat critica

EPBC Referral Guidelines for the Endangered Northern Quoll, Dasyurus hallucatus

The EPBC referral guidelines for the endangered northern quoll, Dasyurus hallucatus (DSEWPAC 2011b) provide guidance on identifying whether an action has a high, low or uncertain risk of a significant impact to the Northern Quoll.

Referral Guideline for Management Actions in Grey-headed and Spectacled Flying-fox Camps

The Referral guideline for management actions in grey-headed and spectacled flying-fox camps (DoE 2015b) provides guidance on determining whether a camp is considered to be nationally-important, -headed flying-foxes in more than one year in the last 10 years, or have been occupied by more than 2,500 grey-headed flying-foxes permanently or seasonally every year for the last 10 years.

3.9.2.2 Potential Impact on Threatened Species

Flora and Fauna Assessment determined no flora species, listed as of conservation significance under the EPBC Act, were identified on the Project site or will be impacted by Project development.

Only one threatened (EPBC Act) bird species, the Squatter Pigeon (southern subspecies), was detected in small numbers (three) during the field survey of the Northern Extension area.

The Squatter Pigeon (southern subspecies) typically occurs on the inland slopes of the Great Dividing Range, from the Burdekin-Lynd divide in central Queensland, west to Charleville and Longreach, east to the coastline between Proserpine and Gladstone, and south to scattered sites throughout south-

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 49 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

eastern Queensland (DoE 2013c). In areas north of the Tropic of Capricorn, however, the southern Squatter Pigeon is considered to be locally common and the population is currently considered stable (DoE 2013c).

Southern Squatter Pigeons inhabit a range of habitats, including grassy woodlands, open forests and disturbed areas (including heavily grazed areas, roads and railways). The southern Squatter Pigeon is commonly observed close to waterbodies (DoE 2013c). Southern Squatter Pigeons feed on seeds and insects, for which they forage on the ground. Suitable habitat for the southern Squatter Pigeon exists throughout the Project site, close to water. Given that only a small number of individuals were observed during the survey, it is unlikely that the Project site is of particular importance to this species. Suitable habitat is extensive throughout the local area including immediately adjacent to the Project site.

The majority of the Project site has been subject to vegetation clearing to allow cattle grazing and is dominated by non-remnant grassland (predominantly Buffel grass). Consequently, only small areas of remnant and regrowth vegetation exist on the site, generally confined to the banks of Phillips Creek, the two large dams, and the area around Lake Vermont.

No Essential Habitat for the threatened fauna species was mapped within the Project site. Significant suitable habitat for the southern Squatter Pigeon exists in pasture areas and woodlands (near water) in the broader region and on directly adjacent land. Furthermore, as only a small number of individuals (three) were recorded during the survey, it is unlikely that the Project site is of specific importance to the species. In addition, the southern Squatte ability to utilise disturbed habitats preclude any significant impacts to the species as a result of the Northern Extension Project.

Important populations of the southern Squatter Pigeon include the sparsely distributed sub- populations in southern Queensland (typically south of the Carnarvon Ranges) and northern New South Wales. The closest important populations to the Project are those occurring on the Darling Downs and within the Condamine River catchment (DoE 2015g).

With consideration of the Significant impact guidelines 1.1: Matters of National Environmental Significance (DoE 2013a), the Northern Extension Project is not considered to result in any significant impact to the southern Squatter Pigeon, nor is it likely to significantly impact the area of available habitat. No impact on population continuity or gene flow, and no interference with any ecologically significant locations for the species, is expected. The Northern Extension Project is unlikely to introduce pest or diseases affecting the Squatter Pigeon. As such, no significant residual impact is considered likely for the Squatter Pigeon.

Although no significant impact is likely, proposed clearing of listed suitable habitat for the squatter Appendix H) as a requirement of Queensland legislation.

In consideration of all of the above factors, it has been determined that the Northern Extension Project will not result in significant impacts on any Listed Threatened Species.

Likelihood of Occurrence & Impact on Threatened Species Not Identified on the Project Site

For those fauna species not identified in the flora and fauna survey, Table 15, Table 16, Table 17 and Table 18 below provide an assessment of the likelihood of their presence and the potential for significant impacts as a result of the Project. Species-specific guidelines (refer to Section 3.9.2.1) were consulted where applicable.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 50 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Table 15 Assessment of Likelihood of Occurrence and Impacts on EPBC Listed Bird Species

Species Status Habitat Requirements and Likelihood of Occurrence Inhabits open woodland, scrubby plains and Pandanus flats with a deep cover of grasses. Its habitat is never far from water. Known to occur around Townsville and Charters Towers, and south of Townsville (DoE 2013c). As indicated in the Significant impact guidelines for the endangered black-throated finch (southern) (Poephila cincta cincta) (DEWHA 2009), a key consideration in identifying significant impacts to the Black-throated Finch are potential Black-throated Finch disruptions to resource access and/or availability, particularly water, seeding grasses and nesting trees. There is some E (Poephila cincta cincta) potentially suitable habitat on the Project site, but the Black-throated Finch is not known from the local area. It is unlikely that the Project site provides these key resources for Black-throated Finches in the region. Targeted bird surveys and searches for threatened species were conducted during the survey. Eight hours of diurnal bird surveys were conducted and opportunistic searches were conducted in areas containing habitat likely to support threatened birds. This species is unlikely to occur on the Project site. No impact on this species is likely. Preferred habitat is forest and woodland with a mosaic of vegetation types, large prey populations (birds) and permanent water. Typical vegetation types include Eucalypt woodland, open forest, tall open forest, gallery forest, Red Goshawk swamp sclerophyll forest and rainforest margins. Nests in large trees within 1 km of permanent water. V (Erythrotriorchis radiatus) The Project site does not contain the mosaic of suitable habitat types preferred by this species; therefore impacts upon this species are unlikely. Given its high mobility and the continued presence of habitat on and around the Project site, no significant impact on this species is expected. Favoured habitat includes areas dominated by Acacia species, particularly A. harpophylla, A. homalophylla, A. pendula or A. aneaura (Curtis & Dennis et al. 2012). Feeds predominantly on mistletoe fruits (Garnett, Szabo & Dutson 2010). This species is highly mobile and sparsely distributed across the state. Within Queensland, breeding is generally limited to southern areas (i.e. south of Roma) (Curtis & Dennis et al. 2012). Painted Honeyeater Some suitable habitat may exist for this species within the Brigalow regrowth vegetation community (Community 7). V (Grantiella picta) However, this community is severely degraded and largely isolated from other communities on the Project site. It offers limited habitat potential for birds, although they may utilise denser stands of Brigalow. Furthermore, given the sparse distribution of the species across the state, the relatively isolated and degraded patches of regrowth Brigalow on the Project site are unlikely to be of particular importance to the Painted Honeyeater. The Project is unlikely to have a significant impact on this species. Star Finch Inhabits tall grass and reed beds associated with swamps and watercourses in central Queensland. May also be found (Neochmia ruficauda E in grassy woodlands, open forests, mangroves, urban and cleared areas. ruficauda) Some suitable habitat exists on site but it is extremely unlikely that it is utilised by the Star Finch.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 51 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Species Status Habitat Requirements and Likelihood of Occurrence Targeted bird surveys and searches for threatened species were conducted during the survey. Eight hours of diurnal bird surveys were conducted and opportunistic searches were conducted in areas containing habitat likely to support threatened birds. Highly unlikely to occur on site as expert opinion suggests this taxon may be extinct in the wild (Garnett, Szabo & Dutson 2010). No records of the species are known from the site. No significant impact on this species is anticipated. Found in shallow inland wetlands (either freshwater or brackish) throughout many parts of Australia, that are either permanently or temporarily filled (DoE 2013c). May occur on the Project site around water bodies. Targeted bird surveys and searches for threatened species were Australian Painted Snipe E conducted during the survey. Eight hours of diurnal bird surveys were conducted and opportunistic searches were (Rostratula australis) conducted in areas containing habitat likely to support threatened birds. The Project is unlikely to have a significant impact on this species due to its high mobility and the continued existence of suitable habitat on and around the Project site following Project construction. Found in open forest, rainforest or riparian forest, as well as paperbark swamps and on edges of mangrove forests. The Masked Owl (northern subspecies) typically nests in hollowed trees, or in portions of closed forest (DoE 2013c). The northern sub-species occurs north of Townsville and in areas west to the Northern Territory border (Curtis & Dennis et al. 2012). Masked Owl (northern) There is some potentially suitable habitat in the riparian area of Phillips Creek. However, it is considered unlikely that (Tyto novaehollandiae V the northern sub-species of the Masked Owl would occur as far south as the Project site. No records of the species kimberli) are known within the region of the Project. A total of four person hours of spotlighting was conducted in riparian areas on the Project site. The species was not identified via call playback, which was conducted for the Masked Owl (northern) on one night during the flora and fauna survey. Further call playback could not be conducted due to weather conditions at the time of the survey. Significant impacts to this species are unlikely. Note: E = Endangered; V = Vulnerable.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 52 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Table 16 Assessment of Likelihood of Occurrence and Impacts on EPBC Listed Reptile Species

Species Status Habitat Requirements and Likelihood of Occurrence Inhabits forests and woodlands on black alluvial cracking clay and clay loams dominated by Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla). Preferred microhabitat includes fallen timber and leaf litter and possibly cracks in clay soils (DoE 2013c). This species is unlikely to occur on the Project site as suitable Brigalow habitat has been cleared. Brigalow regrowth on the site is unlikely to provide suitable habitat due to its structure and degraded condition. The species was not recorded

V on the Project site during field surveys despite targeted survey methods. Significant impact on this species is (Furina dunmalli) considered unlikely. Consultation of the Draft Referral guidelines for the nationally listed Brigalow Belt reptiles (DSEWPAC 2011a) indicates that the Project site is unlikely to provide im

Inhabits dry open forests, woodlands and rocky areas throughout the Brigalow Belt. It occurs in fallen timber wood piles, uprooted trees, deep rock crevices, deeply eroded gullies or disused rabbit warrens (DoE 2013c). Suitable habitat exists in the wooded areas of the Project site. Pitfall trap lines targeted small ground-dwelling fauna, including reptiles, and funnel traps were used to capture various reptiles, including medium-sized skinks. Recommended methods as per Commonwealth guidelines for the Yakka Skink Yakka Skink V (including fauna transects, spotlighting and Elliott and cage trapping) were also undertaken (DSEWPAC 2011c). (Egernia rugosa) Targeted reptile searches were conducted within suitable habitat on the site. Consultation of the Draft Referral guidelines for the nationally listed Brigalow Belt reptiles (DSEWPAC 2011a) indicates

No significant impacts area expected on populations of this species as minimal habitat is expected to be disturbed and suitable habitat remains on and immediately off-site post development. Known only to occur in the Brigalow Belt biogeographical region, primarily within the Fitzroy and Dawson River catchments. Preferred habitat is woodlands and open forests associated with moist areas, particularly gilgai mounds and depressions. Also occurs on lake margins and wetlands. Suitable habitat for this species exists around water bodies on the site, however, no records of the species are known Ornamental Snake from the site. Pitfall trap lines targeted small ground-dwelling fauna, including reptiles, and funnel traps were used to V (Denisonia maculata) capture various reptiles. Together with spotlighting, these are the methods recommended by Commonwealth survey guidelines for the Ornamental Snake (DSEWPAC 2011c). Targeted reptile searches were also conducted. Consultation of the Draft Referral guidelines for the nationally listed Brigalow Belt reptiles (DSEWPAC 2011a) indicates

No significant impacts are likely for this species as minimal habitat is expected to be disturbed and

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 53 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Species Status Habitat Requirements and Likelihood of Occurrence alternate habitat exists immediately surrounding the site. Found around Clermont in central Queensland. It occurs in open grasslands on plains with rich-brown surface soils, leaf litter and scattered trees (Curtis & Dennis et al. 2012). Allan's Lerista Given the disturbed and non-remnant nature of the grasslands on the Project site, it is unlikely that this species inhabits E (Lerista allanae) the site. The species was not recorded during surveys. Consultation of the Draft Referral guidelines for the nationally listed Brigalow Belt reptiles (DSEWPAC 2011a) indicates that the Project site is unlikely to provide important habitat for No impact on this species is likely. Primarily known from south-east Queensland, with recent records from the Blackdown Tablelands and Roma. It mainly inhabits ridgelines vegetated with dry open woodland, as well as Eucalyptus tereticornis and Brigalow woodlands. Shelters under loose rocks (Curtis & Dennis et al. 2012). Collared Delma Unlikely to occur on the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat. This was confirmed during surveys, which did not V (Delma torquata) record any occurrences of evidence of this species, despite the use of targeted methods. Consultation of the Draft Referral guidelines for the nationally listed Brigalow Belt reptiles (DSEWPAC 2011a) indicates of No impact on this species is likely. Found in flowing streams and permanent waterbodies in the Fitzroy, Connors, Dawson, Isaac and Mackenzie Rivers. It may be found in large slow-flowing pools and non-flowing permanent waterholes during the dry season Fitzroy River Turtle V Unlikely to occur on the Project site as the waterways on the Project site are ephemeral and only flow following (Rheodytes leukops) sufficient rainfall. There is no suitable habitat available on site. The species was not detected during aquatic surveys. No significant impact on this species is likely. Found in clear, well-oxygenated and flowing waters of the Fitzroy, Burnett and Mary Rivers and associated drainages Southern Snapping Turtle (DoE 2014b). Unlikely to occur on the Project site as the waterways on the Project site are ephemeral and only flow CE (Elseya albagula) following sufficient rainfall. Suitable habitat on the Project site does not exist. No significant impact on this species is likely. Note: CE = Critically Endangered; E = Endangered; V = Vulnerable.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 54 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Table 17 Assessment of Likelihood of Occurrence and Impacts on EPBC Listed Threatened Mammal Species

Species Status Habitat Requirements and Likelihood of Occurrence Forages in open Eucalypt woodlands with open areas of native grass. Excavate burrows on deep, sandy soils, often along Northern Hairy-nosed dry creek beds (Menkhorst & Knight 2011). Wombat E Highly unlikely to occur on the Project site. This species is only found in two areas, both of which are located far west of the (Lasiorhinus krefftii) Project site. No significant impact on this species is likely. Occurs in a range of vegetation types, mostly within 200 km of coast (Menkhorst & Knight 2011). Most abundant in rocky Eucalypt woodland. Unlikely to occur on the Project site due to the absence of rocky habitat and the inland location of the site. In accordance with Northern Quoll E the EPBC Referral guidelines for the endangered northern quoll, Dasyurus hallucatus (DSEWPAC 2011b), the Project is (Dasyurus hallucatus) considered to present a low risk of significant impacts to this species. Although the Project site is located within the modelled noted an absence of suitable rocky habitat. No significant impact on this species is expected. Inhabits Eucalypt forests and woodlands on the east coast of Australia (Curtis & Dennis et al. 2012). Suitable tree species for Koalas occur along Phillips Creek and in other small areas of remnant Eucalypt woodland on the Project site. The Koala is known from the broader region. The species was not identified on the site during surveys and no known records of the species exist for the site. Once suitable habitat has been identified, koalas are best surveyed through general observation and scat / track searches (DoE 2013c). Scat / track searching was employed within the vicinity of each survey site to identify evidence, such as scratchings Koala or pellets, which suggest the presence of fauna species, such as koalas. Scat detection is most appropriate during the dry (Phascolarctos V season, as pellets are less likely to break-down. Spotlighting and camera trapping were also used, which are known to be cinereus) useful direct detection methods for the koala (DoE 2013c). The EPBC Act referral guidelines for the vulnerable Koala (DoE 2014a) provide a Koala habitat assessment tool to determine whether an area contains critical habitat that may be adversely affected by the Project. Review of this assessment tool indicates that the Eucalypt woodlands on the site do not contain habitat critical to the survival of the species. Together with a lack of habitat connectivity and an absence of Koala sightings on the site, it is unlikely that the Project will interfere No significant impact on the koala is considered likely. South-eastern Long- Found across semi-arid southern Australia to southern Queensland. It inhabits a range of dry woodland and shrub land eared Bat communities and arid and semi-arid regions. Roosts mostly in tree hollows (Menkhorst & Knight 2011). V (Nyctophilus corbeni / Suitable habitat exists in the wooded areas of the Project site, along Phillips Creek. Alternate habitat exists surrounding the timoriensis) Project for this mobile species.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 55 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Species Status Habitat Requirements and Likelihood of Occurrence Ultrasonic recorders were used across the site to record micro-bat echolocation calls. Recordings were analysed by an experienced bat-call analyst. The South-eastern Long-eared Bat was not identified (neither positively nor possibly) through these recordings. No significant impact on this species is likely. Roosts on exposed branches, typically in the vicinity of waterbodies (i.e. lakes, rivers), such as Melaleuca stands, mangroves and riparian vegetation (DoE 2015g). Utilises a diverse variety of vegetation communities to meet its food requirements year- round (Curtis & Dennis et al. 2012). Areas of suitable habitat for this species on the Project site may occur within the riparian Grey-headed Flying-fox vegetation along Phillips Creek or near Lake Vermont. (Pteropus V Review of the Interactive Flying-fox Map provided by the DoE indicates that no known Grey-headed Flying-fox camps occur poliocephalus) in the region. Furthermore, to be considered nationally-important, a camp should meet the threshold provided in the Referral guideline for management actions in grey-headed and spectacled flying-fox camps (DoE 2015b). The Project is considered unlikely to have a significant impact on this species as no individuals were identified, no camps are known to the region and the Project site is likely to be located at or beyond the extent of its range (as reported in Menkhorst & Knight 2011). Note: E = Endangered; V = Vulnerable.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 56 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Table 18 Assessment of Likelihood of Occurrence and Impacts on EPBC Listed Threatened Flora Species

Species Status Habitat Requirements and Likelihood of Occurrence This species is restricted to Eucalypt woodland on black clay and basalt soils (DoE 2013c). Aristida annua V Unlikely to occur on the Project site due to the lack of suitable soil types on the site. No significant impact on this species is likely. Occurs in a range of vegetation types including semi-evergreen vine thicket, Brigalow-Belah, Poplar Box and Bendee Ooline communities (DoE 2013c). Ooline often occurs on the edges of sandstone and basalt escarpments, 200 to 500 m above V Cadellia pentastylis sea level. Ooline grows on the moderately fertile soils preferred for agriculture and pasture development (DoE 2013c). Unlikely to occur on the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat. No significant impact on this species is likely. Grows in a wide range of woodland communities in south-east Queensland, as far north as Bouldercombe. Often grows on undulating to hilly terrain at an altitude of 40 680 m. The soil is typically a well-draining rocky or shallow clay, clay / loam Cycas megacarpa E (DoE 2013c). Unlikely to occur on the Project site as it is located outside the known distribution of this species. The site terrain and soils are not suitable for this species. No significant impact on this species is likely. Grows on hills and slopes in open grassy forests on red clay soils and shallow, stony, infertile soils on sandstone and Cycas ophiolitica E serpentinite (DoE 2013c). Unlikely to occur on the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat. No significant impact on this species is likely. Known from the Blackdown Tableland, Mount Walsh and Carnarvon National Park in Queensland. Occurs on sandy soils in a variety of woodlands, in conjunction with species such as Eucalyptus sphaerocarpa, E. nigra, E. acmenoides, Daviesia discolour V Corymbia trachyphloia and Angophora sp. Unlikely to occur on the Project site as it is not known from the local area and little suitable habitat is available on site. No significant impact on this species is likely. This species occurs on black cracking clay in tussock grasslands mainly in association with other species of Bluegrasses. King Bluegrass Mostly confined to the natural Bluegrass grasslands of central and southern Queensland (DoE 2013c). Dichanthium E Unlikely to occur on the Project site due to lack of preferred habitat (native grassland). No significant impact on this queenslandicum species is likely.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 57 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Species Status Habitat Requirements and Likelihood of Occurrence Occurs in grassy woodland and open forests in inland Australia. Associated with heavy basaltic black soils and stony red- brown hard-setting loam with clay subsoil and is found in moderately disturbed areas such as cleared woodland, grassy roadside remnants, grazed land and highly disturbed pasture (DoE 2013c). Bluegrass V Suitable habitat for this species occurs on site in cleared pasture areas. Targeted searches were unable to identify this Dichanthium setosum

areas of suitable habitat along a meandering route while searching for the flora species of interest. No significant impact on this species is likely. Occurs on alluvial soils, loams, light clays or cracking clays in open forests and woodlands along watercourses and occasionally on river flats (EHP 2012). Black Ironbox Suitable habitat occurs on the Project site along the banks of Phillips Creek. Targeted searches were unable to identify V Eucalyptus raveretiana traversing areas of suitable habitat along a meandering route while searching for the flora species of interest. No significant impact on this species is likely. Known from only three sites in central east Queensland: near Eungella, Bowen and Nebo. Grows in vine thickets in gorges Omphalea celata V and gullies (DoE 2013c). Unlikely to occur on the Project site, due to lack of suitable habitat. No significant impact on this species is likely. Occurs in southern Queensland and northern New South Wales. Commonly associated with coastal wet heath / sedge Lesser Swamp-orchid E land wetlands, swampy grassland or swampy forest. Associated with rainforest elements (DoE 2013c). Phaius australis Unlikely to occur on the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat. No significant impact on this species is likely. Occurs in north-east Queensland from the Iron Ranges in the north as far south as the Paluma Ranges. Grows on trees Native Moth Orchid and occasionally rocks, in humid, airy situations on sheltered slopes and in gullies, in deep gorges, close to streams in Phalaenopsis E rainforests (DoE 2013c). rosenstromii Highly unlikely to occur on the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat. No significant impact on this species is likely. Known from coastal and near coastal areas in central Queensland. Commonly found in rainforest, but can also occur in Quassia open forest and woodland (DoE 2013c). V Samadera bidwillii Unlikely to occur on the Project site as there is little suitable habitat available and the site is located far west of its known distribution. No significant impact on this species is likely. Note: E = Endangered; V = Vulnerable.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 58 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

3.9.3 Management Commitments

BBC will implement the following strategies to minimise the likelihood of significant impacts:

The clearing footprint will be minimised by limiting disturbance to only those areas required for mining and associated activities;

Clearing will be conducted in a staged manner to enable fauna to move out of the disturbance area to adjacent habitat;

Vehicle speeds will be restricted to minimise the risk of collisions with fauna;

The staff training and awareness program will incorporate a segment for the identification of key environmental values of the site and provide procedures for environmental protection and incident response;

Environmental offsets are proposed to offset impacts on threatened fauna species, which constitute MSES. This includes the Squatter Pigeon (southern subspecies);

Pest species will be monitored and actively controlled in an appropriate manner to protect ecological values.

Weed species will also be monitored to determine abundance and identify the presence of any new species. Weed controls will be implemented as required to protect ecological values; and

Revegetation of the diversion will utilise native species consistent with RE 11.3.25 to assist in restoring the connectivity of the vegetation corridor along Phillips Creek.

3.10 LISTED MIGRATORY SPECIES

The Protected Matters Search identified a total of 15 listed migratory species that may inhabit the Project region. A full list of these species is presented in Table 19.

Table 19 Migratory Species within the Project Region

Presence of Species / Scientific Name Common Name Habitat within 100 km Migratory Marine Species Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift Likely to occur Crocodylus porosus Salt-water Crocodile Likely to occur Migratory Terrestrial Species Cuculus optatus Oriental Cuckoo Known to occur Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail Likely to occur Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater May occur Monarcha melanopsis Black-faced Monarch Known to occur Monarcha trivirgatus Spectacled Monarch Likely to occur

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 59 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Presence of Species / Scientific Name Common Name Habitat within 100 km Motacilla flava Yellow Wagtail May occur Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher Known to occur Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail Known to occur Migratory Wetland Species Ardea alba Great Egret Known to occur Ardea ibis Cattle Egret Likely to occur Gallinago hardwickii May occur Pandion cristatus / Pandion haliaetus Eastern Osprey Known to occur Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank May occur

3.10.1 Field Survey

3.10.1.1 Fauna Survey Methodology

No formal survey guidelines have been developed for migratory species. However, the species guidelines referenced above provide some general guidance on suitable surveying techniques.

An assessment of the migratory species identified by the Protected Matters Search indicated priority species to be targeted during the field survey. Targeted survey techniques were employed for migratory species considered likely to occur on the Project site.

Suitable techniques include area searches, vantage point observations and transect surveys, all of which were employed during the field survey.

The field survey methodology for the Project was based on the Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Survey Guidelines for Queensland (DSITIA 2012). Detailed fauna surveys were carried out within each of the vegetation communities / habitat types on the Project site. Fauna trapping was conducted at five survey sites. Habitat searches, bird surveys and camera trapping were conducted at an additional three targeted survey sites. Detailed descriptions of each survey site are presented in Appendix F along with maps of the site locations.

3.10.1.2 Migratory Species Identified on the Project Site

A total of 124 bird species were identified during the fauna survey period. Of these, four species were listed migratory birds under the EPBC Act. Migratory bird species recorded on the Project site were:

White-bellied Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster);

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 60 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Eastern Great Egret (Ardea modesta);

Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus); and

Cattle Egret (Ardea ibis).

Suitable habitat for the above migratory species occurs within wetlands and grazier dams on the Project site. Such habitat is locally common, with more suitable wetland habitat occurring off the Project site in the Isaac River flood plain. Phillips Creek may also provide suitable habitat in the wet season.

Note that no Commonwealth guidelines apply to these four species.

3.10.2 Nature and Extent of Likely Impact

To determine the extent of likely impact on Migratory Species by the proposed Northern Extension Project, a Flora and Fauna Assessment was undertaken by AARC (Appendix F).

The Flora and Fauna Assessment included a desktop analysis of available literature and databases followed by an ecological field survey completed 13th 21st May 2013. Fauna survey methodology is described in Section 3.9.1.2 and is detailed in Appendix F.

Proposed impacts of the Project were assessed in accordance with the significant impact criteria provided below, and with consideration of various DoE guidelines.

3.10.2.1 Significant Impact Criteria

The Significant impact guidelines 1.1: Matters of National Environmental Significance (DoE 2013a) define significant impact criteria for the assessment of impacts to Migratory species listed under the EPBC Act. The Guidelines state that an action is likely to have a significant impact on a migratory species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

Substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering nutrient cycles or altering hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species;

Result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species; or

Seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species.

The DoE has developed two guidelines to assist in applying the criteria outlined above to determine whether an action may significantly impact migratory bird species. These guidelines Referral guideline for 14 birds listed as migratory species under the EPBC Act (draft) (DoE 2015c) and Industry guidelines for avoiding, assessing and mitigating impacts on EPBC Act listed migratory shorebird species (DoE 2015d) ide species-specific guidelines, including thresholds for areas of important habitat or numbers of individuals which, if affected, area likely to constitute significant impacts. Where applicable, these guidelines have been consulted in the assessment of potential impacts to migratory species.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 61 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

3.10.2.2 Potential Impact on Migratory Species

Four migratory bird species are known to utilise habitat values of the Project site: White-bellied Sea Eagle, Eastern Great Egret, Rainbow Bee-eater and Cattle Egret. However, the Project site itself is not considered to be important habitat for migratory species. The site is heavily impacted by grazing practices and provides no unique roosting or foraging habitat for these four migratory species. Note that no species specific Commonwealth guidelines apply to these four species.

All identified species are known to be generally common, widespread and highly mobile, and will be able to relocate to suitable habitat in neighbouring wetlands and farm dams, particularly along the Isaac River. The Project site is not considered to represent important or significant habitat for these species. The Northern Extension Project is considered unlikely to significantly impact on any of the four migratory bird species recorded on the Project site. Populations of migratory species identified on the site are not considered to be important to the longevity of the species.

The assessment of potential impacts to migratory species, in accordance with the criteria presented in the Significant impact guidelines 1.1: Matters of National Environmental Significance (DoE 2013a), concluded that the presence of suitable habitat in the broader region, combined with the small, fragmented and disturbed quality of suitable habitat on the Project site, preclude any likely significant impacts to these species occurring as a result of the proposed Northern Extension Project.

No significant impact on listed migratory species is anticipated to result from development of the Northern Extension Project.

Likelihood of Occurrence & Impact on Migratory Fauna Not Identified on the Project Site

The database and literature searches identified a number of other migratory species listed under the EPBC Act that were not identified during the field survey. An analysis of their likelihood of occurrence on the Project site, based on scientific literature, past surveys and expert opinions, is provided (Table 20). Species-specific guidelines (refer to Section 3.10.2.1) were consulted where applicable.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 62 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Table 20 Assessment of Likelihood of Occurrence and Potential Impacts on Migratory Fauna Species Identified from Desktop Searches

Species Status Habitat Requirements and Likelihood of Occurrence Reefs, coastal and inland waterways in central and northern Queensland (Curtis & Dennis et al. 2012). Saltwater Crocodile This species is highly unlikely to occur, due to the absence of suitable habitat. Furthermore, the Project site is Mi, Ma (Crocodylus porosus) located well west of the current distribution of the Saltwater Crocodile. No significant impact on this species is likely. The Oriental Cuckoo is a regular, non-breeding migrant to Australia. Important habitat includes non-breeding habitat, including wet sclerophyll and open Acacia, Eucalyptus or Casuarina woodlands. The Referral guideline for 14 birds listed as migratory species under the EPBC Act (draft) (DoE 2015c) Oriental Cuckoo Mi provides various thresholds to determine whether an impact may be significant to the population. The (Cuculus optatus) thresholds for a significant impact to 0.1% of the Oriental Cuckoo population are: 25,000 ha and/or 1,000 individuals. As no individuals were recorded during the field survey and disturbance for the Project is approximately 2,500 ha, a significant impact to this species is very unlikely. Occurs over most habitat types, most often above wooded areas, including open forest and rainforest. Less commonly recorded flying above woodland (DoE 2013c). Known to appear and forage for aerial insects. White-throated Needletail Mi, Ma Widespread in eastern and south-eastern Australia. (Hirundapus caudacutus) May potentially occur over the Project site but none were observed during the survey period. The species is almost exclusively aerial, remaining high above ground. No significant impact on this species is likely. Found in coastal eastern Australia, east of the Great Dividing Range. Inhabits rainforest, Eucalypt forest and Black-faced Monarch woodlands, and coastal scrub (Pizzey & Knight 2007). Mi, Ma (Monarcha melanopsis) Unlikely to occur on site, as the Project site is located outside its main distribution area and does not contain its preferred habitat. No significant impact on this species is likely. Found in coastal north-east and eastern Australia. Most abundant in the wet tropics. Inhabits rainforests, Spectacled Monarch thickly wooded gullies and waterside vegetation (Pizzey & Knight 2007). Mi, Ma (Monarcha trivirgatus) Unlikely to occur on site, as the Project site is located outside its main distribution area and does not contain its preferred habitat. No significant impact on this species is likely. Widespread but scattered in eastern Queensland, being recorded on passage on a few islands in the western Satin Flycatcher Torres Strait. Mainly recorded in Eucalypt forests, particularly wet sclerophyll forest (DSEWPAC 2013). Mi, Ma (Myiagra cyanoleuca) Unlikely to occur on the Project site due to the absence of suitable habitat. No significant impact on this species is likely. Rufous Fantail Mi, Ma Occurs in coastal and near coastal districts of northern and eastern Australia in wet sclerophyll forests and

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 63 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Species Status Habitat Requirements and Likelihood of Occurrence (Rhipidura rufifrons) rainforests (DoE 2013c). Unlikely to occur on the Project site due to the absence of suitable habitat. No significant impact on this species is likely. Known to forage over any habitat. Strictly aerial. A summer visitor to Australia (Pizzey & Knight 2007). Fork-tailed Swift Potentially suitable habitat for this species occurs across the Project site and throughout the region. This Mi, Ma (Apus pacificus) species is unlikely to be impacted by Project development as it rarely comes into contact with the ground or vegetation. No significant impact on this species is likely. Occurs in association with areas of soft, wet ground or shallow water with tussocks, seepage areas below dams, irrigated areas, scrub or open woodland from sea level to alpine bogs over 2,000 m, saltmarshes and mangrove fringes (Pizzey & Knight 2007). Consideration of the Industry guidelines for avoiding, assessing and mitigating impacts on EPBC Act listed

Mi, Ma migratory shorebird species (DoE 2015d) indicates that for a site to be considered important habitat for the (Gallinago hardwickii) the Project site provides areas of potentially suitable habitat for this species, no individuals were identified during the field surveys. In addition, suitable habitat for this species occurs throughout the region; potential habitat present on the Project site is

This species predominantly occupies coastal and littoral habitats as well as terrestrial wetlands in tropical and temperate areas and offshore islands (DSEWPAC 2013). Eastern Ospreys require extensive areas of open Eastern Osprey fresh, brackish or saline water for foraging (Marchant & Higgins 1993). (Pandion cristatus / Mi, Ma Potentially suitable foraging habitat may occur on the Project site for individuals that are passing through the Pandion haliaetus) region. The Project site is considered unlikely to support a population of this species, as this species prefers coastal areas and offshore islands. Important habitat in Australia includes non-breeding habitat typically open grasslands associated with water or fringing wetlands. Mangroves and dense vegetation are used for roosting (DoE 2015c). The Referral guideline for 14 birds listed as migratory species under the EPBC Act (draft) (DoE 2015c) notes Yellow Wagtail Mi, Ma one site are so small relative to their global populations that no small group of individuals is likely to be (Motacilla flava)

identified during the field survey. If this species does utilise the Project site or vicinity, development is unlikely to have a significant impact due to the relative size of any local population to the global population. No significant impact on this species is likely.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 64 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Species Status Habitat Requirements and Likelihood of Occurrence For migratory birds, important habitat includes wetland areas that meet the thresholds defined in the Industry guidelines for avoiding, assessing and mitigating impacts on EPBC Act listed migratory shorebird species (DoE 2015d) for internationally or nationally important habitat. Consideration of these guidelines indicates that for a site to be considered important habitat for the Common Common Greenshank Greenshank, the area should at least regularly support: 0.1% of the flyaway population of a species, 2,000 Mi, Ma (Tringa nebularia) migratory shorebird individuals, or 15 species of migratory shorebirds. While the Project site provides wetland areas that may be potentially suitable habitat for this species, no individuals were identified during the field surveys. In addition, suitable habitat for this species occurs throughout the region; potential habitat present on the Project site is unlikely to constitute nationally or internationally important habitat for the Common Greenshank. No significant impact on this species is likely. Note: Mi = Migratory; Ma = Marine.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 65 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

3.10.3 Management Commitments

BBC will implement the following management / mitigation strategies:

The clearing footprint will be minimised by limiting disturbance to only those areas required for mining and associated activities;

Clearing will be conducted in a staged manner to enable fauna to move out of the disturbance area to adjacent habitat;

Vehicle speeds will be restricted to minimise the risk of collisions with fauna; and

Revegetation of the diversion will utilise native species consistent with RE 11.3.25 to assist in restoring the connectivity of the vegetation corridor along Phillips Creek.

3.11 WATER RESOURCES

Section 528 of the EPBC Act defines a large coal mine as: any coal mining activity that has, or is likely to have, a significant impact on water resources (including any impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity):

a) In its own right; or

b) When considered with other developments, whether past, present or reasonably foreseeable developments.

The Project constitutes an EA Amendment Application for a large coal mine to include new mining areas. The amendment has potential to impact on groundwater and surface water flows of the natural landscape, thereby triggering the .

Potential impacts of the Project in relation to water resources were assessed in accordance with the following guidelines:

Significant impact guidelines 1.3: Coal seam gas and large coal mining developments impacts on water resources (DoE 2013b); and

Information Guidelines for the IESC advice on coal seam gas and large coal mining development proposals (IESC 2014).

3.11.1 Surface Water

The Project is located in the Isaac River catchment near the confluence of Phillips Creek with the Isaac River. The topography of the area is gently undulating with low ridge lines generally trending southwest to northeast.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 66 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Although the catchment to the Isaac River is harvested for a range of uses, including irrigation, urban, industrial and domestic water supplies, the local receiving environment of the Project is not considered to support the same environmental values. The receiving environment is slightly moderately disturbed, highly ephemeral in nature and is not situated in an area of industrial, urban or domestic water use (e.g. recreation, human consumption). Drinking water supplies for nearby towns are obtained from Burton Gorge Dam, which is located upstream of the Project, on the Isaac River.

Environmental values associated with existing surface water features around the Project site are:

Aquatic ecosystems, slightly to moderately disturbed (Level 2 disturbed ecosystems, Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (QWQG) 2009); and

Water suitable for agricultural use (Irrigation and stock watering).

The watercourses and wetlands occurring on or surrounding the Project site were typical of a slightly to moderately disturbed ecosystem. Physio-chemical and biological properties of aquatic ecosystems on the Project were generally found to be consistent with the WQOs for moderately disturbed aquatic ecosystems in the Isaac River Sub-basin, as defined in the EPP (Water). All features were found to be moderately disturbed with contributing sources such as upstream mining activities, surrounding agricultural land use (i.e. cattle grazing) and associated creek crossings.

3.11.1.1 Drainage Network

The Isaac River catchment is located within the Fitzroy River Basin and covers an area of 6,195 km2. Relatively little water resource development has occurred along the Isaac River; the only significant water retaining structure is the Burton Gorge Dam, located at the headwaters of the Isaac River.

The northern portion of the Northern Extension drains directly into the ephemeral Phillips Creek, which joins the Isaac River approximately 8.5 km downstream of the mine. The catchment area of Phillips Creek is approximately 514 km2 at the Isaac River confluence.

The southern portion of the Northern Extension and Lake Vermont Mine drains to Downs Creek via a number of unnamed tributaries. These tributaries join Downs Creek approximately 19 km downstream of the mine boundary and join the Isaac River a further 11 km downstream. Downs Creek has a catchment area of approximately 419.7 km2 at the Isaac River confluence.

Streamflow in the region is highly variable, with periods of flow (typically during December to March) interspersed with long dry spells.

3.11.1.2 Wetlands

The Northern Extension area contains two palustrine wetlands and two pastoral dams. The two wetlands comprise Lake Vermont, crossing the eastern border of the Northern Extension and a small wetland located immediately adjacent to Phillips Creek. Neither wetland is classed as a Wetland of International Importance. Both wetlands are recharged by surface runoff / flooding and do not hold permanent water. Aquatic values of both wetlands are discussed in Appendix F and Appendix G.

One Wetland of National Importance Lake Elphinstone is located approximately 100 km north of the Project site. Lake Elphinstone is located upstream of the Project, in the upper catchment of the Isaac River (DoE 2015h).

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 67 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

3.11.1.3 Surface Water Quality

Regional Surface Water Quality

Regional water quality data from five upstream DNRM streamflow gauging stations were assessed against the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) (2000) Stock Water and Aquatic Ecosystems Guidelines and EPP (Water) WQOs for Aquatic Ecosystems. These gauges included three located on the Isaac River (at Burton Gorge, Goonyella and Deverill), one located on Phillips Creek (at Tay Glen), and another on Devlin Creek (at Bombandy).

Median and 80th percentile values for pH, chloride and magnesium exceeded the ANZECC (2000) Aquatic Ecosystems Guidelines at all locations. Exceedances of the EPP (Water) were evident for turbidity, electrical conductivity (EC), sulphate, total nitrogen, total phosphorus and total suspended solids (TSS).

Water quality data (including the median and 80th percentile values) are shown in Table 21 for locations on the Isaac River, and Table 22 for locations on Phillips and Devlin Creeks.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 68 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Table 21 Summary of Regional Water Quality Data for the Isaac River

Isaac River EPP (Water) ANZECC ANZECC ANZECC Goonyella Deverill Deverill Parameter WQOs Irrigation Stock Ecosystem 80th 80th Media 80th Ecosystem Count Median Count Median Count Percentile Percentile n Percentile pH 6 9 6.5 8.5 6.5 7.5 6.5 8.5 19 7.8 8.1 30 7.7 8.0 44 7.6 8.2 Turbidity (NTU) - - 25 50 - - - 29 100 111 14 46 200 Ammonia as N soluble - - 0.01 0.06 - - - 2 0 1.2 7 0 0.0 (mg/L) Nitrate + nitrite as N ------2 0 1.3 7 0 0.5 soluble (mg/L) Nitrate (mg/L) - 400 0.015 - 8 0 4.8 26 2.0 3.9 28 1.9 3.4 Bicarbonate as HCO 3 n/a - - - 18 173 243 29 94 140 43 95 128 (mg/L) Hardness as CaCO 3 60 - - - 18 142 194 30 78 146 43 78 100 (mg/L) Calcium as Ca soluble <60 1,000 - - 18 34 49.6 29 13.1 24.0 43 17.1 25.7 (mg/L)

Carbonate as CO3 (mg/L) - - - - 13 0.9 - 22 0.55 1.3 33 0.3 1.3 Boron (mg/L) 0.5 5 0.37 0.37 4 0 0.8 27 0.1 - 16 0 - Chloride (mg/L) 175 - 0.02 - 18 50 92 29 118 260 43 30 50 2,985^ 720 (baseflow) 17 480 688 25 830 1,882 36 320 426 Conductivity (µS/cm) 1,300 350 5,970* 250 (high flow) 2 148 164 11 210 240 19 123 181 Fluoride (mg/L) 1 2 - - 19 0.2 0.3 30 0.2 0.4 41 0.1 0.2 Iron as Fe soluble (mg/L) 0.2 n/a - - 4 0 5.0 27 0 - 12 0 - Magnesium (mg/L) 0.2 n/a - - 18 15 18.4 29 9.6 23.0 43 7.7 10.9 Potassium (mg/L) - - - - 15 5.4 6.8 29 3.8 4.6 40 4.7 5.5 Silica as SiO soluble 2 - - - - 18 15 18.4 30 10.9 14.0 41 12 15.0 (mg/L) Sodium (mg/L) 115 - - - 18 37.5 58.2 29 98 190 43 22 40.8 Sulphate (mg/L) - 1,000 - 25 13 4.3 11.8 29 18.5 79 36 10 15.6 TDS (mg/L) - 2,000 - - 18 246 346 29 349 650 41 152 224 TN (mg/L) 5 - 0.25 0.5 - - - 3 0 1.7 - - -

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 69 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Isaac River EPP (Water) ANZECC ANZECC ANZECC Goonyella Deverill Deverill Parameter WQOs Irrigation Stock Ecosystem 80th 80th Media 80th Ecosystem Count Median Count Median Count Percentile Percentile n Percentile TP (mg/L) 0.05 - 0.03 0.05 - - - 7 0 0.5 7 0.2 1.1 TSS (mg/l) - - - 55 15 230 1,982 29 170 3,196 40 128 850 Table sourced from and updated by WRM. Key: ^ Guideline value based on lowest concentration for reluctance of poultry to drink water. TDS was converted to EC using a conversion factor of 0.67 as recommended in ANZECC / ARMCANZ (2000). * Guideline value based on lowest concentration for reluctance of beef cattle to drink water. TDS was converted to EC using a conversion factor of 0.67 as recommended in ANZECC / ARMCANZ (2000) (JBT 2016a).

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 70 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Table 22 Summary of Water Quality Data for Phillips Creek and Devlin Creek

EPP (Water) Devlin Creek (Bombandy) Phillips Creek (Tayglen) ANZECC ANZECC ANZECC Parameter WQOs 80th 80th Irrigation Stock Ecosystem Count Median Count Median Ecosystem Percentile Percentile pH 6 9 6.5 8.5 6.5 7.5 6.5 8.5 21 7.2 7.8 26 8.1 8.4 Turbidity (NTU) - - 25 50 4 0 100 3 - 153 Ammonia as N soluble (mg/L) - - 0.01 0.06 ------Nitrate + nitrite as N soluble ------(mg/L) Nitrate (mg/L) - 400 0.015 - 9 0 5.8 13 1.5 3.5

Bicarbonate as HCO3 (mg/L) n/a - - - 19 65 81 23 254 302

Hardness as CaCO3 (mg/L) 60 - - - 21 47 51 23 173 245 Calcium as Ca soluble (mg/L) <60 1,000 - - 19 10 14.2 23 25 29.1

Carbonate as CO3 (mg/L) - - - - 11 0.2 - 22 2.5 - Boron (mg/L) 0.5 5 0.37 0.37 4 0 0.8 3 - - Chloride (mg/L) 175 - 0.02 - 19 15 21 23 42 75 2,985^ 720 (baseflow) 21 550 910 Conductivity (µS/cm) 1,300 350 20* 155* 181* 5,970* 250 (high flow) 25 295 363 Fluoride (mg/L) 1 2 - - 14 0.1 0.2 26 0.2 0.3 Iron as Fe soluble (mg/L) 0.2 n/a - - 5 0 3.6 4 - 5.0 Magnesium (mg/L) 0.2 n/a - - 19 4.4 5.1 23 22 41.6 Potassium (mg/L) - - - - 13 7 5.5 20 4.4 6.0

Silica as SiO2 soluble (mg/L) - - - - 15 13 17 23 13 18 Sodium (mg/L) 115 - - - 19 14 22 23 43 74 Sulphate (mg/L) - 1,000 - 25 8 0 - 17 8 21.1 TDS (mg/L) - 2,000 - - 19 97 107 22 300 464 TN (mg/L) 5 - 0.25 0.5 - - - 2 - 1.6 TP (mg/L) 0.05 - 0.03 0.05 - - - 2 - 1.3 TSS (mg/l) - - - 55 14 64 130 18 46 495 Table sourced from and updated by WRM. Key: * Insufficient data to separate baseflow and high flow conductivities. ^ Guideline value based on lowest concentration for reluctance of poultry to drink water. TDS was converted to EC using a conversion factor of 0.67 as recommended in ANZECC / ARMCANZ (2000) (JBT 2016a).

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 71 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Local Surface Water Quality

In order to identify background local water quality values relevant to the Northern Extension Project, water quality samples were collected from Phillips Creek, Isaac River, Lake Vermont Wetland, and a small palustrine wetland located adjacent to Phillips Creek. Samples were first collected in May 2013 as part of the Project aquatic ecology survey. An additional sampling event was undertaken following rainfall in February 2015. The resulting water quality data is presented in Table 23 in conjunction with historical water quality data collected from Phillips Creek.

Historical data was obtained from three sites along Phillips Creek as part of two previous sampling events including:

Receiving Environment Monitoring Program (REMP) for the Lake Vermont Mine (February 2012); and

Western Extension Aquatic Ecology Survey (January 2012). Two sites were sampled during each sampling event.

The 20th, 50th (median) and 80th percentile values of all available surface water data for Phillips Creek, Isaac River, Lake Vermont Wetland and the Phillips Creek wetland have been presented along with the number (count) of samples assessed for each parameter. Data from five sampling locations along Phillips Creek have been combined to provide representative water quality values for the creek. Data have been sourced from sampling events between January 2012 and February 2015.

Samples were analysed for various physio-chemical parameters, metals, nutrients, hydrocarbons and pesticides and assessed against ANZECC (2000) Livestock Drinking Water and Aquatic Ecosystems Guidelines, EPP (Water) Aquatic Ecosystems Guidelines, and EA Trigger Limits.

It is noted that water quality of the wetlands and Isaac River has been described using data from two sampling events. The wetland and Isaac River sample sizes should therefore not be relied on for statistically accurate percentile values. While the available data does provide an indication of water quality values for aquatic environments on and downstream of the Project, longer-term monitoring is recommended in order to establish acceptable reference values. On approval of the Project the Receiving Environment Monitoring Program for the site will be updated in order to establish a suitable baseline dataset for these values.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 72 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Table 23 Local Surface Water Quality

Trigger Limits LVW Wetland 1 Isaac River1 Phillips Creek2 EA ANZECC (2000) EPP (Water) 2009 Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Parameter Units LOR Trigger Stock Aquatic Aquatic Stock Irrigation Irrigation Limits Count Count Count Count 20th 50th 80th 20th 50th 80th 20th 50th 80th 20th 50th 80th Watering Ecosystems Ecosystems Watering LTV STV pH pH n/a n/a 6.5 7.5 6.5 8.5 n/a n/a n/a 6.5 8 2 7.646 7.85 8.054 2 7.222 7.405 7.588 2 8.134 8.185 8.236 9 7.73 8.13 8.34 units <720 (base- 2,985^ flow) EC # µS/cm 1 30 350 2,985^ n/a n/a 1000 2 241.2 312 382.8 2 147.8 170 192.2 2 489.8 540.5 591.2 9 478.8 555.3 718.85 <250 (high 5,970* flow) DO % n/a n/a 90 110 85 110 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 47.52 74.25 100.98 2 17.24 28.25 39.26 2 79.06 83.65 88.24 8 38 81.7825 89.796 Total alkalinity mg/L 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 109.2 141 172.8 2 72.4 79 85.6 2 102.2 104 105.8 5 152.55 173 185 Turbidity NTU 0.1 n/a 2 25 <50 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 49.2 117.75 186.3 2 15.86 27.2 38.54 2 3.56 4.7 5.84 7 62.62 178 852.41 Sulphate mg/L 1 1000 n/a <25 1000 n/a n/a 300 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 30.2 32 33.8 8 15 32 67.21 Suspended mg/L 5 n/a n/a <55 n/a n/a n/a 1500 2 49 104.5 160 2 24.8 36.5 48.2 2 2.5 2.5 2.5 8 44 181.475 487.19 solids Total chloride mg/L 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 9.4 16 22.6 2 2.8 5.5 8.2 2 75.8 86 96.2 7 40.2 49 115.68 Total N mg/L 0.1 n/a 0.25 0.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 2.7 2.7 2.7 1 2.2 2.2 2.2 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2 0.7 1.9 1.9 Total P mg/L 0.01 n/a 0.02 0.02 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 0.28 0.28 0.28 1 1.38 1.38 1.38 1 0.02 0.02 0.02 2 0.11 0.72 0.72 Oxidised N mg/L 0.01 n/a 0.01 0.06 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 0.016 0.0325 0.049 2 0.005 0.005 0.005 2 0.012 0.015 0.018 7 0.042 0.07 0.3148 Ammonia mg/L 0.01 n/a 0.9 0.02 n/a n/a n/a 0.9 2 0.138 0.15 0.162 2 0.024 0.03 0.036 2 0.07 0.085 0.1 7 0.038 0.05 0.0991 Nitrate mg/L 0.01 n/a 0.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.1 2 0.008 0.0125 0.017 2 0.005 0.005 0.005 2 0.012 0.015 0.018 7 0.034 0.07 0.3148 Petroleum hydrocarbons µg/L 20 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 20 2 10 10 10 2 10 10 10 2 10 10 10 6 10 10 10 (C6 C9) Petroleum hydrocarbons µg/L 50 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 100 2 82 167.5 253 2 68 132.5 197 2 25 25 25 6 25 25 598.3 (C10 C36) Fluoride (total) mg/L 0.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 1 2 2 0.22 0.25 0.28 2 0.05 0.05 0.05 2 0.12 0.15 0.18 7 0.176 0.2 0.2 Sodium mg/L 1 n/a n/a n/a 30 n/a n/a 180 2 16.4 26 35.6 2 5.2 5.5 5.8 2 63.4 68.5 73.6 9 45.2 46.8 77.95 Dissolved Metals / Metalloids Al mg/L 0.01 n/a 0.055 0.055 n/a n/a n/a 0.055 2 0.005 0.005 0.005 2 0.02 0.02 0.02 2 0.005 0.005 0.005 7 0.005 0.0195 0.0352 As mg/L 0.001 n/a 0.024 0.024 n/a n/a n/a 0.013 2 0.001 0.00175 0.0025 2 0.0024 0.003 0.0036 2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 7 0.0005 0.001 0.002 B mg/L 0.05 n/a 0.37 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.37 2 0.048 0.0825 0.117 2 0.03 0.0375 0.045 2 0.062 0.065 0.068 7 0.025 0.025 0.05 Cd µg/L 0.05 n/a 0.2 0.2 n/a n/a n/a 0.2 2 0.025 0.025 0.025 2 0.025 0.025 0.025 2 0.025 0.025 0.025 7 0.025 0.025 0.04925 Co mg/L 0.001 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.09 2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 2 0.001 0.00175 0.0025 2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 7 0.0005 0.0005 0.00138 Cr µg/L 0.2 n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 7 0.1 0.1 0.488 Cu µg/L 0.5 n/a 1.4 1.4 n/a n/a n/a 2 2 1.76 3.5 5.24 2 0.42 0.675 0.93 2 0.3 0.375 0.45 7 1.296 1.97 2.2 Mn mg/L 0.001 n/a 1.9 1.9 n/a n/a n/a 1.9 2 0.011 0.02675 0.0425 2 0.0678 0.1665 0.2652 2 0.0246 0.06075 0.0969 7 0.002 0.0134 0.16004 Ni mg/L 0.001 n/a 0.011 0.011 n/a n/a n/a 0.011 2 0.0008 0.00125 0.0017 2 0.0052 0.007 0.0088 2 0.001 0.00175 0.0025 7 0.002 0.003 0.00691 Pb mg/L 0.001 n/a 0.0034 0.0034 n/a n/a n/a 0.004 2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 7 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 V mg/L 0.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.01 2 0.006 0.0075 0.009 2 0.005 0.005 0.005 2 0.005 0.005 0.005 5 0.005 0.005 0.005 Zn mg/L 0.005 n/a 0.008 0.008 n/a n/a n/a 0.008 2 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 2 0.0038 0.00575 0.0077 2 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 7 0.0025 0.0025 0.01539 Mo mg/L 0.001 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.034 2 0.001 0.00175 0.0025 2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 2 0.0008 0.00125 0.0017 5 0.0005 0.001 0.001985 Se µg/L 0.2 n/a 11 11 n/a n/a n/a 10 2 0.24 0.45 0.66 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 7 0.1 0.2 4.853 Ag µg/L 0.1 n/a 0.05 0.05 n/a n/a n/a 1 2 0.05 0.05 0.05 2 0.05 0.05 0.05 2 0.05 0.05 0.05 5 0.05 0.05 0.05 Fe mg/L 0.05 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.3 2 0.066 0.1275 0.189 2 0.848 1.13 1.412 2 0.025 0.025 0.025 7 0.025 0.025 0.0745 U mg/L 0.001 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.001 2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 5 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 Hg mg/L 0.0001 n/a 0.0006 0.0006 n/a n/a n/a 0.0002 2 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005 2 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005 2 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005 5 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005 Total Metals / Metalloids Al mg/L 0.01 5 n/a n/a 5 5 20 n/a 2 0.88 2.155 3.43 2 0.746 0.905 1.064 2 0.122 0.185 0.248 9 0.734 5.755 7.9 As mg/L 0.001 0.5 n/a n/a 0.5 0.1 2 n/a 2 0.0016 0.0025 0.0034 2 0.0026 0.0035 0.0044 2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 9 0.002 0.002 0.003 B mg/L 0.05 5 n/a n/a 5 0.5 n/a n/a 2 0.046 0.0775 0.109 2 0.025 0.025 0.025 2 0.07 0.07 0.07 9 0.0519 0.06 0.07 Cd µg/L 0.05 10 n/a n/a 10 10 50 n/a 2 0.025 0.025 0.025 2 0.025 0.025 0.025 2 0.025 0.025 0.025 9 0.025 0.05 0.05 Co mg/L 0.001 1 n/a n/a 1 0.05 0.1 n/a 2 0.0018 0.00375 0.0057 2 0.004 0.004 0.004 2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 9 0.002 0.0029 0.01 Cr µg/L 0.2 1000 n/a n/a 1000 100 1000 n/a 2 2.18 5.3 8.42 2 1.94 2.45 2.96 2 0.2 0.35 0.5 9 1.32 7.46 21.7

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 73 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 74 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

3.11.1.4 Existing Flood Conditions

A URBS runoff-routing model was developed to estimate design flow discharges in Phillips Creek for 1 downstream gauge for January 2008 and December 2010 were used to calibrate the model. The model was further verified upstream of the proposed diversion. Design discharges for each AEP event were determined for four reporting locations, as detailed in Table 24.

Table 24 Design Peak Discharges

Design Peak Discharge (m3/s) Discharge Reporting Location 1 in 2 AEP 1 in 50 AEP 1 in 100 AEP 1 in 1,000 AEP Philips Creek at Tay Glen gauge 97 804 1043 2557 Phillips Creek at Saraji DS gauge 106 879 1142 2721 Phillips Creek upstream of 112 928 1207 2820 proposed diversion (RP1) Phillips Creek at Isaac River 126 1032 1344 3114 confluence (RP2) Source: WRM (2016a)

Under existing conditions, all flow generally remains contained within the Phillips Creek channel during a 1 in 2 AEP flood. There are areas of localised inundation on the northern floodplain and around Lake Vermont due to local catchment runoff.

Under a 1 in 50 AEP flood, there is relatively little inundation of the southern floodplain. Although locally high shear stress and stream power values are apparent on the banks of the channel, velocity, shear stress and stream power are relatively low.

Widespread, albeit shallow (<1 m), inundation of the floodplain in proximity to the Project site occurs during a 1 1,000 AEP event. Stream velocities in the existing creek are lower in the overbank areas with high velocities (i.e. point velocities of >3 metres per second (m/s)) in localised areas. Section- averaged velocities range from 1.2 m/s to 1.7 m/s under a 1 in 2 AEP and from 1.4 m/s to 2.8 m/s under a 1 in 50 AEP event.

Graphical representation of existing modelled flood conditions, showing extent, depth, velocity and bed shear stress are provided in Appendix B.

3.11.2 Groundwater

3.11.2.1 Groundwater Aquifers

A detailed description of groundwater values for the Northern Extension is included in Appendix D (JBT 2016a). Registered bores on and adjacent to the Project site are shown in Figure 13 and groundwater monitoring bores located on the site are shown in Figure 14.

Geological and hydrogeological units within the Project area include:

Quaternary alluvial aquifers;

Tertiary basalt aquifer;

Tertiary sedimentary units;

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 75 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Triassic sedimentary units; and

Permian sedimentary units.

Within approximately 25 km of the boundary of the Northern Extension area there are 174 registered bores (based on data from the DNRM groundwater database). Of these:

9% are constructed within Quaternary alluvium;

13% are constructed within Tertiary basalt;

5% are constructed within Tertiary sedimentary units;

0% are constructed within Triassic sedimentary units;

29% are constructed within Permian sedimentary units;

35% have no description of the groundwater unit the bore is constructed within.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 76 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Source: JBT (2016a)

Figure 13 Registered Bores Within and Adjacent to the Project Boundary

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 77 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Source: JBT (2016a)

Figure 14 Existing Groundwater Monitoring Bores on the Project site

Quaternary Alluvium

Within the extension area the Quaternary alluvium associated with Phillips Creek is of limited lateral extent, relatively thin (in the order of 8 10 m) and has not been observed during the site investigation phase, or from geological exploration data, to contain groundwater. It is conceptualised that the Quaternary alluvium will not contain permanent groundwater as recharge to the alluvium via direct rainfall recharge or creek flow seeps downwards into the underlying Tertiary sediments. Review of data from the DNRM groundwater database indicates that a number of bores have been drilled along watercourses; however, in many cases, the bores are shown to be constructed within units that underlay the alluvium. This suggests that the alluvial deposits have been targeted as a groundwater resource but were found to be dry, and that drilling continued until striking water at some depth below the alluvium. The alluvium may, however, be of importance as a source of groundwater recharge to underlying units which could explain the predominance of bores in areas beneath surface drainage lines.

Tertiary Basalt

Significant outcrops of Tertiary basalt occur approximately 20 km to the west of Mineral Development Licence (MDL) 303 (now part of ML 70528), and there are no occurrences of basalt within the Project area.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 78 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Tertiary Sediments

Within the study area, the Tertiary sediments consist of a sub-horizontal blanket ranging from 10 to more than 60 m in thickness. The Tertiary sediments have been observed from both exploration and groundwater drilling to be generally dry. However the basal sand and gravel deposits have been noted to contain groundwater in some instances. The occurrence of these deposits is extremely sporadic and the continuity of the deposits is not mappable.

Triassic Sediments

The Rewan Group occurs to the east of the Project area, and also in the central Project area as a discrete lens that is fault-bound to the east by the Isaac Fault. The Rewan Group forms the recognised basal confining unit of the hydrogeological Great Artesian Basin (GAB) and is normally conceptualised as being a regional aquitard. The unit is known to contain structures or sandstone lenses that are capable of providing locally useable volumes of water for stock supply. However in the surrounding region there are no registered bores constructed within Rewan Group sediments. This observation, combined with observations from drilling at the Project site, support a conceptualisation of the Rewan Group as a low permeability unit within the Project area. It is concluded that Triassic sediments do not form significant regional groundwater units, and are unimportant as a potential source of groundwater.

Permian Sediments

The target coal seams for mining at Lake Vermont are contained within the Permian-age Rangal Coal Measures. The two persistent coal horizons within the coal measures include:

The Leichhardt Seam, which is 2.5 to 3.5 m thick; and

The underlying Vermont / Lower Vermont Seams, which are the principal seams mined at Lake Vermont, and which have a typical combined thickness of 4 6 m.

Within the Bowen Basin it is generally accepted that the coal seams are more permeable relative to the Permian overburden and interburden material. Bores are often drilled dry until a water-bearing coal seam is encountered, with water rising up the borehole indicating confined conditions within the coal seam. Due to the low permeability of the coal measures groundwater residence time is often long, resulting in occurrences of highly saline (EC >20,000 µS/cm) groundwater in some areas. It is often the case however that the coal measures are the first unit where useable volumes of groundwater are encountered. Recharge to Permian strata where coal seams outcrop or subcrop beneath Cainozoic (Tertiary and Quaternary) sediments, especially in areas where the overlying Cainozoic sediments are thin, or where the unit directly underlies alluvium that may be recharged following significant rainfall or stream flow events. Groundwater flow direction is expected to be generally down-dip, with flow direction modified by structures such as faults and dykes, and by the synclinal nature of the coal- bearing strata.

3.11.2.2 Groundwater Quality

Regional Groundwater Quality

Salinity data for groundwater bores within the surrounding region indicate that the bore water is generally suitable for livestock. In some areas, where salinity exceeds 6,000 µS/cm, groundwater is not suitable for stock. Permian water samples with water of stock quality (i.e. salinity <6,000 µS/cm) are primarily situated adjacent to watercourses, indicating that recharge occurs through seepage downwards from surface water runoff that collects in ephemeral drainage channels.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 79 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Local Groundwater Quality

Water quality data was collected from two monitoring bores on the Project site in June 2013, LV2372R and LV2375W, both located within the Vermont Coal Seam (Permian aquifer). The bores recorded EC values of 16,000 µS/cm and 10,600 µS/cm respectively. Laboratory analysis was conducted on a sample from LV2375W, which found the following:

EC and TDS exceeded relevant ANZECC (2000) Stock Water Guideline values, recording values of 10,600 µS/cm and 7,240 mg/L, respectively;

Total aluminium concentration was more than three times the Guideline limit, measuring 17.4 mg/L;

Nickel, manganese and lead also recorded exceedances of drinking water guidelines; and

Based on analysis, groundwater within the Northern Extension area is considered unsuitable for potable use.

Additional groundwater sampling was conducted in February 2015. Samples were collected from two monitoring bores (LV2370W and LV2371W) located in the shallow Tertiary sediments in proximity to Phillips Creek. The remaining bore was dry at the time of sampling. Local groundwater quality data sourced from the Project site in February 2015 is provided in Table 25.

Groundwater quality has been compared to the EPP (Water) groundwater WQOs relevant to Groundwater Chemistry Zone 23 as shown on Map WQ1310 Fitzroy Basin Groundwater Zones. This zone lies within the alluvial sequence and is characterised by moderate salinity. The sampled alluvial bores are located within or immediately north of Zone 23; however, groundwater chemistry to the north of this zone has not been mapped. Groundwater WQOs have been utilised to ensure aquatic ecosystem protection where groundwater may interact with surface waters. Local groundwater quality has also been compared to ANZECC (2000) guideline trigger values for irrigation, to guide the protection of groundwater used for irrigation.

Water samples from bores LV2370W and LV2371W recorded substantially different EC levels: 1,500 µS/cm and 22,900 µS/cm, respectively. EC recorded at LV2371W is likely to reflect the salinity of water in older sediments of the Triassic / Permian units, while LV2370W is likely to represent the quality of perched water within the Tertiary sediments. Review of the adjacent vibrating wire piezometer (VWP) bore (LV2226) indicates that the water level in the Rewan Group is above the base of the Tertiary.

The groundwater sample collected from LV2370W was found to contain water quality characteristics (physico-chemical properties and metal levels) generally below the EPP (Water) WQOs for the protection of irrigation water and aquatic ecosystems. However, the total manganese concentration recorded from this sample was found to exceed the Long-term Trigger Value (LTV) for irrigation waters as well as the 80th percentile value for aquatic ecosystem protection.

Analysis of groundwater collected from bore LV2371W revealed exceedances of the 80th percentile WQO for EC, a measure of salinity. The mineral salts that collectively create salinity (i.e. sodium, 2 magnesium, chloride, total alkalinity (as CaCO3) and sulphate (SO4 )) were also found to be present in excess of the relevant 80th percentile WQOs. Laboratory analysis of metal concentrations revealed an exceedance of the LTV for total boron concentration. The total boron concentration was measured at 1.22 mg/L, 2.44 times the LTV of 0.5 mg/L. Given that boron is commonly associated with saline hydrogeological conditions (ANZECC 2000), this exceedance is consistent with the highly saline conditions recorded from this bore.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 80 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Overall, alluvial groundwater quality is considered to be vastly different between the two bores and highly variable across the site. This is typical of the hydrogeology for the site which exhibits a sporadic and discontinuous shallow aquifer system associated with Phillips Creek. While groundwater quality in LV2370W was generally within normal ranges for the regional aquifer, bore LV2371W was found to contain highly saline groundwater. The substantial exceedances observed at LV2371W are reflected in the calculated 80th percentile values for the two bores.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 81 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Table 25 Local Groundwater Quality

EPP (Water) WQOs Sampling Bore ID Aquatic Ecosystem Protection Irrigation Water # 80th Percentile of Parameter Units LOR 20th 50th 80th Sampled Bores LTV STV LV2370W LV2371W Percentile Percentile Percentile Temp °C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 28.8 27.3 28.5 pH* pH units n/a 7.6 7.75 8.45 n/a n/a 7.22 6.99 7.174 EC* µS/cm 1 3333 3850 4506 n/a n/a 1500 22900 18620 DO* % n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 50.8 8.6 42.36 ORP* mV n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 33.5 -1.5 26.5

Total alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 1 445 650 903 n/a n/a 557 2740 2303.4 TDS* mg/L n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1001 15249 12399.4

Sulphate (SO4 2-) mg/L 1 50 95 832 n/a n/a 34 2890 2318.8 Sodium mg/L 1 501 561 599 n/a n/a 191 4100 3318.2 Total chloride mg/L 1 558 750 989 n/a n/a 203 6280 5064.6 Total N mg/L 0.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.1 <0.5 0.93 Total P mg/L 0.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 Oxidised N mg/L 0.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.21 0.03 0.174

Hardness as CaCO3 mg/L 1 461 793 1146 n/a n/a 411 4430 3626.2 Calcium mg/L 1 51 100 223 n/a n/a 49 26 44.4 Magnesium mg/L 1 70 140 185 n/a n/a 70 1060 862 Nitrate mg/L 0.01 0 0.5 1.65 n/a n/a 0.21 0.03 0.174 Fluoride mg/l 0.01 0.68 0.8 1.2 1 42 0.5 2.8 2.34 Dissolved Metals & Metalloids Arsenic mg/L 0.001 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a <0.001 <0.001 0.0005 Boron mg/L 0.05 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.06 1.11 0.9 Cadmium mg/L 0.0001 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a <0.0001 <0.0001 0.00005 Cobalt mg/L 0.001 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a <0.001 0.005 0.0041 Chromium mg/L 0.001 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a <0.001 <0.001 0.0005 Copper mg/L 0.001 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.002 <0.001 0.0017 Manganese mg/L 0.001 0.02 0.035 0.176 n/a n/a 0.002 0.116 0.0932 Nickel mg/L 0.001 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.002 0.006 0.0052 Lead mg/L 0.001 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a <0.001 <0.001 0.0005

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 82 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

EPP (Water) WQOs Sampling Bore ID Aquatic Ecosystem Protection Irrigation Water # 80th Percentile of Parameter Units LOR 20th 50th 80th Sampled Bores LTV STV LV2370W LV2371W Percentile Percentile Percentile Vanadium mg/L 0.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a <0.01 <0.01 0.005 Zinc mg/L 0.005 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.009 0.016 0.0146 Selenium mg/L 0.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a <0.01 <0.01 0.005 Mercury mg/L 0.0001 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a <0.0001 <0.0001 0.00005 Iron mg/L 0.05 0.006 0.035 0.085 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Metals & Metalloids Arsenic mg/L 0.001 n/a n/a n/a 0.1 2 0.002 <0.001 0.0017 Boron mg/L 0.05 n/a n/a n/a 0.5 n/a 0.07 1.22 0.99 Cadmium mg/L 0.0001 n/a n/a n/a 0.01 0.05 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.00005 Cobalt mg/L 0.001 n/a n/a n/a 0.05 0.1 0.01 0.007 0.0094 Chromium mg/L 0.001 n/a n/a n/a 0.1 1 0.017 0.004 0.0144 Copper mg/L 0.001 n/a n/a n/a 0.2 5 0.013 0.007 0.0118 Manganese mg/L 0.001 0.02 0.035 0.176 0.2 10 0.312 0.134 0.2764 Nickel mg/L 0.001 n/a n/a n/a 0.2 2 0.019 0.01 0.0172 Lead mg/L 0.001 n/a n/a n/a 2 5 0.004 0.001 0.0034 Vanadium mg/L 0.01 n/a n/a n/a 0.1 0.5 0.03 <0.01 0.025 Zinc mg/L 0.005 n/a n/a n/a 2 5 0.337 0.031 0.2758 Selenium mg/L 0.01 n/a n/a n/a 0.02 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 0.005 Mercury mg/L 0.0001 n/a n/a n/a 0.002 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.00005 Iron mg/L 0.05 0.006 0.035 0.085 0.2 10 n/a n/a n/a Key: * Field measurements # trigger values equivalent to Australian water quality guidelines for irrigation (refer to table 9.2.17 of AWQG (ANZECC 2000). XX = Value exceeds 80th percentile of WQO for aquatic ecosystem protection. XX = Value exceeds Long-term Trigger Value WQO for irrigation. LTV = Long-term Trigger Value is the maximum concentration (mg/L) of contaminant in the irrigation water which can be tolerated assuming 100 years of irrigation. STV = Short-term Trigger Value is the maximum concentration (mg/L) of contaminant in the irrigation water which can be tolerated for a shorter period of time (20 years).

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 83 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

3.11.2.3 Aquifer Hydraulic Properties

Groundwater hydraulic properties (hydraulic conductivity) were available from a number of groundwater studies in the area and has been summarised in Table 26.

Table 26 Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity Values

Hydraulic Data Bore Formation Conductivity (K) Comment Source m/day m/s AGE (2011) 9.00E-02 1.04E-06 Test 1 Dysart Seam (Moranbah Dysart Coal MB04b Coal Measures (MCM)) 1.60E-01 1.85E-06 Test 2 Project Pz07-S Alluvium 2.69E-01 3.11E-06 Pz08-S Alluvium 8.78E-02 1.02E-06 Pz02 Basalt 5.18E-03 6.00E-08 Values from slug tests Pz03-S Basalt 8.25E-02 9.55E-07 performed on site Pz06-S Basalt 1.38E-01 1.60E-06 monitoring bores. Analyses presented for URS (2009) Pz01 Dysart Seam MCM 1.30E-01 1.50E-06 Bouwer-Rice and Caval Pz03-D Dysart Seam MCM 5.90E-01 6.83E-06 Hvorslev method. Ridge Pz04 P Seam MCM 3.25E-01 3.76E-06 Bouwer-Rice result Groundwater selected for unconfined Impact Pz05 Dysart Seam MCM 3.36E-02 3.89E-07 aquifers (alluvium and Assessment Pz06-D P Seam MCM 7.92E-02 9.17E-07 basalt), Hvorslev result Pz07-D P Seam MCM 3.30E-01 3.82E-06 selected for confined Pz09 P Seam MCM 1.60E-01 1.85E-06 aquifers (coal seams Pz10 Harrow Seam MCM 3.60E-02 4.17E-07 and interburden) Pz11-D P Seam MCM 3.70E-02 4.28E-07 Pz08-D Sandstone Interburden 3.40E-02 3.94E-07 - Triassic sediments 5.00E-03 5.79E-08 Values based on Arrow - Rangal Coal Measures 5.00E-02 5.79E-07 assessment of Energy - Fort Cooper Coal Measures 5.00E-02 5.79E-07 properties used in other (2011) - Moranbah Coal Measures 1.00E-02 1.16E-07 groundwater models in the region - Back Creek Group 5.00E-03 5.79E-08 Source: JBT (2016a)

Hydraulic testing was to be undertaken from standpipe monitoring bores within the Northern Extension area. However, two of the three bores were dry (LV2369W and LV2226). One bore contained water (LV2370W) however the bore contained insufficient water for testing (as the water level was just above base of screened area during the testing period, which would invalidate the assumptions of the analysis).

It was noted during attempts to develop the bore (to remove drilling foam) that the bore quickly blew dry. However, when clean water was introduced to flush the hole, no water returned to the surface. It is uncertain whether this indicates a high permeability of the basal sands, or whether the water was simply filling the dry upper portion of the unit. However, the sands were observed to be coarse and free-flowing during drilling, and it is therefore assumed that the isolated bands of sands / gravels are relatively permeable.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 84 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

3.11.2.4 Groundwater Level

Available water level data from registered groundwater bores within and adjacent to the Northern Extension area indicate that:

The Quaternary alluvium associated with Phillips Creek has been noted to be dry when drilled. This is interpreted to indicate that groundwater occurs sporadically within this unit (following rainfall recharge or creek flow) and that water seeps down to recharge lower units. Groundwater levels in the Isaac River alluvium vary from 0.5 m below ground level (mbgl) to almost 15 mbgl;

The Tertiary sediments at site tend to be dry when drilled, with the water level in lower units tending to be within several metres of the base of Tertiary. Groundwater is encountered within sporadic occurrences of basal sand, where the water level tends to be several metres above base of Tertiary; and

Groundwater levels in the Permian coal measures vary from approximately 25 to 50 mbgl.

The following observations are made based on review of available data:

The Quaternary sediments associated with the current course of Phillips Creek have been observed to be dry for all locations where the sediments have been drilled;

The Tertiary sediments have been observed to be generally dry where drilled. At the three locations where standpipe monitoring bores were constructed within the Tertiary sediments, two bores were dry and one bore (LV2370W) was observed to contain groundwater. LV2370W contained sand from 15 to 18 mbgl, with coarse sand and gravel from 18 to 20 mbgl. The base of Tertiary at this location is interpreted to be within a prior channel of Phillips Creek;

Rewan Group sediments were encountered in bores LV226, LV2183, LV2218 (western occurrence of Rewan Group) and bore LV2372R in the eastern occurrence of Rewan Group; and

The thickness of Rewan Group sediments varies from 13 to 20 m in bores in the west of the Northern Extension area to almost 50 m in bore LV2218 in the centre of the Northern Extension area. Bore LV2372R, located in the eastern area of Rewan Group sediments records a thickness of approximately 24 m of Rewan Group. Based on data from bores that monitor the Rewan Group, it is interpreted that the Rewan Group sediments will tend to be saturated at site, with the water level at or just below the base of Tertiary. Water level data from VWP bores tends to indicate a potential for downward movement of groundwater (i.e. recharge) with the coal measures sediments.

3.11.2.5 Groundwater Yield

Within the surrounding region there are 60 bores with recorded yield data. Of these: 53% of bores are screened within Permian sediments. For bores screened within Permian sediments:

o 56% record a yield <1 L/s; and

o 88% record a yield <2.5 L/s;

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 85 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

20% of bores are screened within Quaternary alluvium. For bores screened within Quaternary alluvium:

o 60% record a yield <1 L/s;

o 67% record a yield <2.5 L/s;

o 87% record a yield <5 L/s; and

o Compared to other groundwater units, the alluvial aquifers record the highest percentage of bores with a yield between 2.5 and 5 L/s (20%);

17% of bores are screened within basalt. For bores screened within basalt:

o 85% record a yield <1 L/s; and

o 92% record a yield <2.5 L/s;

5% of bores are screened within the Duaringa Formation;

5% of bores are screened within other units (or the unit data is not available); and

5% of bores are screened within the Tertiary Duaringa Formation, and a further 5% are screened within other groundwater units.

Summarising data for all groundwater units:

60% of bores record a yield <1 L/s;

83% of bores record a yield <2.5 L/s; and

92% of bores record a yield <5 L/s.

3.11.3 Nature and Extent of Likely Impact

Proposed impacts of the Project were assessed against the significant impact criteria provided below.

3.11.3.1 Significant Impact Criteria

The Significant impact guidelines 1.3: Coal seam gas and large coal mining developments impacts on water resources (DoE 2013b) define significant impact criteria for the assessment of impacts to water resources as a result of a large coal mining development.

The Guidelines state that: an action is likely to have a significant impact on a water resource if there is a real or not remote chance or possibility that it will directly or indirectly result in a change to:

The hydrology of a water resource; or

The water quality of a water resource; that is of sufficient scale or intensity as to reduce the current or future utility of the water resource for third party users, including environmental and other public benefit outcomes, or to create a material risk of such reduction in utility occurring.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 86 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Hydrological Characteristics of a Water Resource

A significant impact on the hydrological characteristics of a water resource may occur where there are, as a result of the action:

a) Changes in the water quantity, including the timing of variations in water quantity;

b) Changes in the integrity of hydrological or hydrogeological connections, including substantial structural damage (e.g. large scale subsidence); or

c) Changes in the area or extent of a water resource; where these changes are of sufficient scale or intensity as to significantly reduce the current or future utility of the water resource for third party users, including environmental and other public benefit outcomes.

Hydrological characteristics include flow regimes, groundwater recharge rates, aquifer pressure, water table, surface-groundwater interactions, connectivity between river and floodplains, and connectivity between aquifers (DoE 2013b).

Quality of a Water Resource

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;

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;

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

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

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.

These Guidelines state that water-dependent ecosystems are likely to be significantly impacted if water quality is p

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 87 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

IESC Information Requirements

In addition to the Significant impact guidelines 1.3: Coal seam gas and large coal mining developments impacts on water resources (DoE 2013b), the Information Guidelines for the IESC advice on coal seam gas and large coal mining development proposals (IESC 2014) were also considered. Information required by the IESC in order to fulfil their advisory role to the DoE is detailed in Table 27 below.

Table 27 IESC Information Requirements

Information Requirement Relevant Section(s) A description of the proposed project Section 2.0 A description of impacts to water resources and water- Sections 3.11.1, 3.11.2, dependent assets, including details of conceptual, analytical 3.11.3.2, 3.11.3.3 and numerical modelling, water and salt balances Details of data, management and monitoring Section 3.11.1, 3.11.2, 3.11.4 A risk assessment Section 3.11.5 Source: IESC (2014)

3.11.3.2 Potential Impacts on Surface Water

The potential impacts of the Northern Extension on surface water resources are discussed in the following sections.

Water Availability

A significant proportion of site water requirements will be sourced from water recycled on the site, including rainfall runoff and groundwater inflows to the open-cut pit, which will be stored in the environmental dams and NMWD for recycling.

The results of the water balance modelling shows that the existing water licence allocation of 2,250 Ml will meet all site demands (at 100% allocation) for all years of mine life. No additional water supply allocation is likely to be required for the Northern Extension proposal.

Loss of Catchment Area

The SWMS will capture runoff from areas that previously would have flowed to receiving waters of Phillips Creek, Downs Creek and an unnamed tributary of Downs Creek. The catchment area captured by the SWMS during active mining operations (both the Lake Vermont Mine and Northern Extension) will change with development of the Project.

The SWMS assessed the cumulative impact of the Northern Extension with the existing Lake Vermont Mine. The maximum captured catchment area during mining operations consists of approximately:

49% of the Lake Vermont catchment area, attributable to the Northern Extension Project;

4% of the Phillips Creek catchment to the confluence of the Isaac River (half of which is due to the Northern Extension);

37% of the Lumpy Gully catchment to the confluence of Downs Creek (10% of which is due to Northern Extension Project); and

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 88 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

1% of the Downs Creek catchment to the confluence of the unnamed tributary (due to approved operations).

Following completion of mining, runoff from rehabilitated overburden emplacements will be released from the site. An area of approximately 3.3 km2 will continue to drain to final voids. The net change in catchment area draining from the site is summarised in Table 28.

The changed topography as a result of the final landform will have the following impacts on catchment areas:

A reduction of 5.9 km2 in the catchment area draining to Phillips Creek compared to pre- mining conditions. This represents a decrease of less than 1.2%;

A reduction of 2.6 km2 in the catchment area draining to Lumpy Gully compared to pre-mining conditions. This represents a reduction of approximately 2%; and

A reduction of 1.3 km2 in the catchment area draining to Lake Vermont compared to pre- mining conditions, representing a decrease in catchment area of approximately 12%.

Table 28 Captured Catchment Area (Final Landform)

Receiving Pre-Mining Post-Mining Post-Mining Captured Watercourse Catchment Area (km2) Catchment Area (km2) Catchment Area (km2) Phillips Creek 506.1 500.2 5.9 Unnamed Tributary 128.8 126.2 2.6 Lake Vermont 10.8 9.5 1.3 Source: WRM (2016b)

Development of the Northern Extension Project, in association with the existing Lake Vermont Mine, will result in changes to topography, diverting runoff that would have otherwise entered the receiving waters of Phillips Creek, Downs Creek, Lake Vermont, and other wetlands and unnamed tributaries on a long-term basis. In accordance with the Significant impact guidelines 1.3: Coal seam gas and large coal mining developments impacts on water resources (DoE 2013b), changes to the hydrological characteristics of these receiving waters as a result of changes to catchment areas are not anticipated to be of a sufficient scale or intensity to significantly impact the utility of these water resources.

The local catchment area of Lake Vermont is 10.8 km2. Part of this catchment will by disturbed by mining, and will be captured within the mine water management system. At the end of mine life a reduction in local catchment area of 1.3 km2 is predicted (WRM 2016b). This will result in reduced of inputs to Lake Vermont between flood events. Local catchment runoff is small compared to evaporation, and is insufficient to fill Lake Vermont. Lake Vermont only fills during Phillips Creek floods significantly greater than a 1 in 2 AEP event. As a result, the reduction of local catchment is likely to have limited impact on the overall volume stored in the Lake. Subsequent impacts on aquatic / ecological values of Lake Vermont are unlikely or insignificant.

The infrastructure proposed for the Northern Extension will not significantly impact on the frequency of Phillips Creek floodwater entering Lake Vermont. During a larger flood, the levees will cause a small reduction in the southern floodplain flow depths, which will result in a reduction in the rate of inflow to Lake Vermont. However, at the expected rate of inflow, by the time these changes become significant, it is likely that Lake Vermont would have received in excess of its 690 Ml capacity through the combined effects of catchment runoff and flooding. Therefore, changes in Phillips Creek flooding are

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 89 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

unlikely to have impact on Lake Vermont storage volumes and in turn are not expected to impact on aquatic / ecological values of the Lake.

Impacts on Surface Water Quality

Land disturbance associated with mining has the potential to adversely affect the quality of surface runoff by increasing sediment loads and transporting contaminants from spoil and coal seams.

The following broad management principles have been proposed in the currently implemented on the existing Lake Vermont Mine:

Minimise the area of disturbance;

Where possible, apply local temporary erosion control measures;

Intercept runoff from undisturbed areas and divert around disturbed areas; and

Where temporary measures are likely to be ineffective, divert runoff from disturbed areas to sedimentation basins prior to release from the site.

If these broad management principles are implemented effectively, environmental risks from disturbed area runoff are expected to be low, when assessed in accordance with the Significant impact guidelines 1.3: Coal seam gas and large coal mining developments impacts on water resources (DoE 2013b). Regional WQOs are expected to be achieved and no significant degradation of local water quality is anticipated to occur.

Offsite Release

The results of the water balance modelling indicate that under the current model assumptions and configuration, there is a low risk of the SWMS accumulating water over the 32 year mine life. The results show that the system recovers well after each wet season.

The model results show no uncontrolled release from the mine-affected water management system to receiving waters.

Some overflow of treated water from sediment dams may occur during wet periods that exceed the design standard of the sediment control system. However, as clarified previously, while these dams

Available geochemical information indicates that the runoff draining to most of the sediment dams should have low salinity. Overflows would only occur during significant rainfall events which will also generate runoff from surrounding undisturbed catchments. Hence, it is unlikely that sediment dam overflows will have a measurable impact on receiving water quality.

No change to the current approved controlled release strategy has been proposed by the Northern Extension amendment. Any such release would be in strict accordance with the conditions of the the water in the receiving environment. An amendment to the release point locations has been proposed, however, the receiving environment remains the same and no additional impact is considered likely.

Based on historical conditions, no overflow of mine-affected waters to the receiving environment is expected. This may be achieved without controlled releases of mine-affected water to the receiving

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 90 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

environment. However, where water quality meets the criteria specified in the EA, it may be beneficial to the operation to release excess stored water to reduce onsite water storage inventories and prepare for future rainfall events. Under these circumstances, it would be expected the release would be made in accordance with EA release criteria.

Hydraulic Impacts

The assessment of the hydraulic and hydrologic characteristics of the Phillips Creek diversion has been conducted to determine compliance with the Guideline Works that interfere with water in a watercourse: watercourse diversions (DNRM 2014) and identify the potential impacts of the diversion under various design flood events. The potential hydraulic impacts of the Project have been assessed against the Significant impact guidelines 1.3: Coal seam gas and large coal mining developments impacts on water resources (DoE 2013b).

Analysis was also undertaken to determine the influence of elevated water levels in the Isaac River on the Project site, due to their proximity. Using design flows for a 1 in 1,000 AEP event, results indicated that the Isaac River would not propagate a substantial distance upstream, and would therefore preclude impacts to the Project site.

Hydraulic characteristics modelled include stream power, stream velocity and bed shear stress. Stream power and shear stress are good indicators of erosion potential. Stream power, a function of discharge, flow width and hydraulic gradient, represents available energy. A high stream power is indicative of high erosion potential. Bed shear stress is a measure of the tractive force on sediment particles at stream boundaries and is indicative of the potential for movement of non-cohesive sediments or erosion of cohesive sediments and the stream edge (WRM 2016a). Erosion is also associated with high flow velocities. Further bank protection measures are necessary where modelled velocities exceed the velocity criterion.

A hydrodynamic TUFLOW model was developed to simulate the flow behaviour of Phillips Creek in its existing and diverted forms under various flood events. A one-dimensional HEC-RAS model was used to more accurately model shear stress and stream power during 1 in 2 AEP events. The HEC-RAS model was also used to gauge the impact of diversion channel hydraulics in bank-full flows. A flow of 240 m3/s was used, which falls between the 1 in 2 and 1 in 5 AEP flows.

Following diversion of Phillips Creek and the construction of a 7.8 km long levee to protect the mine area from inundation, modelling indicates the redistribution of flow from the southern to the northern floodplain. Consequently, flood levels are decreased on the southern floodplain and increased on the northern flood plain; however, flood waters do not propagate upstream of the Project.

Impacts on Flooding

While construction of the proposed levees and diversion will result in redistribution of flow between the channel and floodplains, the impact on the duration of flooding is small. The proposed changes will also result in changes to the amount of flow in the main creek channel. While there will be a small reduction in the 1 in 50 AEP in-channel flow at the upstream end of the nearby reaches, there will be a greater proportion of flow through the area immediately downstream of the diverted reach of the channel.

The depth of flooding along the southern levee during a 1 in 1,000 AEP event is approximately 1.2 m, although depths may reach 10 m in some areas where the levee crosses existing channels. Under a 1 in 100 AEP event, increases in flood levels are typically less than 0.1 m to the north of the Project site, with the exception of localised increases of 0.5 1 m immediately adjacent to the southern levee. Under a 1 in 50 AEP event, flood levels increase by less than 100 mm upstream of the diversion. The

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 91 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

levee and diversion result in the redistribution of flow from the southern to northern floodplain and the main channel. There is a corresponding increase in northern floodplain levels of approximately 250 500 mm, and slightly smaller reductions on the southern floodplain.

The presence of the pit results in localised increases in water levels of 0.2 m and 0.9 m adjacent to the pit levee. The haul road is typically flooded across the majority of its length, with localised impacts of between 0.1 and 0.6 m immediately upstream of the haul road during 1 in 50 and 1 in 100 AEP flood events. Culverts are proposed to reduce this impact along the haul road.

During a 1 in 50 AEP event, the diversion is likely to cause slightly higher water levels along the length of the diversion and downstream due to the presence of the levee influencing flow direction. In contrast, the diversion results in slightly lower water levels under a 1 in 2 AEP due to the slightly increased conveyance caused by a slight widening of the diverted channel. Downstream, the impact of the diversion on water levels is minimal.

Impact on Waterway Hydraulic Characteristics

Downstream of the diversion, shear stress and stream power values under a 1 in 2 AEP event appear to be unchanged. Upstream of the diversion, a small increase is evident for a distance of 400 m; however, these values are well below Guideline values and characteristics of the nearby existing channel. Stream power and shear stress values are relatively uniform across the diversion area itself and are consistent with values of the existing channel. Reductions in the lower reaches and slight increases in the upstream section are apparent under a 1 in 2 AEP flood.

Velocity at most locations is within the Guideline value (1.5 m/s) during a 1 in 2 AEP event. As with other hydraulic characteristics, velocity appears to be unchanged in areas downstream of the diversion, and slightly increased in localised areas upstream. Within the diversion area, a slight decrease in velocity (to less than 1.3 m/s) is evident.

Un-vegetated conditions are representative of the diversion immediately following construction, before any vegetation has established. These conditions have been represented in the model by reducing the 0.035 within the diverted channel. In the diversion area, bed shear stress is reduced and is within the Guideline value. Similarly, stream power is below the Guideline in downstream sections of the diversion, although it exceeds the Guideline in the upstream portion of the diversion. Velocity is above the guideline value of 1.0 m/s within the diversion itself. Upstream of the diversion, increases in shear stress and stream power are below Guideline values, with the exception of localised areas. In contrast, velocity increases are evident upstream of the diversion. Although typically above the Guideline, velocities are consistent with other reaches. Stream power under 1 in 2 and 1 in 50 AEP events is similar to or lower than existing stream power levels in the existing channel. Stream velocity in the proposed diversion during 1 in 2 and 1 in 50 AEP events are similar to, or lower than, those modelled in the existing stream for the same design events.

Modelling of un-vegetated conditions indicates an elevated erosion risk post-construction. This risk will require management through revegetation planning. Stabilisation works may need to be considered to manage the potential for damage during early flows, although the relatively cohesive nature of local soils provides some mitigation.

While the Diversion Guidelines refer to the 1 in 2 AEP flood, the existing Phillips Creek channel contains significantly larger flows within its banks. Bankfull flows are recognised to be important in the geomorphic evolution of Australian streams. Generally, due to the uniform diversion channel shape, the values within the channel vary more uniformly than in the adjoining reaches. No change to hydraulic conditions is evident downstream of the diversion, while upstream increases of approximately 10% of the existing shear stress, stream power and velocity values of this reach were

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 92 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

evident. However, the values are similar to those occurring in other nearby reaches. The change is caused by the slight reduction in water surface level through the diversion, which in turn increases upstream flow velocities. The diversion area remains relatively uniform, with a slight decrease in velocity apparent.

Downstream of the diversion there is typically an increase in shear stress, although values remain below the Guidelines. Similarly, a small increase is apparent upstream, with some isolated sections slightly above Guideline values. A decrease is evident in the diversion area, with the exception of CH2150 (the apex of a tight radius bend), where values exceed Guideline values. Stream power and velocity follow similar patterns to shear stress values, with increases upstream and downstream and decreases in the diversion itself.

Table 29 provides an overview of the hydraulic characteristics of the existing and diverted Phillips Creek channels. Figure 15 illustrates the modelled change in flood level occurring as a result of the proposed diversion and flood levee. Additional graphical representations of modelled flood conditions (pre- and post-diversion), showing extent, depth, velocity and bed shear stress are provided in Appendix B.

Table 29 Changes to Channel Hydraulic Characteristics

Parameter Existing Creek Diversion Mean Velocity (m/s) 1.5 1.4 2 1 in 2 Mean Bed Shear Stress (N/m ) 30.8 30.4 AEP Mean Stream Power (N/m s) 45.5 41.7 Hydraulic Gradient (%) 0.14 0.12 Mean Velocity (m/s) 2.1 1.7 2 1 in 50 Mean Bed Shear Stress (N/m ) 62.1 45.6 AEP Mean Stream Power (N/m s) 132.4 88.9 Hydraulic Gradient (%) 0.12 0.09 Source: WRM (2016a)

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 93 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Source: WRM (2016a)

Figure 15 1:50 Design Flood Change in Flood Level

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 94 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Cumulative Impacts on Water Quality

The Project is located in the Isaac River catchment boundary, which is a major tributary within the Fitzroy basin. The Fitzroy basin is the largest catchment in Queensland draining into the Pacific Ocean and also the largest catchment that drains to the GBR, although it does not contribute significant freshwater flows to the coastal environment when compared to river systems further north.

In 2008, the Queensland Government undertook an investigation into the cumulative effects of coal mining in the Fitzroy River basin on water quality (EPA 2009). The investigation found that:

There were inconsistencies in discharge quality limits and operating requirements for coal mine water discharges as imposed through EAs; and

In some cases, discharge limits and operating conditions of coal mines were not adequately protecting downstream environmental values.

These conclusions led to a number of inter-related actions by Queensland Government and other stakeholders:

WQOs were developed for the Fitzroy Basin and added to Schedule 1 of the EPP (Water) in October 2011;

Model water conditions were developed for coal mines in the Fitzroy Basin (EHP 2013b). These model water conditions are designed to manage water discharges to meet the WQOs set out in the EPP (Water) and to provide consistency between mining operations in the Fitzroy basin;

EAs for a number of mining operations were amended to introduce conditions consistent with the model water conditions; and

A number of mining operations entered into Transitional Environmental Programs (TEPs) under the EP Act. These TEPs were focused on actions that would allow mines to achieve compliance with new EA conditions and upgrade operating conditions.

With these measures in place, a strong strategic and policy framework is now in place for management of cumulative water quality impacts from mining activities. This framework allows for management of individual mining activities in such a way that overarching WQOs can be achieved.

Mine water from the proposed Northern Extension will be managed through the existing mining water management system as this allows water to be reused in coal handling and preparation. In October 2011, the EA for the Lake Vermont Mine (EPML00659513, formerly MIN100736808) was amended to become consistent with the model water conditions, with discharge conditions and in-stream trigger levels aligned with WQOs in the EPP (Water). Using a mine water balance model, an analysis has been undertaken of the effect of water from the proposed Northern Extension on the ability of the existing mine to maintain compliance with EA conditions. This analysis indicates that the addition of mine water from the Northern Extension makes no difference to the compliance profile for the Lake Vermont Mine and is negligible in terms of its salt load to the Isaac River.

While the Queensland Government cumulative impact assessment of mining in the Fitzroy Basin focussed on salinity as the key water quality issue related to mining activities, surface disturbance associated with mining activities can result in erosion and increased sediment levels in surface waters. The GBR outlook report also identified that the Fitzroy Basin contributed one of the highest sediment

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 95 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

loads to the reef, largely attributing sediment loads to use of land for agricultural activities (GBRMPA 2009).

The Queensland Government commissioned an assessment of mine affected water releases in the Fitzroy River basin during the 2012 2013 wet season (known as the Pilot Scheme). The report, prepared by consultants Gilbert and Sutherland, concluded that the Fitzroy as a whole is not currently -catchment scale.

The operational policy of the Pilot Scheme aims to manage the cumulative impact of mine-affected water releases across the Fitzroy Basin. To achieve this, trigger values have been derived for six monitoring locations across the basin. If in-stream EC triggers are exceeded during times when mine affected water releases are being unde mine-affected water.

The water quality assessment undertaken for the project has identified that sediment inputs can be controlled through drainage, erosion and sediment control measures. On this basis, the proposed project is not expected to make any significant contribution to cumulative sediment loads in the Fitzroy River Basin.

Given that the Northern Extension mine water releases are being managed within an overarching strategic framework for management of cumulative impacts of mining activities, the proposed management approach for mine water from the Project is expected to have negligible cumulative impact on surface water quality and associated environmental values.

Cumulative Impacts of Flooding

There are no known projects in the planning or development phase that might result in additional structures on the floodplain in the vicinity of the Project. Cumulative impacts on flooding are not expected to lead to any adverse impacts on human populations, property or other environmental or social values.

Cumulative Impacts on Surface Water Flows

A major influence on water flows in the Isaac River is the Burton Dam, located upstream of the Northern Extension mining lease. The Connors River Dam on the Connors River will also influence flows in the McKenzie River below the confluence of the Isaac River once it is operational. Both projects have been addressed in water resource planning as documented through the Water Resource (Fitzroy Basin) Plan 2011. There are no other major storages on the Isaac River. In Queensland, the water resource planning process focused on balancing water extraction and use with protection of ecosystems and takes into account cumulative impacts from major water storages and extraction.

The Project does not require any additional raw water allocations and therefore does not contribute to cumulative impacts in relation to extraction of surface water resources from other catchments. The project will locally impact flows in the minor tributaries of Downs Creek and the Isaac River due to water being captured within the SWMS. The impacts of these changes are expected to be minimal. No other projects have been identified which would further increase these impacts.

Overview of Potential Surface Water Impacts

In accordance with the Significant impact guidelines 1.3: Coal seam gas and large coal mining developments impacts on water resources (DoE 2013b), the following impacts in relation to the Northern Extension Project are anticipated:

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 96 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Adverse impacts to the quality of surface water runoff entering receiving waters surrounding the Project are unlikely to occur. The SWMS for the Project has been designed to ensure all surface runoff from disturbed areas is captured by the mine affected water system;

Adverse impacts to the environmental values of the Isaac River associated with uncontrolled releases are unlikely to occur. Modelling conducted for the SWMS indicates that no uncontrolled releases will occur from the mine affected water management system to receiving waters. Where controlled releases are conducted, release water will be required to be comply with EA conditions and regional WQOs;

Loss of catchment area draining to local drainage paths and wetlands due to capture of runoff within onsite storages and the open-cut pits; and

Potential minor impacts of the Project on flood levels and flood velocities of Phillips Creek.

3.11.3.3 Potential Impacts on Groundwater

JBT (2016a) conducted a Groundwater Impact Assessment to model the potential for the Project to impact on groundwater resources. The Groundwater Impact Assessment Report is provided in Appendix D. Potential groundwater impacts of the Project have been evaluated in accordance with the Significant impact guidelines 1.3: Coal seam gas and large coal mining developments impacts on water resources (DoE 2013b).

Groundwater Quality

The Project is anticipated to have minimal impact on groundwater quality. A cone of depression is expected to develop, generating flow down towards the pit. As a result no contamination of aquifers surrounding the proposed Northern Extension is likely.

Groundwater Drawdown

A two-dimensional seepage modelling platform (Seep/W) was utilised to predict the rate and extent of changes to the phreatic surface due to ongoing mining operations at Lake Vermont Mine and the extension of mining into the Project area. Two models were developed, one oriented north-south and one oriented west-east, to identify potential drawdown for two scenarios:

End of mining (Year 32), shown in Figure 16; and

100 years post-mining, shown in Figure 17.

Criteria against which groundwater drawdown is assessed are provided in the Queensland Water Act 2000 drawdown extent criterion for unconsolidated aquifers was not utilised as unconsolidated sediments (i.e. Tertiary and Quaternary) are typically unsaturated within the Project site.

The 5 m drawdown extent at the end of mining is approximately 2 km from the pit crest on the western side of the mining area (low wall). On the eastern side (high wall), the 5 m extent is approximately 1.3 km from the pit crest. The 5 m extent of drawdown is approximately 2 km from the pit crest at the southern end of the mining area, and approximately 2.3 km from the pit crest at the northern end.

At 100 years post-mining, the 5 m extent of groundwater drawdown was modelled to be approximately 4 km from the pit crest on the low wall side of the mining area. The difference between end of mining and 100 years post-mining (2 km) is indicative of the drawdown rate in the coal measures, as the Permian Fair Hill Formation sediments are prevalent to the west of the mining area. The 5 m extent of

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 97 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

drawdown is approximately 2.2 km from the high wall side of mining. The difference of 0.9 km is indicative of the drawdown rate in the Rewan Group sediments within the eastern section of the site.

At the southern end of the mining area, the drawdown extent is approximately 4.5 km from the crest, indicative of the drawdown rate in the coal measures, as the Permian Fair Hill Formation sediments dominate the southern region. The 5 m extent of drawdown on the northern side is approximately 2.6 km from the pit crest. Despite occurrence of the same dominant geological unit, drawdown in the north is less than in the east. This is attributed to synclinal structures, which plunge to the north, and thickening of the Rewan Group sediments. These sediments constitute a greater proportion of the geology of the northern pit wall, impeding drawdown to the north.

The following conclusions are drawn from the modelling:

There is potential for downwards drainage from Tertiary to Permian sediments. However, overall impacts on Tertiary sediment water levels are anticipated to be low due to their generally unsaturated nature. Current and future mining at the existing Lake Vermont Coal Mine are predominantly responsible for groundwater drawdown to the south, south-east and south-west of the Northern Extension mining area; there is only limited potential for the Project to cause additional drawdown.

The Project is considered to have a low impact on groundwater levels in existing registered bores. Figure 16 and Figure 17 indicate the bores within these drawdown zones, and thus the bores potentially impacted. Bores to the south and west are within the potential impact zone of the existing Lake Vermont and/or Saraji Mines. Note that while registered bores #43306 and #132627 are within the impact zone, the former will be removed by operations at Lake Vermont Mine, and the existence of the latter could not be confirmed by the landholder.

A total of three existing groundwater bores within the area are predicted to be impacted by the proposed mining activities. The majority of surrounding properties do not have groundwater bores, or have bores that are not equipped or regularly used. Alternative water sources are readily available; water is collected in dams, pumped from the Isaac River or sourced from offtakes from the Saraji pipeline. The marginal quality of groundwater (assessed against the ANZECC (2000) Stock Water Guideline) and the relatively low yield recorded indicate that groundwater is not widely used in the region.

Creeks within the Project area are ephemeral and data indicate that the water table across the region is typically at or below the base of the Tertiary unit. Consequently, it is considered that the Project will have only a low risk of impacting on baseflow contribution to surface waters, and a low risk of impact to groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs).

Groundwater drawdown is anticipated to have minimal impacts on GDEs due to the limited extent of mining impacts arising from the Northern Extension, and the depth (from the surface) of regional groundwater.

Supporting information presented in the EA Amendment Application indicates that Lake Vermont is an ephemeral waterbody recharged by surface flows, refilling only after sufficient creek flow. Consequently, Lake Vermont is dry for much of the year. Connectivity with groundwater is not considered to be a source of inflow to the waterbody and groundwater drawdown is therefore predicted to have little impact.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 98 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Impacts to Lake Vermont Wetland

The Lake Vermont wetland is an ephemeral topographic depression recharged only after sufficient creek flow and is consequently dry for much of the year. Connectivity with groundwater is not considered to be a source of inflow to the waterbody and groundwater drawdown is therefore predicted to have little impact.

er of times that water is noted in a given water body based on a total number of observations. Water at Lake Vermont was detected in approximately 20% of observations. Spatial variation in the presence of water is evident; towards the centre of the wetland, water is detected in approximately 42% of observations (95 times out of 226 observations) with 99% confidence (Geoscience Australia 2015).

The closest groundwater monitoring bore to the Lake Vermont wetland is bore LV1235C, which contains four VWPs. The uppermost VWP measures groundwater levels in Permian sandstone, which is the shallowest groundwater unit at that location. A review of monitoring data from November 2015 indicates that groundwater was recorded in the shallow groundwater unit from a depth of approximately 36 mbgl (or 130 m AHD). Monitoring data for this bore also confirm that Tertiary sediments are dry; the base of the Tertiary sediments is 20 m, indicating that groundwater level is approximately 16 m below the base of the Tertiary sediments.

Elevation at the margins of Lake Vermont is approximately 160 m AHD. Using the data described above, it may be inferred that groundwater level is likely to be approximately 30 35 m below the level of the wetland. Drilling data from exploration bore LV1232 indicate that the Tertiary sediments are approximately 18 m thick at Lake Vermont, placing the inferred groundwater level below the base of the Tertiary sediments. This is consistent with observations from the exploration drilling program that the Tertiary sediments are generally dry throughout the Lake Vermont area (JBT 2016b).

Impacts to Phillips Creek Wetland

Open standpipe bores LV2371W and LV2369W are located closest to the wetland on Phillips Creek. Bore LV2369W is located downstream of the wetland, approximately 120 m from the bank of Phillips Creek, and is constructed to the base of the Tertiary sediments. The bore was dry at the time of drilling and has been dry on all occasions that monitoring has been undertaken. Tertiary sediments are likely to be dry at this location.

Bore LV2371W is located upstream of the wetland, approximately 20 m from the Phillips Creek bank. The bore is also constructed to the base of the Tertiary sediments. Depth to groundwater has ranged from approximately 11 13 mbgl between 2013 and November 2015, indicating that the Tertiary sediments at this location are partially saturated and that the Quaternary sediments are dry.

Groundwater level at the Phillips Creek wetland is likely to occur at a depth of more than 11 mbgl. The wetland is therefore likely to be maintained by surface water runoff, rather than groundwater baseflow (JBT 2016b).

Cumulative Groundwater Impacts

Nearby operations that have the potential to contribute to cumulative groundwater impacts with the Northern Extension Project include the current Lake Vermont Mine and the Saraji Coal Mine, located approximately 6 km to the west.

At the end of mining, the 5 m drawdown extent was modelled to be approximately 2 km west of the Lake Vermont and Northern Extension pits. Based on the presence of similar geology, it is assumed that the 5 m drawdown extent resulting from the Saraji Coal Mine extends over a similar distance.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 99 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Consequently, given that the Saraji Mine is situated approximately 6 km from the closest extent of mining at the Project, coalescence of the two 5 m drawdown cones is not expected to occur at the end of mining.

At 100 years post mining, however, the 5 m drawdown contour is predicted to extend to approximately 4 km west of the pits. Assuming a similar drawdown extent for the Saraji Mine, there is potential for cones of groundwater drawdown to coalesce following the cessation of mining in the area between the Saraji and Lake Vermont Mines. However, groundwater levels in the region are approximately 20 mbgl (i.e. 20 m below the level that would provide baseflow to existing alluvium or to the root zone of plants). Additional groundwater drawdown from the Project, occurring predominantly within the Permian coal strata, is therefore not considered likely to impact surface ecosystems.

In addition, groundwater bores in the region (of which there is a limited number) are predominately located in areas potentially impacted by either the Lake Vermont Mine or the Saraji Coal Mine. Consequently, groundwater drawdown caused by the Project is considered unlikely to contribute further impacts to groundwater users in the region. Cumulative impacts associated with subsequent stages of the Project, however, will be assessed as ongoing groundwater monitoring provides further data.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 100 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Source: JBT (2016a)

Figure 16 Modelled Groundwater Drawdown End of Mining (Year 32)

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 101 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Source: JBT (2016a)

Figure 17 Modelled Groundwater Drawdown 100 years post-mining

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 102 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

3.11.4 Management Commitments

The following management commitments are proposed and described in greater detail in the proceeding sections:

Erosion and sediment release will be minimised by constructing appropriate water management infrastructure;

The creek diversion channel will be rehabilitated to create a more stable landform, reduce erosion, and restore connectivity;

Regular monitoring of the diversion will be conducted in accordance with the Australian Coal Association Research Program (ACARP) Guidelines (ACARP 2001);

A water management strategy, including sediment controls, will be implemented for the Northern Extension area;

A Receiving Environment Monitoring Program (REMP) will be developed for the Northern Extension area;

A water storage monitoring program will be implemented for all storages; and

Regular groundwater monitoring will be conducted at monitoring bores on the Project.

3.11.4.1 Surface Water Management

Water Quality Management

In the operational phase, progressive rehabilitation of the spoil dumps will minimise the potential generation of sediment. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be developed and implemented with the IECA recommendations. The following broad principles will apply:

Minimise the area of disturbance;

Where possible, apply local temporary erosion control measures;

Intercept runoff from undisturbed areas and divert around disturbed areas; and

Where temporary measures are likely to be ineffective, divert runoff from disturbed areas to sedimentation basins prior to release from the site.

If implemented effectively, environmental risks from disturbed area runoff are expected to be low. In small rainfall events, runoff from disturbed areas will be intercepted and contained by sediment dams, but in larger events, these dams will overflow. Water quality in these dams should be monitored regularly to ensure that the assumption that this water is not mine-affected is valid. Water may be pumped into the mine water management system if required to manage this risk.

Receiving Environment Monitoring Program (REMP)

The REMP in place at the existing Lake Vermont Mine will be extended to accommodate the receiving environment of the Lake Vermont Northern Extension Project and will include monitoring of the Lake Vermont Wetland. Where feasible, design of the program should incorporate monitoring locations

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 103 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

used in this report to enable direct comparison during and post mining. Receiving water monitoring locations are detailed in Table 30 and shown in Figure 18.

Table 30 Receiving Water Monitoring Points

Monitoring Receiving Waters Location Latitude Longitude Points Description Upstream Background Monitoring Points Downs Creek at Mine Access and MP 1 -22.5413 148.4091 Golden Mile Road intersection MP 2 Phillips Creek -22.4502 148.3784 Downstream Monitoring Points MP3 Isaac River -22.3559 148.4941 MP4 Phillips Creek -22.3820 148.4479 MP5 Isaac River -22.4514 148.5611 MP6 Carfax Gully -22.4549 148.5398 MP7 Lake Vermont Wetland -22.3907 148.4671 Note: Coordinates are in GDA 94.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 104 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Figure 18 Receiving Water Monitoring Locations

Diversion Management

Regular monitoring of the diversion will be conducted to evaluate its performance, identify issues as they arise, and ensure the diversion achieves dynamic equilibrium with the adjoining reaches of Phillips Creek upon relinquishment of the diversion licence. Monitoring will be conducted in accordance with the ACARP Guidelines (ACARP 2001).

Baseline data will be collected prior to construction of the diversion to facilitate evaluation of the diversion over the life of the mine. In addition, early monitoring of the upstream and downstream control reaches and the diversion area (post-construction) will generate data against which the diversion may be assessed upon relinquishment.

Monitoring data will be collected from control locations upstream and downstream of the diversion area during the construction, operation and decommissioning stages of the Project. The following data will be collected:

Site and aerial photography;

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 105 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Survival of works;

Visual assessment;

Index of Diversion Condition;

Vegetation characterisation and assessment;

Site survey; and

Flow events monitoring.

3.11.4.2 Groundwater Management

Groundwater Monitoring

As stated in JBT (2016b), no additional monitoring of groundwater quality is considered necessary for the following reasons:

Mining at the Lake Vermont Northern Extension is not anticipated to affect groundwater quality at existing landholder bores;

The principal indicator of groundwater impacts arising from a mining activity is a change in water level, for which the existing groundwater monitoring network is sufficient; and

As Lake Vermont and the Phillips Creek wetland are maintained by surface water runoff, rather than groundwater baseflow, monitoring of groundwater conditions proximate to these wetlands is not warranted.

Groundwater levels will continue to be monitored for water level on a quarterly basis. This will determine the occurrence of groundwater level impacts potentially affecting existing landholder bores.

Existing standpipe bore LV2371W is located approximately 20 m from Phillips Creek and approximately 300 m from the wetland. This bore will enable monitoring of baseline groundwater levels in shallow sediments in the vicinity of the wetland and Phillips Creek.

Details of existing groundwater monitoring bores at the Project site including standpipe monitoring bores and VWP bores are provided in Table 31 and Table 32. This monitoring program, initially proposed in JBT (2016a), utilises existing exploration boreholes for the installation of VWPs to monitoring multiple groundwater units within a single borehole. Standpipe monitoring bores are included to monitor shallow Tertiary sediments.

Table 31 Existing Standpipe Monitoring Bore Construction Details

Ground Slotted Gravel Bore ID Easting 1 Northing 1 Level Interval Pack Screen Lithology (m AHD) (from-to) 2 (from-to) 2 LV2371W 643131 7521947 178.92 16 22 14.6 22 Tertiary sand / clay LV2369W 645524 7522752 173.4 14 20 12 20 Tertiary clay / sand LV2370W 648037 7523878 168.3 12.6 18.6 11.5 18.6 Tertiary sand / sandy clay Notes: 1. Bore coordinates are presented as AGD84 to be consistent with the coordinate system used at site. 2. From-to depths are presented as mbgl. Source: JBT (2016a).

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 106 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Table 32 Existing VWP Bore Construction Details

Ground Level Sensor Depth Bore ID Easting 1 Northing 1 Screen Lithology (m AHD) (mbgl) 38 Rewan Group 56 Leichhardt Seam LV2226 643129 7521950 178.84 74 Interburden siltstone 94 Vermont Seam 40 Coal measures overburden 61 Leichhardt Seam LV2183 644068 7520358 185.16 71 Interburden siltstone 83 Vermont Seam 65 Rewan Group 86 Leichhardt Seam LV2218 645526 7522753 173.29 116 Interburden sandstone 137 Vermont Seam 73 Coal measures overburden 93.5 Vermont Upper Seam LV2372R 647515 7526007 166.91 108 Sandstone interburden 125 Vermont Lower Seam Sandstone above Vermont 50 Seam LV2375W 648040 7523865 168.36 67.5 Vermont Seam Sandstone below Vermont 78 Seam Sandstone above Leichhardt 58 Seam LV1235C 649799 7522054 170.81 72 Leichhardt Seam 90 Interburden sandstone 107 Vermont Seam Notes: 1. Bore coordinates are presented as AGD84 to be consistent with the coordinate system used at site. Source: JBT (2016a).

3.11.5 Assessment of Risk

The Information Guidelines for the IESC advice on coal seam gas and large coal mining development proposals (IESC 2014) were considered in assessing the potential impacts on water resources. A key

assessment of risk.

A qualitative risk assessment was conducted to determine the degree of risk associated with various potential impacts to water resources and the effectiveness of proposed management and mitigation strategies. The aim of the assessment was to:

Assess the likelihood and consequence, and assign an overall risk level to each identified impact;

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 107 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Document management and/or mitigation strategies that are proposed to address potential impacts; and

Reduce the level of risk associated with regional assets to an acceptable level.

3.11.5.1 Methodology

The qualitative risk analysis was conducted in accordance with the Risk Management Standard 4360:2004 (Standards Australia / Standards New Zealand 2004) and HB203:2006 Environmental Risk Management Principals and Processes (Standards Australia / Standards New Zealand 2006).

The risk analysis framework utilised for the assessment is detailed in Table 33 (Measure of Consequence), Table 34 (Measure of Likelihood) and Table 35 (Risk Analysis Matrix).

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 108 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Table 33 Measure of Consequence

Level Descriptor Environmental Impacts Legal Public / Media Attention Financial Impact Significant extensive detrimental long term impacts Probable public or media on the environment, community or public health. Licence to operate likely outcry with national / Catastrophic and/or extensive chronic discharge or 1 Catastrophic to be revoked or not international coverage. >$1 million persistent hazardous pollutant. Damage to an granted. Significant green NGO extensive portion of aquatic ecosystem. Long term campaign. impact on water resource. Off-site release contained with outside assistance. May involve significant May attract attention of local Short to medium term detrimental environmental litigation and fines. $500,000 $1 2 Major and state media and local impact off-site or long term environmental damage Specific focus from million community groups. on-site. regulator. Onsite release contained with outside assistance. Probably serious breach Significant discharge of pollutant, a possible source of regulation. Possible May attract attention from of community annoyance. Non persistent, but prosecution and/or fine. 3 Moderate local media, heightened $50,000 $500,000 possible widespread damage to land. Damage that Significant difficulties or concern by local community. can be remediated without long term loss or very delays experienced in localised long persistent damage. gaining future approvals. On site release immediately contained without Minor on the spot fines outside assistance. Ongoing or repeat or formal written Local community attention 4 Minor $5,000 $50,000 exceedances of odour, dust or noise / vibration correspondence from or repeated complaints. limits. regulator. Negligible environmental impact. Minor transient No serious breach of Local landholder verbal 5 Insignificant release of pollutant including odour, dust and noise regulation. Minor licence Less than $5,000 discussion / complaint. / vibration. non-compliances. Source: Modified from Environmental Risk Management Principles and Process. HB 203:2006 (Standards Australia / Standards New Zealand, 2006).

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 109 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Table 34 Measure of Likelihood

Level Descriptor Example Frequency Is expected to occur in most A Almost certain > Once per year circumstances Will probably occur in most B Likely Once per year circumstances C Possible Could occur Once every 5 years May happen within D Unlikely Could occur but not expected Project life Occurs in only exceptional Not likely to happen E Rare circumstances within Project life Source: Modified from Environmental Risk Management Principles and Process. HB 203:2006 (Standards Australia / Standards New Zealand, 2006).

Table 35 Risk Analysis Matrix

Consequences Likelihood 1 2 3 4 5 Catastrophic Major Moderate Minor Insignificant A Almost certain E E E H H

B Likely E E H H M

C Possible E E H M L

D Unlikely E H M L L

E Rare H H M L L

Source: Modified from Environmental Risk Management Principles and Process. HB 203:2006 (Standards Australia / Standards New Zealand, 2006). Key: E = Extreme risk; immediate action required. H = High risk; senior management attention needed. M = Moderate risk; management responsibility must be specified. L = Low risk; manage by routine procedures.

3.11.5.2 Risk Assessment

Initially, the likelihood and associated consequence value was determined for each hazard associated with the Project to qualify the level of risk associated with each event.

Prior to the application of control strategies, one hazard was assigned a high risk rating, five hazards were assigned a medium risk rating and five were assigned a low risk rating. Following the application of control strategies, many risk categories were reduced. No high risks remain for the Project following implementation of control strategies.

Table 36 indicates the hazards assessed, control measures applied to reduce the initial level of risk associated with each hazard and the residual risk rating following application if control measures.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 110 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Table 36 Risk Assessment Water Resources

Source of Risk No Control Strategies In Place Control Strategies In Place Environmental Incident / Event Potential Impact Risk Control Strategies Risk Consequence Likelihood Consequence Likelihood Aspect Rating Rating Seepage from water Contamination of 4 D L 4 E L storages groundwater Diminished water supply for ecosystems 4 E L - Continuation of existing groundwater monitoring program 4 E L Groundwater dependent on Groundwater - Water storage monitoring program groundwater Drawdown Diminished water supply for other groundwater 4 D L 4 E L users Surface water inflow Release of contaminated - SWMS in place to final void during / saline water to 3 D M - Implementation of the REMP 4 E L flood events waterways - Construction of a permanent structure to prevent inundation of final void - Minimise the area of disturbance - Local temporary erosion control measures - Intercept runoff from undisturbed areas and divert around disturbed Degradation of water Increased sediment areas quality in Phillips Creek, load in runoff entering 3 D M - Where temporary measures are likely to be ineffective, divert runoff from 4 D L Lake Vermont and/or creek disturbed areas to sedimentation basins prior to release from the site Isaac River - SWMS in place to control capture of potentially contaminated water - Erosion and Sediment Control Plan in place, as per EA requirements - Implementation of the REMP - Functional design of diversion to maintain consistency (to the extent Modification of possible) with existing and adjacent reaches of Phillips Creek hydrological regime of - Functional design of diversion to minimise impact on hydraulic Phillips Creek (e.g. flood characteristics of Phillips Creek Diversion of Phillips levels and velocities) 3 D M - Baseline and ongoing monitoring of diversion performance in 4 D L Creek Surface Water causing degradation of accordance with the ACARP Guidelines (ACARP 2001) environmental values in - Rehabilitation and revegetation of diversion, detailed in the receiving waters Rehabilitation Plan - Implementation of the REMP Loss of catchment - Rehabilitation of Project site will minimise the capture of runoff into the area draining to local Impacts to ecological 5 B M final void 5 C L drainage lines and values - Implementation of the REMP wetlands Uncontrolled release - SWMS in place from mine-affected 3 D M - 4 E L Contamination of dams 1st November each year receiving surface waters, - Water storage monitoring program Release from including Isaac River 5 C L - Implementation and compliance with operational plans for regulated 5 D L sediment dams structures, as required by the EA - SWMS in place Seepage from water Contamination to surface - Water storage monitoring program 4 D L 4 E L storages water - Hazard Consequence Assessment of Water Storages - Appropriate storage design by RPEQ

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 111 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

4.0

4.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND SIGNIFICANCE

4.1.1 Threatened Ecological Communities

Brigalow-dominant regrowth vegetation (Community 7) identified on the Project site is not considered to meet the requirements of the EPBC Act Listed Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant / co- dominant) endangered ecological community.

The regrowth community has been severely degraded, exhibiting extensive dieback of the canopy layer and a dominance of exotic species throughout the groundcover layer. In addition, occurrences of this community are isolated from remnant vegetation, typically surrounded by cleared areas. The Brigalow-dominant regrowth community is less than 15 years old and is not protected under Queensland legislation. This regrowth does not constitute a Threatened Ecological Community or MNES.

4.1.2 Threatened Species

The Squatter Pigeon (southern) was identified during field surveys of the Project; a pair was observed near the small dam in the west of the Northern Extension area and another was heard calling in woodland near Lake Vermont.

The southern Squatter Pigeon typically occurs on the inland slopes of the Great Dividing Range, from the Burdekin-Lynd divide in central Queensland, west to Charleville and Longreach, east to the coastline between Proserpine and Gladstone, and south to scattered sites throughout south-eastern Queensland (DoE 2013c). In areas north of the Tropic of Capricorn, however, the southern Squatter Pigeon is considered to be locally common and the population is currently considered stable (DoE 2013c).

The species has a wide range of habitat types and is known to inhabit cleared land and land subject to moderate disturbance, such as grazing. Foraging habitat suitable for the species is typically remnant or regrowth sparse / open woodland or forest dominated by Eucalyptus, Acacia, Corymbia or Callitris species on sandy or gravelly soils, within 3 km of waterbodies (DoE 2013c).

No Essential Habitat for this threatened fauna species was mapped within the Project site. Significant suitable habitat for the southern Squatter Pigeon exists in pasture areas and woodlands (near water) in the broader region and on directly adjacent land. Furthermore, as only a small number of individuals (three) were recorded during the survey, it is unlikely that the Project site is of specific importance to ability to utilise disturbed habitats preclude the possibility of significant impacts to the species as a result of the Northern Extension Project.

Consequently, the Northern Extension Project is not considered to result in any significant impact to the southern Squatter Pigeon, nor is it likely to significantly impact the area of available habitat. No impact on population continuity or gene flow, and no interference with any ecologically significant locations for the species, is expected. The Northern Extension Project is unlikely to introduce pest or

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 112 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

diseases affecting the Squatter Pigeon. As such, no significant impact is considered likely for the southern Squatter Pigeon.

The Northern Extension Project is unlike to cause a significant impact to any threatened species listed under the EPBC Act.

4.1.3 Migratory Species

Four migratory bird species are known to utilise habitat values of the Project site. However, the Project site itself is not considered to provide important habitat for migratory species. The site is heavily impacted by grazing practices and provides no unique roosting or foraging habitat for these four migratory species.

All identified species are highly mobile and will be able to relocate to suitable habitat in neighbouring wetlands and farm dams, particularly along the Isaac River. The Northern Extension Project is unlikely to significantly impact on any of the four migratory bird species recorded on the Project site. Populations of migratory species identified on the site are not considered to be important to the longevity of the species.

The assessment concluded that the presence of suitable habitat in the broader region, combined with the small, fragmented and disturbed quality of suitable habitat on the Project site, preclude any likely significant impacts to these species occurring as a result of the proposed Northern Extension.

No significant impact on listed migratory species is anticipated to result from development of the Northern Extension Project.

4.1.4 Water Resources

4.1.4.1 Surface Water

Surface water impacts and the potential for downstream contamination are managed through the discharge of potentially contaminated water into the receiving environment. The implementation of the SWMS is considered adequate to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts to downstream water quality. The SWMS will ensure the Project maintains compliance with EA conditions pertaining to release and receiving water quality, which will ensure regional WQOs mandated by the Queensland EPP (Water) are achieved. No significant impact to surface water quality is anticipated.

The Northern Extension Project, however, has the potential to impact the hydrology of local water resources, when assessed against the criteria presented in the Significant impact guidelines 1.3: Coal seam gas and large coal mining developments impacts on water resources (DoE 2013b). Development of the Project will result in modification of surface water drainages. The rehabilitated landform of the Project site will result in a modified topography, creating long-term impacts to local catchment areas, including Phillips Creek and Lake Vermont. Changes to the hydrological characteristics of these receiving waters as a result of changes to catchment areas are not anticipated to be of a sufficient scale or intensity to significantly impact the value of these water resources.

In addition, the permanent diversion of Phillips Creek has the potential to alter the natural hydrological characteristics of surface water resources associated with the Project. While the diversion has been designed to be relatively consistent with the existing and adjoining reaches, modelling indicates it may cause a redistribution of flow from the southern to the northern floodplains. Factors influencing changes in hydrology include the proposed levee, influencing the direction of flow, and the slight widening of the diverted channel, increasing conveyance.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 113 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

4.1.4.2 Groundwater

Minimal impact on groundwater quality is anticipated, as the Project will generate a cone of depression generating flow towards the pit. Aquifers surrounding the Project are unlikely to be contaminated.

Modelling of potential groundwater drawdown indicates that current and continued mining at the existing Lake Vermont Mine are largely responsible for drawdown to the south, south-east and southwest of the Northern Extension Project areas. Mining activities at the Northern Extension area itself have only a limited potential to cause additional drawdown. Registered bores located in the potential impact zone of the Project are also located in the potential impact zones of the existing Lake Vermont and/or Saraji Mines.

There is a low risk of impacts on baseflow contributions to surface waters on GDEs due to the ephemeral nature of watercourses in the area and the presence of the water table at or below the base of the Tertiary unit.

As the Project comprises an extension to a large coal mine, it is anticipated that a significant impact on Water Resources will be triggered. Potential impacts on water have been assessed and are considered to be low / within acceptable guideline limits. Proposed management commitments will ensure ongoing environmental performance and low risk to Water Resources.

4.2 MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT COMMITMENTS

Management strategies detailed throughout this MNES Assessment Report aim to minimise the likelihood of impacts to environmental values, including MNES. Strategies primarily target operational practices, particularly vegetation clearing and site water management.

A minimised clearing footprint and progressive rehabilitation will limit the area of land subject to disturbance at any one time, thereby minimising potential ecological impacts. Revegetation and rehabilitation of the diversion is of key importance to maintaining connectivity values in the local region. Strategies to maintain / restore connectivity include utilising native riparian species consistent with RE 11.3.25 and regularly monitoring the diversion in accordance with ACARP Guidelines (ACARP 2001).

In accordance with Queensland legislation, environmental offsets will be implemented for significant residual impacts to riparian vegetation and other MSES that may arise as a result of the Project.

WRM (2016b) were engaged to develop a SWMS for the Project, within the context of the existing Lake Vermont Mine, to achieve the following outcomes:

Divert clean catchment water around mining works to the extent practicable;

Use / recycle lesser quality water in preference to higher quality water;

Use potentially contaminated water in preference to imported raw water or uncontaminated water;

Release water from site only in accordance with the conditions of the EA, such that the released water will not significantly impact on the values of the receiving waters or downstream properties;

Manage water storages and transfers within the site in order to:

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 114 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

o Maximise onsite storage to meet reasonably anticipated periods of wet and dry weather; and

o Minimise disruption to mining operations.

In addition to a SWMS, BBC has committed to regularly monitoring water storages, receiving waters and groundwater bores to ensure no significant impacts to these values are occurring.

4.3 CONCLUSION due to its potential to significantly impact water resources, specifically in relation to hydrological characteristics. Significant impacts to other MNES, assessed against the relevant criteria provided by the DoE, are considered unlikely to occur. The range of mitigation and management strategies environmental values.

The information presented in this MNES Assessment Report, together with the supporting specialist studies and the EPBC Referral Form, is considered to be sufficient to enable the DoE to determine the outcome and approvals pathway for the Project.

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 115 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

5.0

AustralAsian Resource Consultants Pty Ltd (AARC) 2012, Lake Vermont Western Extension: Terrestrial Flora and Fauna Assessment, report prepared for Lake Vermont Resources Pty Ltd, May 2012

AustralAsian Resource Consultants Pty Ltd (AARC) 2013, Lake Vermont Coal Project: Progressive Waste Characterisation Assessment, report prepared for Bowen Basin Coal Pty Ltd, January 2013

AustralAsian Resource Consultants Pty Ltd (AARC) 2016a, Lake Vermont Northern Extension: Flora and Fauna Report, report prepared for Bowen Basin Coal Pty Ltd, April 2016

AustralAsian Resource Consultants Pty Ltd (AARC) 2016b, Lake Vermont Northern Extension: Aquatic Ecology and Stream Morphology Assessment, report prepared for Lake Vermont Resources Pty Ltd, April 2016

AustralAsian Resource Consultants Pty Ltd (AARC) 2016c, Lake Vermont Northern Extension: Environmental Offset Strategy, report prepared for Bowen Basin Coal Pty Ltd, April 2016

Australian Coal Association Research Program (ACARP) 2001, Monitoring and Evaluation Program for Bowen Basin River Diversions, Project C9068, ACARP

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) 2000, Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality

Bowen Basin Coal Pty Ltd (BBC) 2004, Vermont Coal Project Environmental Impact Statement, prepared by Minserve Group Pty Ltd, July 2004

Curtis, L.K., Dennis, A.J., McDonald, K.R., Kyne, P.M. and Debus, S.J.S. 2012, Threatened Animals, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood

Department of the Environment (DoE) 2013a, Significant impact guidelines 1.1: Matters of National Environmental Significance, Commonwealth of Australia

Department of the Environment (DoE) 2013b, Significant impact guidelines 1.3: Coal seam gas and large coal mining developments impacts on water resources, Commonwealth of Australia

Department of the Environment (DoE) 2013c, Species Profile and Threats Database, Commonwealth of Australia

Department of the Environment (DoE) 2014a, EPBC Act referral guidelines for the vulnerable Koala, Commonwealth of Australia

Department of the Environment (DoE) 2014b, Conservation Advice: Elseya albagula, Commonwealth of Australia

Department of the Environment (DoE) 2015a, Submitting a referral under the EPBC Act A fact sheet for a person proposing to take an action, Commonwealth of Australia

Department of the Environment (DoE) 2015b, Referral guideline for management actions in grey- headed and spectacled flying-fox camps, Commonwealth of Australia

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 116 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Department of the Environment (DoE) 2015c, Referral guideline for 14 birds listed as migratory species under the EPBC Act (draft), Commonwealth of Australia

Department of the Environment (DoE) 2015d, Industry guidelines for avoiding, assessing and mitigating impacts on EPBC Act listed migratory shorebird species, Commonwealth of Australia

Department of the Environment (DoE) 2015e, Draft Outcomes-based Conditions Policy: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Commonwealth of Australia

Department of the Environment (DoE) 2015f, Draft Outcomes-based Conditions Guidance: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Commonwealth of Australia

Department of the Environment (DoE) 2015g, Species Profile and Threats Database, Commonwealth of Australia

Department of the Environment (DoE) 2015h, Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia Information Sheet Lake Elphinstone, QLD, Commonwealth of Australia

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) 2013a, Regional Ecosystems Descriptions Database (REDD), Queensland Government

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) 2013b, Guideline: Model water conditions for coal mines in the Fitzroy basin (ESR/2015/1561), Queensland Government

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) 2016, Manual for Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures (ESR/2016/1933), Queensland Government

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) 2014, Rehabilitation Requirements for Mining Projects (ESR/2016/1875), Queensland Government

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) 2009, Significant impact guidelines for the endangered black-throated finch (southern) (Poephila cincta cincta), Commonwealth of Australia

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) 2010a, Survey Guidelines for Guidelines for detecting birds listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Commonwealth of Australia

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) 2010b, Survey guidelines for Australia's threatened bats: Guidelines for detecting bats listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Commonwealth of Australia

Department of Mines and Energy (DME) 1995, Mine Planning Guidelines for Assessment and Management of Saline and Sodic Waste, Department of Mines and Energy, Queensland Government

Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) 2014, Guideline Works that interfere with water in a watercourse: watercourse diversions, Queensland Government

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPAC) 2003, Nationally threatened species and ecological communities Brigalow Regrowth and the EPBC Act, Commonwealth of Australia

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPAC) 2011a, Draft Referral guidelines for the nationally listed Brigalow Belt reptiles, Commonwealth of Australia

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 117 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPAC) 2011b, EPBC referral guidelines for the endangered northern quoll, Dasyurus hallucatus, Commonwealth of Australia

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPAC) 2011c, , Commonwealth of Australia

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPAC) 2011d, Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Reptiles: Guidelines for detecting reptiles listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Commonwealth of Australia

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPAC) 2011e, Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Mammals: Guidelines for detecting mammals listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Commonwealth of Australia

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPAC) 2013, Species Profile and Threats Database, Commonwealth of Australia

Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (DSITIA) 2012, Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Survey Guidelines for Queensland, Queensland Government

Environment Australia 2001, Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant) information sheet, Commonwealth of Australia

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2009, A study of the cumulative impacts on water quality of mining activities in the Fitzroy River Basin, Queensland Government

Garnett, S., Szabo, J. and Dutson, G. 2010, The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010, CSIRO Publishing, Canberra

Geoscience Australia 2015, Floods Public Search Water Observations from Space, Commonwealth of Australia

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) (2009), Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009, Australian Government, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, November 2009

Independent Expert Scientific Committee (IESC) 2014, Information Guidelines for Independent Expert Scientific Committee advice on coal seam gas and large coal mining development proposals, Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development

International Erosion Control Association (IECA) 2012, Best Practice Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline, IECA

JBT Consulting Pty Ltd (JBT) 2016a, Lake Vermont Northern Extension: Groundwater Impact Assessment, report prepared for Bowen Basin Coal Pty Ltd, April 2016

JBT Consulting Pty Ltd (JBT) 2016b, Groundwater Summary Lake Vermont Northern Extension, report prepared for Jellinbah Group Pty Ltd, February 2016

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

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 118 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU

Menkhorst, P. and Knight, F. 2011, A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia, Oxford University Press

Neldner, V.J., Wilson, B.A., Thompson, E.J. and Dillewaard, H.A. 2012, Methodology for Survey and Mapping of Regional Ecosystems and Vegetation Communities in Queensland, version 3.2, Queensland Herbarium, Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Queensland Government

Pilgrim, D.H. (ed) 1998, Australian Rainfall & Runoff A Guide to Flood Estimation, Institution of Engineers, Australia, Barton, ACT, 1998

Pizzey, G. and Knight, F. 2007, The Field Guide to the Birds of Australia, HarperCollins Publishers Pty Ltd

WRM Water & Environment 2016a, Phillips Creek Diversion Functional Design Report, report prepared for Lake Vermont Resources Pty Ltd, 15th April 2016

WRM Water & Environment 2016b, Lake Vermont Mine Northern Extension Surface Water Impact Assessment, report prepared for Lake Vermont Resources Pty Ltd, 15th April 2016

MNES REPORT APRIL 2016 119 E [email protected] AARC.NET.AU