Environmental Impact Report
Operation of 1 MW Geothermal Power Plant at Innamincka Geodynamics Limited
June 2014
Contents
1.0 Introduction ...... 5
2.0 Current Approvals ...... 6
3.0 Proposed Activity and Location ...... 7
4.0 Operational Changes Since 2008 ...... 13
4.1 Management System Changes ...... 13
4.2 Operational Changes ...... 13
4.3 Geothermal Power Generation Process ...... 13
4.4 Geofluid Management...... 14
4.5 Site Offices, Power Plant and Facilities ...... 15
4.6 Power Plant Environmental Safeguards and Controls ...... 15
4.7 Wastewater Management ...... 16
4.8 Power Generation and Energy Supply ...... 16
4.9 Fuel and Chemical Storage ...... 16
4.10 Water Supply ...... 16
4.11 Solid Waste Management ...... 17
4.12 Workforce and Accommodation ...... 17
4.13 Decommissioning and Rehabilitation ...... 17
5.0 Stakeholder Consultation ...... 19
6.0 Description of Environment and New Information ...... 20
6.1 Surrounding Land Use ...... 20
6.2 Climate ...... 22
6.3 Land Systems ...... 22
6.4 Surface Water ...... 22
6.5 Groundwater and Soils ...... 23
6.6 Native Vegetation ...... 26
6.7 Fauna ...... 30
6.8 Heritage ...... 34
6.9 Noise and Air Quality ...... 34
6.10 Pest Plants and Feral Animals ...... 35
Page 3 of 66
6.11 Socio-economic Issues ...... 35
7.0 Environmental Risk Assessment and Mitigation Measures ...... 36
7.1 Risk Assessment Process ...... 36
7.1.1 Definition of Consequences ...... 36 7.1.2 Definition of Likelihood ...... 37 7.1.3 Risk Ranking ...... 37 7.2 Environmental Aspects & Mitigation Measures ...... 38
7.2.1 Erosion ...... 38 7.2.2 Weeds and pests ...... 39 7.2.3 Dust ...... 39 7.2.4 Groundwater and Geofluid ...... 40 7.2.5 Native Fauna ...... 41 7.2.6 Indigenous Heritage ...... 41 7.2.7 Fuels, Chemicals and Wastewater Treatment ...... 42 7.2.8 Solid Waste Management ...... 43 7.2.9 Decommissioning and Site rehabilitation ...... 43 7.2.10 Other Aspects ...... 44 8.0 References ...... 45
Appendix A – Goal Attainment Scaling Criteria ...... 46
Appendix B1 – Exposure Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow ...... 48
Appendix B2 - Habanero 4 Open Flow Test – Surface Soil Assessment ...... 49
Appendix C – Habanero Site Heritage Report ...... 50
Appendix D – Alien Species Flora Assessment ...... 51
Appendix E – Risk Assessment ...... 52
Appendix F – The Green Book ...... 61
Appendix G – Weed Identification and Controls Poster ...... 62
Appendix H – Caustic Cleaning Brine Heat Exchangers Operating Procedure 63
Appendix I – Flora & fauna impact assessment ...... 64
Appendix J – EIR - Summary of Comments and Responses ...... 65
Appendix K – SEO - Summary of Comments and Responses ...... 66
Page 4 of 66
1.0 Introduction Geodynamics Limited (Geodynamics) plans to maintain and operate its 1MW Geothermal Power Plant (Power Plant) and associated infrastructure and facilities near Innamincka over the next five years to: continue testing and trialling the operation of the Power Plant for research, commercial evaluation and exploration purposes; and maintain and repair the Power Plant and associated infrastructure as required. The plant operates by extracting the heat from superheated (approximately 250˚C) and highly pressurised groundwater (geofluid) derived from a deep (over 4km) enhanced geothermal fracture system in the granite basement rocks underlying the Cooper Basin. The geofluid is produced under its own pressure to the surface via a steel cased geothermal well (Habanero 4) and piped through a high temperature/pressure pipeline approximately 1km to the Power Plant located adjacent to the Habanero 1 geothermal well. The heat in the geofluid is transferred via heat exchangers at the Power Plant into a secondary working fluid, which is used to generate the steam that drives a turbine to generate electricity. The cooled geofluid is then injected into the Habanero 1 well to be returned to the geothermal fracture system to be reheated for the cycle to begin again. Construction and commissioning of the Power Plant and associated infrastructure was carried out under the combined Environmental Impact Report/Statement of Environmental Objectives for 1 MW Geothermal Power Plant at Innamincka (August 2008) prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff for Geodynamics. Commissioning and trial operation of the Power Plant took place from April to October 2013. Under Regulation 14 of the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Regulations 2013 (SA), an approved Statement of Environmental Objectives (SEO) must be reviewed at least once in every five years. The Environmental Impact Report/Statement of Environmental Objectives for a 1MW Geothermal Power Plant at Innamincka (August 2008) is due for its five-year review. The scope of the review is based on the requirements of Regulation 14(2) of the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Regulations 2013, which requires the following to be taken into account or addressed: (a) changes in information or knowledge in relevant areas; (b) community expectations in relation to relevant environmental issues; (c) changes in the use of land; (d) changes in operational practices; and (e) other matters determined to be relevant by the Minister. The purpose of this new Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed operation of Geodynamics’ Power Plant and associated facilities for research and evaluation purposes and any necessary maintenance activities over the next five year period (2013 to 2018). This EIR also addresses the requirements of section 97 of the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act 2000 and Regulation 10 of the Regulations to the Act in relation to the content of an EIR.
Page 5 of 66
2.0 Current Approvals A combined EIR and SEO (Environmental Impact Report/Statement of Environmental Objectives for 1 MW Geothermal Power Plant at Innamincka) was prepared in August 2008 by Parsons Brinkerhoff. The activities covered by the 2008 EIR/SEO included the design, construction and use of a: multiple use building incorporating a: o 1MW pilot power generation plant using the Habanero 1 and 3 wells (including a high pressure/temperature pipeline connecting the Habanero 3 well to the plant) o visitor centre; and o workshop warehouse, proposed to be located between the Habanero 1 and 3 wells wastewater treatment system site access located on the existing site footprint; and power transmission line from the 1MW Plant to the Innamincka township.
Page 6 of 66
3.0 Proposed Activity and Location The regional location of Geodynamics’ geothermal retention licence areas (GRLs) in the Cooper Basin is shown in Figure 1 below (Geodynamics, 2010). The 1MW Power Plant is situated within the Innamincka Regional Reserve in northern South Australia and 12.3km by road and about 7km directly south of the town of Innamincka. The southern boundary of the Coongie Lakes Ramsar Wetland area is located 2.5km northwest of the site (Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia, 2008). The 2008 EIR and SEO covered construction and operation of a 1 MW pilot geothermal Power Plant and associated facilities. Construction of the facility is complete. The pipeline connecting the Habanero 3 well to the Power Plant was extended in 2012 to a new geothermal well (Habanero 4) located nearby, due to the failure of the former well in early 2009. The layout of the Power Plant and surrounding facilities is shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 below. This EIR covers Geodynamics’ proposed operation of its constructed and commissioned Power Plant using the Habanero 1 and 4 wells and associated facilities (including high pressure/temperature pipeline, power transmission line and water storages – including Dam 4 at Habanero 2) over the next 5 years to: continue to test and trial the operation of the Power Plant for research, commercial evaluation and exploration purposes; and maintain and repair the Power Plant, and associated facilities and infrastructure as required. The activities will be undertaken within the existing site footprint (approximately 13 hectares) of the Power Plant, Habanero main camp, power transmission and pipeline corridors, and Habanero 1, 2 and 4 wells (Figure 2). This area is consistent with the footprint of the original EIR (2008) scope with the exception of: the Habanero 4 well site (replaces the Habanero 3 site1) Dam 4 at the former Habanero 2 site (the Habanero 2 site has been established since 2005)2 the warehouse/laydown yard indicated in the top right corner of Figure 2 has been formally transferred to Beach Energy under a Special Facilities Licence issued by DMITRE and is no longer part of Geodynamics’ operational area The visual appearance and impact of the Power Plant and associated facilities will remain unchanged from the current configuration. All of Power Plant components required for its operation have now been installed including: condensing steam turbine single flash cycle cooling system generator transformers geofluid heat exchangers
1 The Habanero 3 well will be plugged and rehabilitated in 2014 in accordance with the Drilling & Well Operations SEO (Santos 2009) 2 The Habanero 2 well will be plugged and rehabilitated in 2014 in accordance with the Drilling & Well Operations SEO (Santos 2009) with the exception of Dam 4.
Page 7 of 66
surface piping from Habanero 4 to Power Plant; and geofluid reinjection pump and cooler.
Page 8 of 66
Key details of the Power Plant are provided in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Key characteristics of the project (updated from information contained in PB, 2008) Item Description Project location 12 km south-west of Innamincka by Dillons Highway, 7km in a straight line, South Australia Geothermal licence GRL 3 Approximate site footprint 13 ha Operating hours Up to 24 hours per day, 7 days per week Power sources Diesel generators & geothermal power plant Potable water source Darby’s Bore Accommodation On site camp adjacent to Power Plant
Employees Approximately 10 including contractors but with significant variability during periods of commissioning, testing or major maintenance
The following ancillary activities and facilities were approved under the 2008 EIR and will continue to be associated with the operation and maintenance of the Power Plant: energy supply to Habanero site (diesel and geothermal when available) fuel and chemical deliveries and storage potable water treatment and supply solid waste storage and management wastewater effluent treatment and disposal workforce and accommodation; and ongoing site rehabilitation activities.
.
Page 9 of 66
Figure 1: Geodynamics geothermal retention licence areas in the Cooper Basin (Geodynamics, 2013)
Figure 2: Geodynamics Power Plant site & associated infrastructure (excludes warehouse/laydown yard in top right corner of figure)
Figure 3: Geodynamics Power Plant area site layout (Geodynamics, 2013)
4.0 Operational Changes Since 2008
4.1 Management System Changes Since 2008 Geodynamics has made a number of changes and advances in terms of environmental management. The most significant of these is the development and implementation of a corporate Environmental Management System (EMS) and Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for its Cooper Basin operations. In October 2009, Geodynamics’ EMS was independently certified by SAI Global as complying with the requirements of ISO/ANZ 14001:2004 and the EMS continues to be certified. The EMP establishes a set of processes and practices that ensure that Geodynamics minimises its adverse environmental impacts, meets the commitments of its environmental policy and achieves its objectives and targets for its Cooper Basin operations. The EMP also includes a ready reference and Cooper Basin specific environmental pocket handbook (The Green Book), which is provided to staff and contractors as part of their site induction. Staff and contractors working for Geodynamics are required to comply with the EMP in relation to all day-to-day activities undertaken for Geodynamics in the Cooper Basin and are required to successfully complete the site specific environmental and safety induction prior to commencing any work on site.
4.2 Operational Changes In March 2009 the company announced that it had successfully proven its ability to extract heat from hydraulically stimulated hot fractured rock to create power (Proof of Concept). This announcement followed the completion of a successful closed loop test between Habanero 1 and 3. In April 2009, the Habanero 3 geothermal well experienced casing failure which irreparably damaged the structural integrity of the well and also caused the uncontrolled discharge of geofluid to the surface until the flow from the well was brought under control and the well plugged. This incident lead to a cessation of Geodynamics’ drilling and geothermal well construction activities in the Cooper Basin until an investigation into the cause of the incident had been completed. The results of the investigation prompted changes to the geothermal well design and cementing process. In September 2012, Geodynamics completed drilling the replacement well - Habanero 4 - approximately 120m east of Habanero 3 in order to intersect the existing fracture network already developed via stimulation of the Habanero 1 and 3 wells. The Habanero 3 well will be plugged and abandoned during 2014 and rehabilitation and revegetation of the site commenced in accordance with the requirements of the Drilling and Well Operations SEO (Santos 2009). Geodynamics commissioned the Power Plant in April 2013 and successfully completed its initial planned testing program and demonstration trial in October 2013, following 160 days of operation. Step rate performance testing, tracer injection testing, reliability testing, a nitrogen casing insulation trial and various operational and corrosion control trials were completed as part of the testing program and trial operation. Production logging surveys of the Habanero 4 production well and Habanero 1 injection well were also undertaken as part of the trial.
4.3 Geothermal Power Generation Process The geothermal circulation loop created between Habanero 4 and Habanero 1 (Figure 4) provides the hot circulating geofluid used to generate the steam powering the 1MW Power Plant turbine. The reservoir geofluid is
Page 13 of 66
produced from the Habanero 4 well head and travels approximately 1km above ground through an insulated high pressure pipeline to the 1MW Power Plant where it enters the heat exchangers. In the heat exchangers the heat from the geofluid is transferred to the working fluid (demineralised water) which then travels via a separator vessel to the turbine. The slightly cooler geofluid is passed through a fan cooler before being reinjected into the Habanero 1 geothermal well. All piping between the heat exchangers, coolers and Power Plant is above ground. As noted in section 3, the replacement of Habanero 3 with the Habanero 4 well in 2012, led to an imbalance in the production and injection capacities of the Habanero 4 and 1 wells respectively. This has resulted in typically up to 10kg/sec of excess geofluid produced from the higher flow rate of Habanero 4, which cannot be reinjected into Habanero 1, requiring storage at the surface. For brief periods of testing, this flow rate may increase to nominally 40kg/sec. The management of this excess geofluid is discussed in section 4.4 and 7.2.4.
Figure 4: Diagram of the ‘closed loop’ systems between Habanero 1 and Habanero 4 (Geodynamics, April 2013)
4.4 Geofluid Management Testing of the geofluid (Appendix B1) has determined that while it does not pose any radiation or significant safety risk, it is highly saline (15,000ppm total dissolved solids) with the potential to cause salinisation of soil, surface and groundwater if managed poorly. Excess geofluid produced during Habanero 4 clean up and open flow testing and trial operation of the Power Plant was discharged into the high density polyethylene (HDPE) lined ponds adjacent to the Power Plant (Figure 3) for storage. The process for managing excess saline geofluid stored on the surface is as follows: Geofluid will be discharged and stored in the three lined ponds near the Power Plant (Dams 1 – 3, Figure 3);
Page 14 of 66
Any overflow of geofluid from these ponds will be directed to the large lined pond at Habanero 2 (Dam 4, Figure 2); The maximum amount of geofluid stored will not exceed the safe storage capacity of Dams 1 – 4 which is approximately 40ML; and The volume of the stored geofluid will continue be reduced by evaporation into a concentrated saline brine. There are a number of options being considered for long term management of the concentrated brine solution. Methods being considered include complete evaporation with remaining salts to be buried securely in an appropriately lined cell on-site; evaporation with concentrated residue to be transported off-site to an EPA approved facility. If another well stimulation was to be carried out the concentrated saline brine could be reinjected into Habanero 1,however, due to reduced operation in the Cooper Basin in 2014/15 this option is unlikely to be adopted in the foreseeable future. Any future operations requiring storage of excess geofluid would be suspended in the event the available surface storage capacity is reached -including the maintenance of a minimum free board of 1m in dams used for geofluid storage. The environmental objectives and mitigation measures proposed for geofluid management are detailed in section 7.2.4 below.
4.5 Site Offices, Power Plant and Facilities The site offices and amenities, Power Plant main building (originally designed to incorporate a visitor centre) and external plant, workshops, storage and laydown areas are located within the footprint of existing operations and are shown in Figure 2. There is no access to the Power Plant facility to the general public. An information board is located outside the Plant adjacent to Dillons Highway. Visits to the Power Plant can, however, be made by prior arrangement with Geodynamics.
4.6 Power Plant Environmental Safeguards and Controls All plant and equipment installed at the Power Plant has been designed, manufactured, constructed, tested and commissioned in accordance with Australian Standards, or approved international equivalents that are equally stringent, to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements of Australia. Due to the design conditions for the piping, the geofluid piping is classified as Hazard Level B under AS1200 (Pressure Equipment). According to AS1200, independent verification is required on this design work and this verification has been achieved by an independent third party engaged by the detailed design consultant and approved by Geodynamics. Plant trips have been defined as required to maintain safety and avoid Plant damage under all circumstances with processes automated as necessary for safety and also to avoid unnecessary Plant trips as a result of known or foreseeable fault scenarios. There is a legislative requirement that the Plant be attended whilst operating and cold and warm starts of the Power Plant in any case will require local operation. Plant alarms have been defined for all cases when operator attention or intervention is appropriate in the event that control actions are unavailable or insufficient to otherwise avoid a Plant trip, in order to render the Plant safe, productive and efficient to the maximum extent practical under any failure or process variation scenario.
Page 15 of 66
Equipment is designed for a specific design ‘operating envelope’ with safety factors added to allow safe operations slightly outside the design envelope. Mechanical protections have also been included in places (e.g. burst discs included in the open flow line to prevent a catastrophic over-pressurisation).
4.7 Wastewater Management Wastewater effluent from site amenities and office facilities are treated on-site using a septic system which has been designed, operated and maintained in accordance with SA Health’s On-site Wastewater Systems Code (April 2013). The system has been approved by SA Health. Sludge from the septic system is collected as required for appropriate disposal to an EPA licensed disposal facility. Overflow from the septic system is discharged into a subsurface, vegetated infiltration area sized and designed to ensure no ponding or runoff occurs on the surface.
4.8 Power Generation and Energy Supply Diesel generators are normally used to provide power to the site when the geothermal power plant is not being operated. Some communications and other equipment used on site are solar powered. It is not currently the intention of Geodynamics to provide power to the Innamincka township or other locations. The Power Plant is likely only to be operated on an intermittent basis over the next five years for exploration, commercial evaluation and research purposes. If a commercially viable geothermal power supply opportunity emerges within the region - leading to the full scale operation of the Power Plant - this EIR would need to be reviewed and updated, or a new EIR prepared, to assess the environmental impacts of the change in operations.
4.9 Fuel and Chemical Storage Diesel fuel will continue to be delivered to site on an as need basis and stored in the bulk storage tanks that are either double skinned or located within bunded containment areas. Chemical storage and dosing equipment is currently located in a bunded area and/or container. All oil is contained in bunded areas. All areas containing hazardous material are clearly designated and signed. All bunds are designed and constructed in accordance with SA EPA requirements.
4.10 Water Supply The site requires water for: potable and domestic use; and minor make up of working fluid in the Power Plant and heat exchangers. The potable water requirement for amenities is 300L/day per person and operation of the plant is about 2,000L/day. The total amount of water required on a daily basis is therefore expected to be no more than 6,000L/day3 when the plant is in operation.
3 This allows for approximately 10 people on site at any one time and other water using activities such as equipment wash down and filing fire-fighting equipment.
Page 16 of 66
This water will normally be supplied from Darby’s Bore or Meredith’s Bore (located approximately 50m from Darby’s Bore) accessing an unconfined perched shallow aquifer approximately 30 metres below the surface. Water used for domestic purposes is treated on site using a filtration and UV disinfection system and Geodynamics has also registered as a drinking water provider as required under the Safe Drinking Water Act 2012. Geodynamics has developed a drinking water monitoring and testing plan to ensure the quality and safety of its drinking water supplies and will submit this plan to SA Health as required under the Act in 2014.
4.11 Solid Waste Management Solid waste material generated from operation and maintenance of the Power Plant (and associated facilities) comprises the following: general solid waste including that from the camp and amenities packaging from parts and components waste oils, grease and other fluids from the Plant and workshops; and minor quantities of contaminated soil and absorbents from clean-up of spills. Wastes will continue to be segregated, stored and recycled, where feasible. All waste will continue to be transported to the EPA licensed landfill at Moomba, having been covered in skips or lidded drums and removed as required. No waste will be disposed of on-site by burning or burial or disposed of at the Innamincka landfill. Chemical flushings are managed in accordance with Geodynamics’ procedure Caustic Cleaning Brine Heat Exchangers Operating Procedure (Appendix H). Solid or liquid waste removed from opened equipment items shall be treated as hazardous and shall be contained in suitable containers and removed off-site for processing at an appropriately EPA licensed facility.
4.12 Workforce and Accommodation Operation and trials of the Power Plant will generally involve up to 10 people, who will reside in the Habanero camp adjacent to the Plant. Ongoing maintenance of the Plant in periods when it is not operating, is likely to involve only 2 – 3 personnel at any given time.
4.13 Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Rehabilitation activities will be aimed at optimising vegetation regrowth within the site and achieving the required Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) Criteria in accordance with the criteria set out in the Field Guide for the Environmental Assessment of Abandoned Petroleum Well sites in the Cooper Basin, South Australia, PIRSA (Appendix A). This is an ongoing process and occurs as areas not required for operations surrounding the Power Plant are progressively cordoned off. In relation to any future full decommissioning of the Power Plant (as distinct from it being maintained in a non- operating state), the following activities and criteria would apply: all equipment (including ancillary equipment) decommissioned and removed from site any stockpiled topsoil material respread over the site ground surface re-contoured to approximate pre-existing contours
Page 17 of 66
0, +1 or +2 GAS criteria would be attained for 'minimise the visual impact and re-vegetation of indigenous species' as listed in the Field Guide. In relation to borrow pit restoration, the attainment of 0, +1 or +2 GAS criteria would apply.
Page 18 of 66
5.0 Stakeholder Consultation Consultation on the construction and operation of the Power Plant was originally undertaken as part of the original 2008 EIR (detailed in section 3.2 of PB 2008). This included consultation with all relevant government agencies, landholders, native title claimants and the local community at Innamincka. Since 2008 a number of Notices of Entry have also been provided to the relevant stakeholders in relation to activities carried out at the Power Plant including, but not limited to, the construction of the Warehouse/Laydown Yard and the drilling and stimulation/evaluation of Habanero 4. A comprehensive stakeholder engagement program is ongoing and includes: providing consistent and accurate project related information to stakeholders via media releases, email alerts and updates, Twitter feeds, website hosted information community information sessions at Innamincka pre-arranged visits to the Power Plant, most recently on 12 August 2013 regular liaison meetings with DMITRE (and other agencies on an as needs basis) Geodynamics is not aware of any complaints or concerns made by any member of the community relating to environmental performance of activities being carried out at the Power Plant since 2008.
Page 19 of 66
6.0 Description of Environment and New Information
6.1 Surrounding Land Use The dominant land uses surrounding Geodynamics’ operations in the Cooper Basin are associated with the conservation of wildlife, landscape and historic features of the area, petroleum and natural gas production, tourism and pastoral production. The site is approximately 8km south east of Cooper Creek and is located within the Innamincka Regional Reserve and Kidman Pastoral Lease area. In South Australia, Regional Reserves provide for the conservation of wildlife or the natural or historic features of that land while, at the same time, permitting the utilisation of the natural resources of that land.
Under the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (Commonwealth) a referral of a proposed activity to the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities is required for actions that may have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance. These are: World Heritage properties National Heritage places wetlands of international importance (listed under the Ramsar Convention) listed threatened species and ecological communities migratory species protected under international agreements Commonwealth marine areas the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; and nuclear actions (including uranium mining). The conservation status of the general area has not changed since the last EIR was prepared in 2008 and the surrounding land uses are still primarily concerned with the conservation of wildlife, landscape and historic features of the area, petroleum and natural gas production, tourism and pastoral production. The closest town in Innamincka, is 7km north of the Power Plant site. The operation of the Power Plant is confined within a limited footprint and fenced off site area that is not inconsistent with the maintenance of the conservation status of the Innamincka Regional Reserve and the Coongie Lakes RAMSAR wetland, noting that the Power Plant and surrounding infrastructure sits outside the Coongie Lakes boundary itself (Figure 5). Geodynamics has been undertaking activities in this area since 2002 with no recorded adverse environmental impacts on any listed or threatened species nor have there been any unapproved impacts on any heritage items as notified by the public or regulatory authorities in that time.
Page 20 of 66
Figure 5: Coongie Lakes boundary
Page 21 of 66
6.2 Climate Innamincka Regional Reserve is located in one of the most arid areas in Australia and the world. The long-term average annual rainfall (110 years of records) is 172.5 mm but the area is renowned for its unpredictable and highly variable rainfall (80.7% variation). Over the last 110 years average or above average rainfall has been received 39% of years and droughts (less than 75 mm in summer and 50 mm in winter) 29% of years. On average 42% of rain is received in the summer months of January to March.
6.3 Land Systems The Lower Cooper floodout and Coongie Lakes are a unique near natural wetland within the Channel Country biogeographic region and play a substantial role in the hydrological and ecological functioning of the Cooper Creek basin. The flows and flooding of the lake system are dependent on the late summer and early autumn rains in the catchment some 800 km upstream. Although flows reach Cullyamurra waterhole on Cooper Creek upstream of Innamincka nearly every year, not all flows reach Coongie Lakes. However most years the lake system has an inflow of water, which stimulates breeding in the fish populations and fish-eating birds. The surrounding landscape consists of a combination of extensive flood plains, channels and lakes (Cooper Land System), dune fields, swamps and lakes (Kertietoonga land system), dune fields (Marqualpie and Della land systems) and the stony tablelands and plains (Merninie, Koonchera and Bloodwood land systems). To provide an indication of potential clearance or disturbance of land system habitats in the GRL areas EBS (2009) estimated a worst case clearance footprint of 250Ha based on estimates of the possible total project footprint of ALL potential Geodynamics infrastructure activities (excluding transmission lines). If all of this clearance was distributed evenly within the Cooper, Merninie and Tingana land systems this would represent less than 0.05%, 0.5% and 0.6% of each system respectively (EBS, 2009). As activities associated with the footprint of operations at the Power Plant (13 ha) represent a small component of the total Geodynamics’ activities being carried out within its GRLs, the impacts of this particular activity on the land systems will be negligible. It is likely that the existing footprint of operations will be decreased as areas are progressively rehabilitated over the next 5 years.
6.4 Surface Water The major wetlands, swamps and lakes in the area – including the Coongie Lakes RAMSAR wetlands - derive water from flow events in Cooper Creek. The majority of these flows result from summer monsoonal rainfall in central Queensland. Local runoff from the stony tablelands also supplies water to waterholes and swamps but on a less frequent and more erratic basis. During periods of low flow, most water flows through the North West Branch of Cooper Creek into the Coongie Lakes and Lake Goyder. If flows are large enough to fill these lakes additional water flows down the main branch of the Cooper toward Lake Hope and eventually into Lake Eyre. The main channel of Cooper Creek is well defined and connects a series of ephemeral swamps and permanent and semi-permanent waterholes. During floods, the main channels overflow and floodwaters spill into the vast floodplain via numerous distributor channels. While a maximum of approximately 6,000L/day of water is required for domestic use and during operation of the Power Plant (see Section 4.10 above), none of this is required to be drawn from Cooper or Strzelecki Creeks.
Page 22 of 66
Water for the operation and maintenance of the Power Plant and associated facilities will be drawn from existing approved sources – mainly Darby’s Bore. If necessary (e.g. during repair or maintenance of the bore or due to poor water quality in Darby’s Bore), water could also be obtained from shallow freshwater aquifers near the Jolokia 1 geothermal well (but only for exploration/evaluation related activities under the existing exemption for such purposes). Runoff from the Power Plant area does not drain towards Cooper or Strzelecki Creeks but rather to the east and southeast into clay pans, low-lying interdune and dune areas (PB, 2008).
6.5 Groundwater and Soils The project area is underlain by Eromanga Basin sediments which are part of the GAB. The alluvium along Cooper Creek is a source of sub-artesian water and in particular sandy sequences underlying the Creek provide a baseflow to semi-permanent waterholes during extended dry periods. Shallow groundwater quality in the project area is variable. Water from bores in the shallow (water table) aquifers in the vicinity of Habanero 1 range from fresh to brackish (i.e. <1,000 to 10,000 mg/L) and some of these bores are suitable for drinking or stock water supply. Geodynamics operations extract potable water from Darby’s Bore (Table 2), located approximately 500m to the south of the Power Plant site. Table 2: Water quality data for Darby’s Bore (from NATA accredited tests carried out for Geodynamics in September 2012 by LBW Environment) TDS (ppm) Conductivity (µS) Salinity (ppm) pH Temperature (˚C)
1188 1194 594 8.1 22
The GRLs also lie within the Far North Prescribed Wells Area (FNPWA), which is managed by a Water Allocation Plan under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004. Under the Plan, approval is required to extract and use water from the GAB. The naturally occurring water in the granites (referred to in this report as ‘geofluid’) is highly saline, with measured concentrations of total dissolved solids from the Habanero 4 well in the order of 15,000mg/L (Appendix B1). Analyses of the chemical composition of the geofluid from Habanero 4 are also summarised in Table 3 below. The occupational exposure hazards, including radiological, noise and chemical (associated with geofluid composition), posed by open flowing the geofluid from Habanero 4 in October 2012 were assessed by Geodynamics and specialist consultants and are summarised in Appendix B1 (Geodynamics 2013a). The key findings are: no radiation risks were identified no gas exposures outside acceptable limits were identified the brine is not suitable for use as drinking water potential for skin irritation due to lithium concentrations; and the brine plume may have contained higher than exposure limit nuisance dust.
Page 23 of 66
Soil contamination in relation to the geofluid has been a concern since the first assessment of the geofluid produced from Habanero 1 indicated high levels of sodium chloride and other salts.
An assessment carried out by LBW Environment (2013) (Appendix B2) of soils near Habanero 4 indicated that concentrations of sodium and chloride observed after open flow testing are typical of salt residue but at the concentrations observed, were not anticipated to pose a threat to human health or the environment.
Concentrations of boron in soil samples collected after open flow tests were below the NEPM4 health investigation levels for industrial/commercial sites and the risk to the environment from these concentrations of boron was considered negligible given its common presence in marine sediments and groundwater systems (LBW Environment 2013 - Appendix B2).
No human health or environmental risk screening levels were available for cesium, lithium, potassium, rubidium and thorium; and concentrations of radionuclides in post-open flow soil samples at all tested locations were compliant with the adopted baseline assessment values and therefore considered within ‘background conditions’ and unlikely to pose a risk to human health or the environment (LBW Environment 2013 - Appendix B2).
The results from Habanero 4 cleanup flow and soil testing confirm that the geofluid contains high levels of salt that should be prevented from impacting the surface soil to such an extent that would cause problems with future revegetation and rehabilitation of the site.
As the results in Table 3 below indicate, the untreated geofluid is not suitable as potable water for human consumption and may not be suitable for livestock watering as the total dissolved solids (15000mg/L) is about half that of seawater (35000mg/L) and well above the National Environment Protection Council’s (NEPC) investigation level of 10,000 mg/L for livestock watering. The concentration of arsenic at 1.9 mg/L also exceeds the NEPC investigation level for livestock watering of 0.5 mg/L (Table 3).
Given the elevated salinity and arsenic concentrations in the geofluid, preventing any impacts on surface soils and waterways and shallow potable groundwater that may be used for livestock watering is necessary. The mitigation measures and controls necessary to achieve this are set out in section 7.2.4 below
4 National Environment Protection Council. National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPM) (1999).
Page 24 of 66
Table 3: Habanero 4 geofluid chemistry (Geodynamics 2013a)
CONSTITUENT Concentration as Groundwater mg/L investigation levels (livestock)5 mg/L Ammonia (as N) 8.4 NA Chloride 9600 NA Conductivity (at 25°C) 24000 NA Fluoride < 0.5 2.0 Nitrate (as N) < 0.02 30.0 pH 7.7 NA Reactive Silica (as SiO2) 97 NA Sulphate (as S) 43 NA Total Dissolved Solids 15,000 10,000 (from PIRSA Fact Sheet 01/07)
Alkali Metals Calcium 31 1000 Magnesium < 5 NA Potassium 640 NA Sodium 4600 NA Alkalinity NA Bicarbonate Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 900 NA Carbonate Alkalinity (as CaCO3) < 10 NA Heavy Metals Aluminium 1 5.0 Antimony 1.8 NA Arsenic 1.9 0.5 Barium 75 NA Boron 270 5.0 Caesium* < 50 NA Lithium 290 NA Rubidium* 55 NA Thorium* < 1 NA Uranium < 0.005 NA
NB: Concentrations of metals (including heavy metals) taken from the plume were below the limit of reporting (Geodynamics, 2013a). .
5 Groundwater investigation levels for stock watering from Schedule B (1) Guideline on the Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater (National Environment Protection Council, 1999)
Page 25 of 66
6.6 Native Vegetation The Geodynamics project area is typical of the habitat types of the Channel Country Bioregion i.e. small stream channels and flood courses of the Coongie Lakes wetland system, extensive fibber plains, low hills and mesas and vast dunefields and sand plains supporting low shrubs, grasses and herbs. The project site is located at the boundary of three land systems, the gibber slopes of the Merninie Land System, the dunes of the Strzelecki Land System, and floodouts and floodplains associated with the Cooper Land System (PB, 2008). All activities associated with the project will be undertaken within the Merninie Land System. The dominant habitat types identified within the 2008 EIR as those within and adjacent to the project area are still valid. They are: stony tablelands defined by gibber with little gilgai development, supporting open perennial grassland of Mitchell grass-cooperburr (Astrebla pectinata – Sclerolaena ventricosa) and perennial grassland with cover of 10-15% an intermittent swamp containing lignum shrubland (Muehlenbeckia florulenta), coolabah woodland (Eucalyptus coolabah) and some bloodwood (E. Centralis) emergent dunefield with short grass and short-lived perennial dwarf shrubs primarily Aristida contorta, Enneapogon avenaceus and Sclerolaena diacantha; and sandy rises mixed with low woodland of the whitewood, beefwood, hopbush and Bauhinia sp. Environmental and Biodiversity Services (EBS) was commissioned by Geodynamics to undertake a flora and fauna survey within their GRLs near Innamincka (completed in March 2009) (Appendix I). Subsequent to this survey EBS was commissioned by Geodynamics to consider additional impacts on threatened species and communities associated with activities in the GRLs, in particular habitat clearance and other effects associated with the construction of power lines, power plants and associated buildings and facilities (Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment for Geodynamics Geothermal License Area September 2009, Report prepared by Environmental and Biodiversity Services for Geodynamics Ltd). The surveys undertaken for the 2008 EIR and the EBS surveys indicated that no nationally significant threatened ecological communities were recorded or identified in the project area. The EBS surveys identified 12 flora species of state conservation significance and 3 ecological communities considered to be of state significance (Table 4).
Page 26 of 66
Table 4: Threatened flora species that occur or may occur within the Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area
Status Family Species name Common name AUS SA CALLITRICHACEAE Callitriche sonderi Matted Water Starwort n/a R CHENOPODIACEAE Osteocarpum acropterum var. deminutum Wingless Bonefruit n/a R CHENOPODIACEAE Osteocarpum pentapterum Five-wing Bonefruit n/a E CRUCIFERAE Phlegmatospermum eremaeum Spreading Cress n/a R ELATINACEAE Bergia occultipetala n/a V FRANKENIACEAE Frankenia cupularis n/a R LEGUMINOSAE Acacia tenuissima Slender Wattle n/a R LEGUMINOSAE Swainsona oligophylla n/a R MYOPORACEAE Eremophila polyclada Twiggy Emubush n/a R STERCULIACEAE Gilesia biniflora Western Tar-vine n/a R THYMELAEACEAE Pimelea penicillaris Sandhill Riceflower n/a R ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Zygophyllum humillimum Small-fruit Twinleaf n/a R
KEY
Regions: AUS: Australia (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999) SA: South Australia (National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1972)
Conservation Codes: V: Vulnerable R: Rare E: Endangered
Bloodwoods (Eucalyptus centralis) are known to be present in the drainage terminus just south of Habanero 1. At this location, this species is almost at its southernmost limit (PB, 2008). The drainage terminus will continue to be regarded as sensitive and indicated as a “No Go Zone” in operations. A search of the Commonwealth EPBC ‘Protected Matters Search tool’ for the 2008 EIR indicated that Acacia pickardii (Birds Nest Wattle, Pickard Wattle) may have habitat available in the general area surrounding the Power Plant. The species has a national rating of Vulnerable and a state rating of Rare (National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972). EBS (2009) also assessed the potential for occurrence of threatened flora species within the GRLs (Table 5). Commentary on the applicability to the specific project area is also provided in the Table.
Page 27 of 66
Table 5: Potential for occurrence of state threatened flora species occurring on-site considering habitat preferences (from EBS, 2009)
Status Identified land system Species name Common name Primary habitat Likelihood of occurrence on site AUS SA habitat Unlikely – This species was not detected during the A rarely collected species, it March survey and the single record on the BDBSA Matted Water has been generally recorded Callitriche sonderi n/a R Cooper (Floodplain) is adjacent to the main channel of the Cooper Creek Starwort in inundation areas such as which will not be impacted upon by operation of the creek banks Power Plant. Wingless Bonefruit are found in a variety of habitats, often Unlikely – not recorded during the March survey, Osteocarpum acropterum var. found in Bladder Saltbush one record on the BDBSA approximately 30km Wingless Bonefruit n/a R Cooper (Floodplain) deminutum and Bluebush communities north of Moomba & well outside the likely impact on scalds or slightly saline area locations Unlikely – not recorded during March survey, however, two records on the BDBSA, one several Similar to the Wingless Merninie (Gibber km south-west of Innamincka and one Bonefruit, with regional Osteocarpum pentapterum Five-wing Bonefruit n/a E Tableland); Cooper approximately 15km north east of the town, both records in close proximity to (Floodplain) records adjacent to the Cooper Creek or major major creeks or tributaries tributaries which will not be impacted by any operations at the Power Plant Generally occurs on heavier soils associated with Likely – not recorded during the March survey, Phlegmatospermum eremaeum Spreading Cress n/a R floodplain areas, however, Cooper (Floodplain) however, one record on the BDBSA on the has also been recorded Strzelecki Track chenopod shrublands Limited information on the Unlikely, but possible – not recorded during the Cooper (Floodplain); Bergia occultipetala n/a V species, appears to prefer March survey, one record on the BDBSA Tingana (Sand Dunes) wetter areas approximately 15 km east of Innamincka. Unlikely – based on the previous record (one) of Limited information on the Cooper (Floodplain) – the species on the BDBSA, approximately 30km species, Frankenia’s in Frankenia cupularis n/a R based on previous north west of Innamincka. It was not recorded during general can occupy a range record the March survey. Little is known about the of habitat types preferred habitat of the species.
Page 28 of 66
Status Identified land system Species name Common name Primary habitat Likelihood of occurrence on site AUS SA habitat Only one record of the species in SA, several km’s Unlikely, but possible – not recorded in the March Cooper (Floodplain); Acacia tenuissima Slender Wattle n/a R south west of Innamincka, survey, but one recorded in close proximity to the Tingana (Sand Dunes) common in northern states. geothermal project area (only known record for SA). Found on red sandy plains. Likely – a total of 10 BDBSA records within or Occurs on sandy soils of Cooper (Floodplain); adjacent to project area, likely to be present when Swainsona oligophylla n/a R sand dunes and swales Tingana (Sand Dunes) rainfall stimulates germination. Power Plant operations do not impact sand dunes. Unlikely, but possible – total of three BDBSA Found on clay and duplex records, all of which occur adjacent to the Cooper Eremophila polyclada Twiggy Emubush n/a R Cooper (Floodplain) soils of floodplain areas Creek or a major tributary and are therefore unlikely to be impacted by Power Plant. Has been recorded on saline Tingana (Sand Dunes); Unlikely – two BDBSA records for the region, both stony soils, possibly Gilesia biniflora Western Tar-vine n/a R approximately 25km east of Dillons Highway and restricted to saltbush Merninie (Gibber therefore remote from Power Plant. communities Tableland) Unlikely, but possible – previously recorded close Occurs on sand dunes with Tingana (Sand Dunes); to Innamincka (two records), extensive available Pimelea penicillaris Sandhill Riceflower n/a R deep sandy soils Cooper (Floodplain) habitat within project area. Power Plant operations do not impact sand dunes. Tingana (Sand Dunes); Recorded growing on red- Unlikely, but possible – a total of seven records in Merninie (Gibber Zygophyllum humillimum Small-fruit Twinleaf n/a R brown cracking clay and close proximity to project site, all outside the Tableland); sandy loam with gypsum potential infrastructure areas Cooper (Floodplain) KEY
Regions: AUS: Australia (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999) SA: South Australia (National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1972)
Conservation Codes: V: Vulnerable R: Rare E: Endangered
Page 29 of 66
6.7 Fauna The Coongie sub bioregions (of the Channel Country Bioregion) are known to support up to 18 Raptor species, 73 water bird species and another 13 wetland dependent species. The Channel Country Bioregion contains the Coongie Lakes Ramsar Wetland which supports many of these species (PB, 2008). The project site is located within the Sturt’s Stony Desert Sub Bioregion. The following species are known to occur within habitats of this region: Kowari (Dasycercus byrnei) – nationally Vulnerable – has its South Australian stronghold in the gibber plains on the eastern flanks of Goyder Lagoon; and Knife-footed Frog (Cyclorana cultripes) – Rare (South Australia) – lives in the gibber and gilgai areas. The stony gibber plains are characterised by a high proportion of ephemeral species. These species have short lifecycles, enabling them to exploit the irregular and infrequent rains. Most of the perennial vegetation is in the highly productive areas of the gilgais and minor drainage depressions, and even modest rainfall events trigger extensive ephemeral growth. It is this localised and short-lived ephemeral vegetation that provides the unique habitats that are able to be exploited only by certain animals with specific adaptations. This means that more species are restricted or endemic to this landscape type than any other in the bioregion (PB, 2008). The EBS surveys were commissioned by Geodynamics to identify species potentially impacted by Geodynamics’’ activities within its GRLs, i.e. the surveys covered a broader area than the project area. In those surveys EBS identified 37 threatened fauna species under South Australian and Commonwealth legislation (2 mammals, 33 birds, 2 reptiles) as potentially impacted by Geodynamics’ activities within its GRLs. EBS also identified the potential for occurrence of threatened species within the GRLs considering habitat preference (Table 7).
Table 1: Threatened fauna species that occur or may occur within Geodynamics’ GRLs
Family Species name Common name AUS SA Source AVES Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper R BDBSA AVES Amytornis barbatus barbatus Grey Grasswren (Bulloo) VU R EPBC, BDBSA AVES Amytornis barbatus diamantina Grey Grasswren R BDBSA AVES Anas rhynchotis Australasian Shoveler R BDBSA AVES Anhinga novaehollandiae Australasian Darter R BDBSA AVES Aprosmictus erythropterus Red-winged Parrot R BDBSA AVES Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift Mm, Lis EPBC AVES Ardea alba Great Egret, Mi, Mm, Lis EPBC AVES Ardea ibis Cattle Egret Mi, Mm, Lis EPBC AVES Ardea intermedia Intermediate Egret R BDBSA AVES Ardeotis australis Australian Bustard V BDBSA AVES Biziura lobata Musk Duck R BDBSA AVES Cacatua leadbeateri Major Mitchell's Cockatoo R BDBSA AVES Cladorhynchus leucocephalus Banded Stilt V BDBSA AVES Egretta garzetta Little Egret R BDBSA AVES Elanus scriptus Letter-winged Kite R BDBSA AVES Falco hypoleucos Grey Falcon R BDBSA AVES Grantiella picta Painted Honeyeater R BDBSA AVES Grus rubicunda Brolga V BDBSA AVES Hamirostra melanosternon Black-breasted Buzzard R BDBSA AVES Lophoictinia isura Square-tailed Kite E BDBSA AVES Microeca fascinans fascinans Jacky Winter R BDBSA AVES Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater Mt, Lis EPBC AVES Myiagra inquieta Restless Flycatcher R BDBSA AVES Ninox connivens Barking Owl R BDBSA AVES Oxyura australis Blue-billed Duck R BDBSA AVES Phaps histrionica Flock Bronzewing R BDBSA AVES Pedionomus torquatus Plains-wanderer VU E EBS AVES Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis R BDBSA AVES Podiceps cristatus Great Crested Grebe R BDBSA AVES Stictonetta naevosa Freckled Duck V BDBSA AVES Rostratula australis Australian Painted Snipe VU V EPBC MAMMALIA Notomys fuscus Dusky Hopping-mouse VU V BDBSA, EPBC, EBS MAMMALIA Pseudomys australis Plains Mouse (Plains Rat) VU V BDBSA REPTILIA Aspidites ramsayi Woma R BDBSA REPTILIA Emydura macquarii Macquarie Tortoise V BDBSA
KEY: Regions: AUS: Australia (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999) SA: South Australia (National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1972)
Conservation Codes: En or E: Endangered Vu or V: Vulnerable R: Rare Mm: Migratory Marine species Mi: Migratory wetland species, Lis: Listed overfly marine area BDBSA – Threatened species records detailed within the Biological Database of South Australia EPBC – Threatened species identified within the EPBC Act Protected Matters Database Search EBS – Threatened species observed or captured within the EBS March 2009 survey Table 2: Potential for occurrence of threatened species on-site considering habitat preferences (from EBS, 2009)
Status Common Identified land system Species name Primary habitat Likelihood of occurrence on site name habitat AUS SA
Dusky Hopping Mice inhabit soft sandy habitats, High - This species was detected during Dusky preferring dunes with Sandhill Canegrass, Sandhill survey and has been recorded 12 times on Notomys fuscus Hopping- VU V Tingana (sand dunes) Wattle, Nitrebush, Sticky Hopbush and other the BDBSA. Power Plant operations do not mouse ephemeral plants (Moseby et al. 1999). impact sand dunes. Cracking clay habitats in northern South Australia. Plains Rats are found on stony (gibber) plains and mild Very Unlikely, but possible – One record of slopes that have gilgais, predominantly within the species has been recorded within the chenopod shrubs as well as ephemeral plants that BDBSA previously in 1957. Most of the Pseudomys Plains Mouse require good rains to flourish. In very good years they VU V Merninie (gibber tableland) project area does not support ‘preferred australis (Plains Rat) can occur on adjoining sandy plains and may also habitat’; however, the gibber tableland in the occur on gypsum clay soils with deep cracks and northern section of the project area could sparse perennial vegetation (Ehmann, 2005; potentially provide suitable habitat. Menkhorst & Knight 2004; Moseby, 2006; Bandle & Moseby, 1999). Woma Pythons are found in desert dunefields and on sandy plains, usually with hummock grasses but also High – This species has been recorded 4 Aspidites Tingana (sand dunes), Woma n/a R other natural vegetation. They often inhabit rabbit times on the BDBSA and the project area is ramsayi Mernine (gibber tableland) burrows but may also shelters under hummock grasses within their known distribution. or dense bushes. Very Unlikely, but possible - This species has been recorded 6 times on the BDBSA Murray / Darling River System. Restricted to larger Emydura Macquarie and the project area is within their known n/a V rivers and associated large waterholes on floodplains Cooper (floodplain) macquarii Tortoise distribution; however, the species inhabits (Cogger 2000). major channels and waterholes, which are not located on the Power Plant site.
The nationally rated vulnerable Dusky Hopping Mouse is unlikely to utilise habitat within the direct area of the Power Plant site, although it could possibly utilise the nearby sand dune habitat. However as the Power Plant or associated facilities will not be expanding onto this dune habitat it is considered unlikely that there will be any significant impact upon this species. The EBS report (2009) considers that given the huge extent of available and preferred habitat for the Plains Mouse (gibber tableland of the Merninie land system), the overall habitat loss associated with all of the likely activities being undertaken by Geodynamics in its GRLs (of which the Power Plant is a small component) would still be ‘very unlikely’ to have a significant impact on this species. Surveys undertaken for the 2008 EIR identified several bird species of national conservation significance as possibly occurring within the project area. Further, several migratory and/or marine species are also known to occur in the area. These species generally rely on areas containing water and area likely to be concentrated around the Cooper Creek and Coongie Lake Systems. It is possible that individuals may be found within the Muehlenbekia florulenta (lignum) / Chenopdoium auricomum (Queensland Bluebush) shrubland when surface water is present. However, it is unlikely that the project will have a significant impact on any of these species due to the distance (approximately 8 km) between the Power Plant site and nearest areas containing this habitat around Cooper Creek. The EBS report identified five bird species of national conservation significance (Vulnerable and/or Migratory or Marine), using the EPBC protected matters search and during a survey the nationally Vulnerable Plains Wanderer (Pedionomus torquatus) was also identified on site (EBS, 2009). An additional twenty-seven bird species with a state conservation rating under the NPW Act were identified by the BDBSA and have previously been detected, or identified as likely to occur within the project area. In addition to the species identified by the EBS report, a recent search of the Commonwealth EPBC ‘Protected Matters Search tool’ indicated that the Australasian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus) may have habitat available in the project area. The Australasian Bittern species has a national rating of Endangered and a state rating of Vulnerable (National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972). However, the Australasian Bittern is unlikely to utilise habitat within the direct area of the Power Plant site as it is largely recorded in freshwater wetlands, requiring low density reeds, grasses or shrubs. This habitat is not present at the Power Plant site and nor will the site be expanding into habitat of this nature. It is therefore considered that there will not be any significant impact upon this species. The EBS report stated that the potential impacts most likely to affect these bird species included; habitat clearance associated with the installation of all infrastructure; bird collisions with transmission lines (low and high); and, the potential for the creation of artificial waterbodies attracting birds from Coongie Lakes and Cooper Creek. Of these three potential impacts, only the latter is potentially relevant to this EIR, as operation of the Power Plant will involve the storage of geofluids in dams/ponds adjacent to the site. Even when geofluid is stored in the ponds near the Power Plant, it has been observed that birds rarely inhabit or drink the water as it is too saline. No bird deaths have been observed in the ponds when being used for storage of geofluid. Once the vapour phase in the geofluid flashes off (prior to entering the ponds) its temperature falls to below 100C and then cools further on mixing with the contents of the ponds thereby rapidly reducing the potential for scalding of birds. As the geofluid stored in ponds will be reinjected into the reservoir it will be removed as a long term source of water that could attract birds. Accordingly, it is unlikely that the operation of the Power Plant will have any significant impacts on nationally threatened fauna species, migratory species or marine listed species. Consistent with the previous 2008 EIR
Page 33 of 66
(PB) it is considered that a referral under the EPBC Act is not required in relation to threatened or migratory species.
6.8 Heritage The Cooper Creek area has many sites and stories of particular significance to Aboriginal people. Prior to European colonisation the fresh and often abundant water in a desert environment sustained relatively high populations of Aboriginal people from the Yandruwandha, Yarrawarka and Dieri Aboriginal groups. The level of occupation is indicated by the many large midden, burial and other sites to be found on the periphery of water bodies. The area also provided materials for tools; particularly grinding stones which were valuable trading items. Subsequent to the surveys and work that informed the 2008 EIR, a thorough inspection (by foot traverse) of the Habanero area was conducted by Heritage Consulting Australia (HCA) in September 2010 (Appendix C), to identify cultural remains and delineated areas of high archaeological sensitivity. This survey was commissioned by Geodynamics as part of its preparation to drill Habanero 4 and to ensure that other activities in the Habanero area did not result in impact to Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultural heritage items. Accordingly, the findings of this study are applicable to the activities contained within this EIR. The HCA survey found a background scatter of stone artefacts across the survey area ranging in density from 1/500m2 to 1/100m2. A single large workshop site covering an area of 50 x 130m and raw material source was found to the south of the Power Plant site with artefact densities up to 25/m2. The Habanero area contains a sand dune to the east containing small numbers of stone artefacts; however, due to very poor ground surface visibility it was thought likely that further artefacts may be present. The dune was therefore designated a Potential Archaeological Deposit (PAD), with strong likelihood that further archaeological traces will be present. The HCA 2010 report recommended that the sand dune to the east of Habanero 1 and the workshop and raw material site to the south be avoided. The maintenance and operation of the Power Plant involves no additional clearing, construction or other disturbance as the plant and associated facilities and infrastructure have already been constructed and will be contained within the existing site footprint. The non-aboriginal cultural heritage of the general area is also of significance. The first graves of the ill-fated explorers Burke, Wills and Gray occur on the reserve. The Australian Inland Mission nursing home building, a ruin since the 1950s is now restored as the Regional Reserve office. However, all of these sites are located some distance from the Power Plant and will not be affected by its operation.
6.9 Noise and Air Quality Attended noise level readings undertaken in the vicinity of the Power Plant on 2 July 2013 were as follows: 150 m north of Plant at 8.30pm (in direction of Innamincka): 53dBA (Plant audible) 250 m north of Plant at 8.40pm: 47dBA (Plant audible) 500 m north of Plant at 8.50pm: 40 dBA (Plant not audible, background noise, mainly wind) At 500 m north of the Plant, noise emissions were not audible over the existing background noise. Furthermore, as Innamincka is located over 7 km from the Power Plant (straight line), with intervening higher topography
Page 34 of 66
providing a barrier to direct line of sight, noise emissions from the Plant would not be perceptible above existing background levels at any time of the day or night. Any significant change to the Plant infrastructure or operation in the future that could lead to higher noise emissions would need to be assessed as part of any new EIR/SEO or Activity Notification. The air quality in the vicinity of the activity is expected to be typical of a remote rural environment and influenced primarily by dust from high winds. Oodnadatta, 575km east of the site, experiences on average 5 dust storms annually, while Birdsville, approximately 425km north-west of the site, experiences on average 6.5 (PB, 2008). The frequency of dust storms is related to lack of ground cover and drought. No additional clearing is proposed for the operation of the Power Plant as the facility has already been constructed. Those parts of the site not required for operational use or too close to the plant to present a fire hazard will be cordoned off and vegetation allowed to regenerate.
6.10 Pest Plants and Feral Animals A weed assessment undertaken for Geodynamics by EBS Ecology (Appendix D) (EBS, 2012) found that overall, weed densities were low and control efforts carried out by Geodynamics had been moderately successful. No alien species found on site were listed as weeds of national significance or declared under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (EBS, 2012). The main Habanero site was considered to have the highest potential for weed invasion due to its proximity to Dillons Highway with a high number of vehicles arriving and departing each day. The highest density of weeds was found in the septic pit soakage area which contained Sow Thistle. The EBS 2012 report included a number of management controls that are detailed in section 7.2.2. Since 2008 occasional infestations of the house mouse have occurred at the Habanero site which have been controlled using commercially available rodent bait stations distributed in strategic locations around the site, including the Power Plant building. An ecologist will be consulted on appropriate control strategies in the event of any future infestations to avoid unintended impacts on native fauna.
6.11 Socio-economic Issues The socio-economic environment, as well as infrastructure and transport have not changed significantly since the 2008 EIR. No public or landowner complaints are known to have been made concerning Geodynamics’ activities at the Habanero camp and Power Plant.
Page 35 of 66
7.0 Environmental Risk Assessment and Mitigation Measures
This section outlines the methodology used to assess the environmental risks associated with the operation of the Power Plant, and details the mitigation measures proposed to treat and manage these risks.
7.1 Risk Assessment Process An assessment of the likelihood and consequences of environmental harm occurring from activities associated with the operation of the Power Plant provides an objective basis for the management of risks. The risk assessment in this EIR uses a risk matrix and definitions for consequences and likelihood derived from Geodynamics’ corporate risk management system and procedures. These are based on the Australian Standard AS/NZ 4360: 2004 Risk Management. Geodynamics’ risk assessment process involves: identifying the potential hazards or threats posed by the activity/s categorising the potential consequences and their likelihood of occurring; and using a risk matrix to characterise the level of risk. The results of the risk assessment undertaken for the project are summarised in Appendix E and the proposed management measures are discussed in this section. The mitigation measures in Appendix E are reflected in the Statement of Environmental Objectives for the 1MW Power Plant as providing guidance to how the environmental objectives can be achieved. The level of risk identified in Appendix E assumes that the proposed management measures will be fully implemented by Geodynamics. Where procedures in Geodynamics’ EMS are identified it assumes that these will also be implemented in their entirety. The definitions for consequences and likelihood, and the risk matrix used in the assessment are outlined below.
7.1.1 Definition of Consequences To describe the severity, scale and duration of potential impacts associated with the activity, five categories of consequence have been used Table 8) based on the risk consequence definitions in Geodynamics’ risk management process.
Page 36 of 66
Table 8: Risk Consequences
Description Environment Reputation Catastrophic Permanent impact long term (decades) Adverse global media coverage. Major regional impact. stakeholders terminate. Company at stake.
Major Long term (decades) local area impact. Adverse national media coverage. Company Medium term (years) regional impact. on notice. Moderate Medium Term (years) local area impact. Long term (weeks), local media and local Short term (months) regional impact. interest. Minor Short term (months) local area impact. Short term (days), local media and local interest. Insignificant Temporary impact (days/weeks) to immediate Local interest only, quickly forgotten. area.
7.1.2 Definition of Likelihood The likelihood of environmental consequences occurring was defined using the five categories shown in Table 9 consistent with Geodynamics’ corporate risk process. The likelihood refers to the probability of the particular consequences eventuating, rather than the probability of the hazard or event itself occurring.
Table 9: Risk Likelihood
Descriptor Probability Frequency Historical Has occurred frequently in the Almost Certain > 1 in 10 Several times per year company
Has occurred once or twice in the Likely Between 1 in 10 and 1 in 100 About once per year company
Has occurred many times in the Possible Between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000 Once in a 1 - 10 years industry
Has occurred once or twice in the Unlikely Between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 10,000 Once in 10 - 100 years industry
Rare < 1 in 10,000 < Once in a 100 years Unheard of in the industry
7.1.3 Risk Ranking The risk associated with each hazard is characterised using the matrix in Table 10 below. Risk reduction measures are applied to reduce risks to tolerable levels and risks are considered acceptable if they can be managed and maintained via mitigation measures into the low category.
Page 37 of 66
Table 10: Risk Ranking Matrix
RARE UNLIKELY POSSIBLE LIKELY ALMOST CERTAIN
CATASTROPHIC EXTREME
MAJOR HIGH
MODERATE MEDIUM
MINOR LOW
INSIGNIFICANT
An assessment of the level of environmental risk identified for activities and environmental aspects associated with the operation of the Power Plant is provided in Appendix E assuming the implementation of the mitigation measures and controls identified below for each aspect.
7.2 Environmental Aspects & Mitigation Measures The key environmental aspects identified below are those that were identified in the 2008 EIR. No other significant environmental aspects have been identified based on the new information outlined above and the nature of the proposed activity (trial operations and testing with ongoing maintenance) which is likely to have a lower impact than full commercial operations as proposed in the 2008 EIR. Some of the proposed environmental mitigation measures and controls proposed to be implemented during the operation of the 1MW Power Plant are different to those in the 2008 EIR. This is due mainly to an improved understanding of the environment in the area and the further development and improvement of Geodynamics’ environmental management systems and controls over the last 5 years. In addition, the now constructed Power Plant includes environmental safeguards and controls (outlined in section 4.6 above) that were not included in the 2008 EIR.
7.2.1 Erosion The measures proposed below will ensure management of the potential environmental impacts associated with disturbance of soils at the site of the Power Plant during its maintenance and operation: All staff inducted into Geodynamics environmental requirements and provided with a copy of The Green Book
Signage and fencing used to restrict access to undisturbed areas and those undergoing revegetation and rehabilitation
Page 38 of 66
Sediment controls installed in eroding areas within the site
Areas not required for operations cordoned off to optimise vegetation cover
Erosion and sediment control measures regularly inspected and maintained
Disturbed areas of the site progressively stabilised and rehabilitated
Stormwater flows onto, through and from the site controlled; and
Controlled vehicle access to the site through dedicated entry/ exit points, roadways and parking areas.
7.2.2 Weeds and pests The measures proposed below will prevent new infestation of weeds and populations of pest species on site so that native flora and fauna are protected: All staff inducted into Geodynamics environmental requirements and provided with a copy of The Green Book
Geodynamics’ Weed Identification and Controls Poster placed in offices and other prominent site areas
Weed and pest management undertaken in accordance with Geodynamics’ Environmental Management Plan - Cooper Basin
Regular site inspections to check for weed infestations
Access outside existing site areas restricted through the use of signage and fencing
Newly arrived equipment to site washed at Habanero wash bay
All interstate or high risk vehicles or equipment checked and cleaned prior to entering the Cooper Basin area
All vehicles required to remain on formed roads and tracks within the project area
Disturbance and clearance of native groundcover minimised as far as possible; and
Domestic waste stored in covered skips to minimise scavenging.
7.2.3 Dust Dust generated from activities associated with operations of the Power Plant will largely be from general vehicle movements around the site over unsealed roads. The dust and air quality objective is to ensure that particulate emissions do not adversely affect the environmental values of the health and amenity of people. The dust management controls adopted during operations will be: Areas of native vegetation on site that are not required for plant operations to be cordoned off and retained; and An 80km/hour speed limit enforced on all roads used by site staff and contractors.
Page 39 of 66
7.2.4 Groundwater and Geofluid Groundwater and geofluid management and monitoring will continue to be important aspects of the management of the project. The groundwater management objective is to ensure that extraction and use of groundwater (including geofluid from the granite reservoir) does not adversely affect the sustainable yield and water quality of useable groundwater reserves, surface water quality, flora and fauna, surface soils and vegetation, existing users or the health and amenity of people and stock Potable water will continue to be extracted from Darby’s Bore for potable water and potential make-up water during operation of the Power Plant with the following controls implemented: Groundwater extracted and used in accordance with licence conditions and exemptions applying to the use of groundwater for geothermal exploration and development purposes Groundwater bores inspected regularly to check for any potential contamination issues Shallow potable groundwater quality will be monitored and reported during operations in accordance with the Habanero Drinking Water Monitoring Plan prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act 2012
The management strategy for any excess saline geofluid needing to be stored outside of the Power Plant and closed loop system will be as follows: Geofluid will be discharged and stored in the three lined ponds near the Power Plant (Dams 1 – 3, Figure 3); Any overflow of geofluid from these ponds will be directed to the lined pond at Habanero 2 (Dam 4, Figure 2); The maximum amount of geofluid stored will not exceed the safe storage capacity6 of Dams 1 – 4 which is approximately 40ML; and The volume of the stored geofluid will be reduced by evaporation into a concentrated salt or saline brine. Options for ongoing management include complete evaporation with remaining salts to be buried securely in an appropriately lined cell on-site or the concentrated residue being transported off-site to an EPA approved facility. If another well stimulation was to be carried out the concentrated saline brine could be reinjected into Habanero 1. An Activity Notification will be prepared by the Operator at the appropriate time to obtain DMITRE’s approval for the final storage / disposal option for the saline brine / salts. .
6 A minimum free board of at least 1m is to be maintained in the dams
Page 40 of 66
7.2.5 Native Fauna The fauna objective is to maintain the regional abundance, diversity and productivity of native fauna. The fauna management controls to be adopted during operations will be: All staff inducted into Geodynamics environmental requirements and provided with a copy of The Green Book
Habanero Environmental Control Plan posted in prominent areas on site
Fauna management measures implemented in accordance with Geodynamics’ Environmental Management Plan - Cooper Basin
Areas of native vegetation on site that are not required for plant operations retained
Access outside existing site areas restricted through the use of signage and fencing
Strict site rules adhered to - to minimise off-road driving and access to non-designated work areas
Site fencing maintained to avoid, minimise and manage impacts associated with native animals gaining access to water storages associated with the Power Plant on site
Waste management procedures adhered to - to reduce potential food sources for introduced pests and vermin
Clearance of native vegetation is avoided as far as reasonably practical
Facilities, pits/cellars and water storages appropriately fenced/covered to minimise access to native fauna
Well cellars and water storages regularly inspected to check for trapped animals; and
Large dam at Habanero 2 will have fauna and personnel emergency egress mats installed.
7.2.6 Indigenous Heritage The indigenous heritage objective is to avoid disturbance to sites of indigenous heritage significance. Subsequent to the surveys and work that informed the 2008 EIR, a thorough inspection (by foot traverse) of the Habanero area was conducted by Heritage Consulting Australia (see report in Appendix C), to identify cultural remains and areas of high archaeological sensitivity. The control measures below incorporate advice provided within that report and the 2008 EIR: All site based staff and contractors to be inducted into Geodynamics’ environmental requirements and provided with a copy of The Green Book which includes guidance on indigenous heritage control measures Habanero Environmental Control Plan which details indigenous sensitive areas and no go zones to be posted in prominent areas on site Indigenous heritage management measures to be implemented in accordance with Geodynamics’ Environmental Management Manual
Page 41 of 66
Sensitive area signage to be used to provide further protection of indigenous sensitive areas in proximity to the Power Plant site Site fencing to be maintained to prevent access to the sand dune to the east of the main Habanero camp and the indigenous heritage workshop and raw material area immediately south of the site; and Work to be stopped and the Aboriginal Affairs Division of the Department of Premier and Cabinet to be notified if aboriginal heritage objects are discovered and a heritage specialist to be commissioned to record and assess the item(s) and provide management advice on the most appropriate impact mitigation measures and any consultation required with traditional owners.
7.2.7 Fuels, Chemicals and Wastewater Treatment The objective is to minimise the potential for contamination of soil, groundwater and surface water from inappropriate storage and spillage of fuel and chemicals. The controls that will be adopted during operations are: Fuels and chemicals stored in accordance with EPA requirements
All staff inducted into Geodynamics environmental requirements and provided with a copy of The Green Book
Fuels and chemicals stored in accordance with Geodynamics’ Environmental Management Plan - Cooper Basin consistent with the requirements of the South Australian EPA’s bunding guideline 080/12 Bunding & Spill Management (August 2012)
Chemical flushings are managed in accordance with Geodynamics’ procedure Caustic Cleaning Brine Heat Exchangers Operating Procedure
Spills cleaned up immediately and any contaminated soil treated and disposed of in accordance with the waste management procedure
Spill kits located in close proximity to fuel and chemical storage and refuelling areas
Sites regularly inspected to ensure chemicals and fuels stored in bunded and/or double skinned storage tanks and areas in accordance with EPA requirements.
Incident Response and reporting procedures implemented in accordance with Geodynamics’ corporate management system requirements
Material Safety Data Sheets available on site for all fuels and chemicals stored on site
Wastewater treatment plants regularly inspected and maintained by manufacturer’s service representatives
Effluent disposal/transpiration areas regularly inspected to ensure compliance with Geodynamics’ Environmental Management Plan - Cooper Basin.
Page 42 of 66
7.2.8 Solid Waste Management The waste management objective is to minimise the impact of waste storage, handling and disposal on the environment. The following controls will be adopted during operations: All wastes to be disposed of at an EPA licensed facility
Wastewater must be treated and disposed of in accordance with the SA Public Health (Wastewater) Regulations 2013 and the SA Health On Site Wastewater Systems Code, April 2013
All staff inducted into Geodynamics environmental requirements and provided with a copy of The Green Book
Wastes managed in accordance with Geodynamics’ Environmental Management Plan - Cooper Basin.
Production of waste minimised and waste products reused and recycled wherever practically possible
Domestic and potentially wind borne waste (e.g. paper, plastic etc.) stored in covered skips
Waste segregated for recycling
No burial or burning of waste on-site
Contaminated soil and other material requiring disposal to special facilities stored separately
Wastes covered when transported offsite
Listed Wastes managed in accordance with Geodynamics’ Environmental Management Plan - Cooper Basin and EPA requirements including no such wastes to be removed from site without the necessary authorisation and paperwork completed.
Solid or liquid waste removed from opened equipment items shall be treated as hazardous and contained in suitable containers for off-site processing or disposal in accordance with EPA requirements..
7.2.9 Decommissioning and Site rehabilitation Rehabilitation activities will be aimed at optimising vegetation regrowth within the site and that the required GAS Criteria of at least ≥ 0 (minimise visual impacts and revegetation) is achieved for the rehabilitation of any areas on site, in accordance with the criteria set out in the Field Guide for the Environmental Assessment of Abandoned Petroleum Well sites in the Cooper Basin, South Australia, PIRSA (Appendix A) (in the event the Power Plant site is closed in the future). The principle of rehabilitation will be to progressively rehabilitate disturbed areas of the Power Plant site (including associated facilities) no longer required for operational activities or to maintain firebreaks. The rehabilitation measures implemented during operations would be: Site areas no longer required for operations cordoned off to encourage regrowth of vegetation
Disturbed areas not required for operations rehabilitated in accordance with Geodynamics’ Environmental Management Plan - Cooper Basin
Page 43 of 66
Stock proof fencing of any remaining vegetation or regrowth within site areas maintained until vegetation is sufficiently established
Implementation of erosion and sediment controls as required
Ripping of compacted surfaces (other than gibber surfaces) to encourage regrowth
And in the event of decommissioning:
All equipment (including ancillary equipment) decommissioned and removed from site
Any stockpiled topsoil material respread over the site
Ground surface re-contoured to approximate pre-existing contours. On final abandonment the surface will be revegetated to ensure compliance with the required GAS criteria of at least ≥ 0 for facilities, tracks and borrow pits. Any geothermal wells and surrounding pads would be plugged, abandoned and rehabilitated in accordance with the requirements of the Drilling and Well Operations SEO (Santos 2009).
7.2.10 Other Aspects As the operation of the Power Plant involves fluids under very high temperature and pressure, there is a risk of well or pipeline failure occurring that could result in a pollution/safety incident occurring. Accordingly, pipelines will be designed and maintained to the relevant Australian or international standards and automatic and manual shutdown systems and alarms are in place to ensure that the Power Plant and production/injection wells (Habanero 4 &1) can be safely shut down if required. Further details of the operational controls and safeguards that have been designed into the Plant are provided in Section 4.6.
Page 44 of 66
8.0 References
Wolfpeak Pty Ltd (2013): Statement of Environmental Objectives for Geodynamics Limited for 1 MW Geothermal Power Plant at Innamincka (August 2013) prepared by Wolfpeak for Geodynamics Ltd.
Australian Government, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, EPBC Act Protected matters Report, www.environment.gov.au, accessed 1 May 2013.
Geodynamics Ltd (April 2013): “1MWe Habanero Pilot Plant – Commencement of Commissioning Operations”, ASX Announcement, 3 April 2013
Geodynamics (2013a): Exposure Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow October 2012, January 2013 (HSM-FN-OT- RPT-00509)
Geodynamics (2013b): Caustic Cleaning Brine Heat Exchanges, Operating Procedure, HPP-SY-OT-PRO- 00513 (27 January 2013)
EBS (2012) Ecology Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics’ Operations, Cooper Basin, SA, November 2012
Geodynamics Ltd (2010): Environmental Impact Report for Geodynamics Limited for Cooper Creek Water Extraction (October 2010)
Heritage Consultation Australia Pty Ltd (2010): A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia (September 2010)
Geodynamics Ltd (2010): Statement of Environmental Objectives Enhanced Geothermal Systems Reservoir Stimulation & Evaluation (May 2010).
PIRSA (2009) Field Guide for the Environmental Assessment of Abandoned Petroleum Well sites in the Cooper Basin, South Australia. Petroleum and Geothermal Group, Division of Minerals and Energy Resources.
EBS (2009): Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment for Geodynamics Geothermal License Area September 2009, Report prepared by Environmental and Biodiversity Services for Geodynamics Ltd.
PB (2008a): Statement of Environmental Objectives for Geodynamics Limited for 1 MW Geothermal Power Plant at Innamincka (August 2008) prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia for Geodynamics Ltd.
PB (2008b): Environmental Impact Report for Geodynamics Limited for 1 MW Geothermal Power Plant at Innamincka (August 2008) prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia for Geodynamics Ltd.
Geodynamics (2013): Geodynamics’ Weed Identification and Controls Poster
The Green Book (internal induction booklet prepared by Geodynamics in 2012)
LBW Environment (2013): Habanero 4 Open Flow Test – Surface Soil Assessment (April 2013)
Santos (2009): South Australian Cooper Basin, Statement of Environmental Objectives, Drilling & Well Operations, Santos (November 2009)
Page 45 of 66
Appendix A – Goal Attainment Scaling Criteria
Appendix A
Goal Attainment Scaling Criteria - extract from PIRSA 2009 “Field Guide for the Environmental Assessment of Abandoned Petroleum Wellsites in the Cooper Basin”
Appendix A
Appendix B1 – Exposure Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow
Appendix B1
Exposure Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow Oct 2012
Health, Safety and Environment
Document Number: HSM-FN-OT-RPT-00509 Revision No: 1.0 Date: 25 January 2012
Head Office Level 3, 19 Lang Parade, Milton Queensland 4064 Australia | Phone: +61 7 3721 7500 | Fax: + 61 7 3721 7599 Email: [email protected] | Web: www.geodynamics.com.au | ABN 55 095 006 090 | Power from the Earth
DOCUMENT CONTROL
Document Information Exposure Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow Oct 2012 Health, Safety and Environment Document Number: HSM-FN-OT-RPT-00509 Date: 25 January 2012
Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by 1.0 25/01/2012 Approved draft for Claus Kevin Coates Kevin Coates release. Christoffersen
Prepared, Reviewed and Approval Details Prepared by: Claus Christoffersen Date: 25-01-2013 Signature: Reviewed by: Kevin Coates Date: 25-01-2013 Signature: Approved by: Kevin Coates Date: 25-01-2013 Signature:
Release Statement This document is restricted and can be shared only as approved by GDY. This document does not require review.
Document Owner Claus Christoffersen For Geodynamics Limited Phone: +61 7 3721 7500 Mobile: 0459 1234 48 E-mail: [email protected]
HSM-FN-OT-RPT-00509-1.0 Exposure Page 2 of 19 Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow Oct 2012 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose
This report details the findings of brine compositional hazard investigations as encountered during the open flow (cleanup flow) of Geodynamics' newest Geothermal well in the Habanero reservoir, Habanero 4, during October 2012.
The primary purpose of the report is to document the determined occupational exposure hazards, including radiological, noise and chemical (associated with brine composition), posed by open flowing the geothermal well.
Findings summary
No radiation risks were identified during the clean up flow activity. No gas exposures outside acceptable limits were identified The brine is not suitable for use as drinking water. Brine is not considered as hazardous but is potentially a skin irritant due to lithium concentration. The brine plume may have contained higher than exposure limit nuisance dust. Noise levels generated exceeded exposure limits during high flow rates, controls were confirmed as adequate for the exposures encountered. Solid external scales formed by brine plume fall out drying was primarily consistent of drilling mud and salt. Solid scales may potentially act as skin irritant due to lithium concentration.
Recommendations
It is therefore not recommended that any further monitoring or management of radon and thoron exposures needs to be carried out at the Habanero 4 site. It is recommended that further noise monitoring be conducted periodically and at each time an increased volumetric flow rate is reached. Appropriate respiratory protection should therefore be used at any time when work is carried out inside or near the plume. Treat brine and dry external plume scales as a potential irritant due to lithium content until advice to the contrary becomes available A requirement for wearing of gloves and appropriate hygiene controls should be implemented for workers dealing with external scales.
Based on a relatively low maximum (outlier with suspected positive bias) H2S gas exposure reading of 1.2 ppm, there is minimal exposure hazard concerns during warm brine flows or higher brine flows in unconfined locations with good ventilation - additional and ongoing caution should be in place during reduced cool start-up or low dilution flows and where brine is flown to (or a leak occurs) in or near confined spaces and depressions with poor ventilation. Obtain gas detector which can be field calibrated rather than just "bump tested" Proceed with current plan for soil sampling and testing after open flow activities have been completed.
HSM-FN-OT-RPT-00509-1.0 Exposure Page 3 of 19 Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow Oct 2012 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 5 2. BACKGROUND ...... 5 3. METHODOLOGY ...... 6 3.1 Radiation ...... 6 3.2 Noise ...... 6 3.3 Chemical Sampling and Testing ...... 6 3.3.1 Brine Plume Air Sampling ...... 6 3.3.2 Liquid brine ...... 8 3.3.3 Solid brine fall-out scales ...... 8 3.3.4 Solid brine scales, from inside of pipes ...... 9 3.3.5 Brine plume - separated gasses (Personal Gas monitoring) ...... 9 3.4 Soil / Environment ...... 9 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ...... 10 4.1 Radiation ...... 10 4.2 Chemistry ...... 10 4.2.1 Personal Gas Monitoring ...... 10 4.2.2 Liquid in-line samples ...... 11 4.2.3 Plume samples ...... 12 4.2.4 Solid scale (external) ...... 12 4.3 Noise monitoring ...... 14 4.4 Soil - potential environmental impacts ...... 15 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 17 6. REFERENCES ...... 19
HSM-FN-OT-RPT-00509-1.0 Exposure Page 4 of 19 Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow Oct 2012 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
1. INTRODUCTION
This report details the findings of brine compositional hazard investigations as encountered during the open flow (cleanup flow) of Geodynamics' newest Geothermal well in the Habanero reservoir, Habanero 4, during October 2012.
The primary purpose of the report is to document the determined occupational exposure hazards, including radiological, noise and chemical (associated with brine composition), posed by open flowing the geothermal well.
Due to post open-flow environmental soil samples not being available at the timing of writing this report, the inclusion of a conclusive environmental impact determination is not possible. Baseline data for soil is included for later utilisation.
2. BACKGROUND
Habanero 4 is the fourth well connected to Geodynamics' Habanero geothermal reservoir. During open flowing of the older three Habanero wells some chemical data has been obtained, however, an authoritative and approved report presenting conclusive findings in relation to health and safety exposures to the brine has been lacking in order to have full confidence in the understanding of the potential risk levels.
Based on the previous chemistry data available and hazards perceivably associated with granite geothermal reservoirs a comprehensive series of sampling, testing and online monitoring was planned and carried out; the associated body of work, findings and results are represented in this document.
The brine related hazards that were deemed to require further analysis are noted below:
Radiological - Radon exposure hazards are often not well understood and the potential of radiation at any level is a high rating concern amongst many people. The radioactive gas Radon is associated with granite rocks and as the geothermal brine is flown from a granite reservoir there is an understandable associative basis for the concern in relation to the flown geothermal brine. Radon monitoring is additionally a requirement of the applicable SEO. Previous radon monitoring has indicated low concentrations in the geothermal brine, however the lack of presented data and the terms of the SEO (ENV-SY-OT-GDE-00512-1.0) necessitated a further study during the Habanero 4 cleanup flow works.
Noise - previous open flow activities of the reservoir on other wells have given subjective accounts of the noise level being that of a "jet engine". The open flow pipe work was for Habanero 4 designed to include a diffuser whose primary aim was to reduce the noise produced on flowing.
Chemistry - chemical exposure hazards have been somewhat unclear and there has been concern that some hazardous compounds will exist in the brine.
Liquid solution preference compounds: Arsenic and Antimony containing compounds have been of particular concern due to their toxicity, silica has similarly been of concern due to historical anecdotal observations of high concentrations in plume fall out. It should be noted that the silica from solution deposits as amorphous rather than crystalline silica. Gaseous compounds (gas phase preference): Carbon monoxide, explosive gasses (indicated as % LEL, calibrated against methane) and hydrogen sulphide gasses have been observed historically and in elevated concentrations could form toxic and ignition hazards.
HSM-FN-OT-RPT-00509-1.0 Exposure Page 5 of 19 Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow Oct 2012 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
These hazards were investigated through obtaining unflashed liquid samples of the brine, elevated airborne concentrations in the steam plume, scales formed inside pipe work over time and scales formed from precipitating steam plume carry-over.
Soil / environmental impacts - soil contamination is relation to chemical content of the brine has been of some concern. Some compounds in the brine which are of minimal health concern, such as sodium chloride salt, can have a detrimental impact on the environment. Due to this concern and a requirement in the SEO, the flown brine is directed into a lined dam for containment. Administrative controls have been instigated to prevent or reduce as much as possible plume carry over that is directed away from the dam. However, as a due diligence exercise, before and after samples of soil cores will be used to determine if any unexpected contamination has occurred.
3. METHODOLOGY
The well was allowed to flow to clean out completion fluid, drilling mud and entrained sediment prior to exposure samples being taken.
The following subsections relate the methodology of sampling and testing, as relevant, for each.
3.1 Radiation
Due to the specific hardware and skill sets required for proper radiological investigation, a qualified independent radiation specialist was contracted to conduct the radiation investigation.
Excerpt: "Both passive and active monitoring methods were utilized at a number of locations to measure both background radon and thoron levels and then any increase in radon and thoron levels that may be from the flow of production water."
For the detailed radiation sampling & measurement methodology see section 4 of the report "2012 RADON INVESTIGATION REPORT INNAMINCKA, HABANERO 4 GEODYNAMICS PTY LTD", RADIATION PROFESSIONALS PTY LTD, 29th October 2012.
3.2 Noise A calibrated electronic noise meter IEC 651 Type II (Center C320 sound level meter) was used to record noise at a height of 1.5 meters, at various locations on the Habanero 4 site during the highest flow rate achieved of the open flow activity, that is, at an indicated 33 litres per second brine flow rate and 201 degrees Celsius as measured at the wellhead. Noise measurements were manually recorded with the notes provided in the results section.
3.3 Chemical Sampling and Testing
3.3.1 Brine Plume Air Sampling
Plume samples were taken at the end of the clean up flow to reduce mud/completion fluid interference. While a slight colouration was still evident at the end of the flow in liquid samples, it is not expected to cause a significant dilution effect (less than 0.5 %). A minor but acceptably small positive bias is expected compared to similar pure plume samples. Plume air sampling (airborne inhable dust/mist) was performed in accordance with Australian Standard 453640-2009 Workplace Atmospheres - Method for Sampling and Gravimetric Determination of Inhalable Dust and Bureau Veritas HSE Pty Ltd internal procedure P-5000- LAB-004.
HSM-FN-OT-RPT-00509-1.0 Exposure Page 6 of 19 Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow Oct 2012 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
Monitoring was performed using a modified UKAEA personal sampling head, containing a 5pm PVC filter, attached to a constant flow pump operating at2.0 + 0.1 litres per minute. The modified UKAEA personal sampling head conforms to the ISO/TR 7708 definition of Inhalable Mass Fraction as required by 433640 - 2009. Gravimetric analysis of the filters for the determination of total airborne inhalable dust was performed by Bureau Veritas HSE Pty Ltd on a NATA calibrated Mettler Toledo MX5 six figure electronic microbalance. Following gravimetric analysis, the concentration of individual metal compounds present on the filters (including a blank) was performed by a NATA accredited laboratory (mgtLabmark) using ICP-AES. Three monitoring samples were taken. Two were taken directly from the plume (location 13); the last was set upwind at office location (location 6).
Rate Rate Date Sample Location Start end plume description pump start end
See fig 1. 90% plume time hit 2000 1800 19-Oct M102528 13 13:40 14:30 directly centre on sampler 168 ml/min ml/min 2000 1800 19-Oct M102530 6 15:30 17:40 n/a 179 ml/min ml/min about 10 meters lift. Plume centre appeared to hit 80% time directly 2000 1700 20-Oct M102531 13 14:35 17:15 on sampler 179 ml/min ml/min
Figure 1 - Location 13
HSM-FN-OT-RPT-00509-1.0 Exposure Page 7 of 19 Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow Oct 2012 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
Figure 2 - Location 6
3.3.2 Liquid brine
In line sampling of liquid as per JSEA (CC-19102012-01) from fixed inline sample point using cooling tube direct to water sample container. Initial samples were taken for visual check only.
Figure 3 - First inline brine sample; visual only.
A sample was later taken in a sealed sample bottle and sent to mgt LabMark Environmental laboratory in Melbourne for chemical analysis.
3.3.3 Solid brine fall-out scales
Solid scale samples were collected after the open flow event by scraping deposits off the metal pipe-work near the open flow skid using a plastic scraper, approximately 30 meters from the diffuser. Samples collected in plastic containers and were sent to the University of Queensland for X-ray Diffraction (XRD) Analysis.
HSM-FN-OT-RPT-00509-1.0 Exposure Page 8 of 19 Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow Oct 2012 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
3.3.4 Solid brine scales, from inside of pipes
There was no attempt made to obtain scales from the inside of flow pipe-work due to the low flow times and low probability of significant or representative samples being able to be obtained.
3.3.5 Brine plume - separated gasses (Personal Gas monitoring)
In order to ascertain the hazards associated with gasses in the brine which separated out on exiting the diffuser, personal gas monitoring was conducted using electronic (Dräger X-am 2000 ) personal gas monitors. The gas detector was bump tested and the calibration period verified as 16-May-2012 to 16-Nov-2012. The monitor was fitted with the following gas sensors: Lower Explosive Limit a.k.a. LEL (methane calibrated) - broad spectrum sensor used for detecting flammable gasses, the predominant flammable gas considered likely to be encountered was methane.
O2 - Oxygen, CO - Carbon Monoxide, H2S - Hydrogen Sulphide - these sensors are intended to be compound specific, though slight tendency in general for similar compounds to register false readings (For example, methanol can create false CO readings, and additionally quickly deplete the CO sensor).
Figure 4 - Photograph of the Dräger personal gas monitor used.
3.4 Soil / Environment
Soil samples were taken by EWB environmental consultants on 19th September 2012. Additional samples will be taken at the end of open flow and stimulation activity to determine if there has been a contamination effect of the open flow plume on the soil. Report will be supplied by EWB after the completion of this separate body of work.
HSM-FN-OT-RPT-00509-1.0 Exposure Page 9 of 19 Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow Oct 2012 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
Figure 5 - Baseline Soil Assessment Sample Locations
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Radiation The results of the monitoring show no measurable increase in radon and thoron levels above background attributable to the steam/gas/water plume. These background levels at no point approach working limits for radon. Therefore it can be concluded that the flow of production water (and associated steam and gases) pose no risk to personnel from an increase in radon or thoron levels.
Radiation Professionals, in their report, recommended that no further monitoring or management of radon and thoron exposures needs to be carried out at the Habanero 4 site.
4.2 Chemistry
4.2.1 Personal Gas Monitoring
The personal gas monitoring detected a breathable atmosphere at all times.
A slightly elevated H2S reading (maximum observed reading was 1.2 ppm) was observed for a short time near the diffuser. A reading of 1.2 ppm is well below the Time Weighted Average (exposure limit) TWA of 10 ppm for H2S.
HSM-FN-OT-RPT-00509-1.0 Exposure Page 10 of 19 Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow Oct 2012 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
A distinctive sulphurous smell was evident near the plume which is thought to be consistent with this H2S reading. However, a similar sulphurous odour was also noticeable at the nearby turkey's nest. The source of H2S has not been investigated, it is expected that longer term observation of flown brine may assist in determining if the H2S is of reservoir origin or is derived from a contamination such as drilling mud or similar. Whilst no concentrations of concern was observed for gasses, and no decrease in atmospheric oxygen was encountered during the open flow activity, it should be noted that factors such as temperature of the flown brine, combined with the physical setup of the diffuser may have caused a very high level of dilution. Should either factor be decreased, then the effective dilution may be lower. A sampling and testing regime for unflashed brine, that is, brine which contains both liquid and gaseous components is planned to be conducted during upcoming flow tests; a review of the data obtained should provide further insight into potential gas risks. It was observed that there was some level of drift in the personal gas monitor used. -
4.2.2 Liquid in-line samples
The first brine sample's dark murky appearance indicates that at the time of sampling, the well was still not clear of the darker colour heavy mud. The second sample's appearance was much clearer, reminiscent of a brewed tea. This on a visual level supports the assertion that the drilling mud contamination had strongly been diluted as per the aim of the well clean up flow activity itself. The second brine sample was analysed - the following table details the obtained analytical results: GEODYNAM --- HABANERO 4 CLEAN-UP SAMPLE A 02O 001429 --- B12-Oc26988. (concentration as mg/L) Ammonia (as N) 8.4 Chloride 9600 Conductivity (at 25°C) 24000 Fluoride < 0.5 Nitrate (as N) < 0.02 pH 7.7 Reactive Silica (as SiO2) 97 Sulphate (as S) 43 Total Dissolved Solids 15000 Alkali Metals Calcium 31 Magnesium < 5 Potassium 640 Sodium 4600 Alkalinity Bicarbonate Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 900 Carbonate Alkalinity (as CaCO3) < 10 Heavy Metals Aluminium 1 Antimony 1.8 Arsenic 1.9 Barium 75 Boron 270 Caesium* < 50 Lithium 290 Rubidium* 55 Thorium* < 1 Uranium < 0.005
HSM-FN-OT-RPT-00509-1.0 Exposure Page 11 of 19 Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow Oct 2012 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
Figure 6 - Brine sample 2, analytical results (* Indicates NATA accreditation does not cover the performance of this service)
4.2.3 Plume samples
Plume sample results indicate that antimony and arsenic were at levels below reportable levels in the plume. Exposure levels were not reached for metals, but the amount of solid absorbed on the filters in the plume indicates significant solids in the plume fall out in excess of nuisance dust exposure levels, during high flow rate.
Dust test results varied by sample - the second hotter higher flow rate steam plume samples showed much higher dust airborne concentration.
Metals test results - all metals tested for were found to be below limits of reporting.
4.2.4 Solid scale (external)
Solid scales were analysed at the University of Queensland. The results of the analysis were:
HSM-FN-OT-RPT-00509-1.0 Exposure Page 12 of 19 Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow Oct 2012 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
Pipe Scrape
17000
16000 d=2.82 15000
14000
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000 Lin (Counts)
7000 d=2.00
6000
5000
4000
3000 d=3.26 d=3.44 d=3.15 2000 d=3.10 d=3.33 d=2.11 d=2.12 d=3.90 d=2.73 d=2.22 d=4.34 d=3.58 d=3.35 d=4.44 d=2.06 d=2.32 d=2.48 d=3.78 d=1.82
1000 d=1.86 d=2.28 d=1.93 d=1.79
0
2 10 20 30 40 50 2-Theta - Scale Pipe Scrape - File: Pipe_scrape.raw - Type: Locked Coupled - Start: 2.000 ° - End: 52.013 ° - Step: 0.050 ° - Step time: 230.4 s - Temp.: 25 °C (Room) - Time Started: 0 s - 2-Theta: 2.000 ° - Theta: 1.000 ° - Chi: 0.00 ° - Phi: 0.00 ° - Operations: Import
Figure 7 - Solid Scale (External) XRD analytical result
Scraping results were compared to X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) of the mud left in completion prior to clean-up flow. Barite was the predominant mineral in the mud. Barite can be seen easily by following peaks: 3.44 Å, 3.10 Å, 3.90 Å, 3.58 Å, 2.83 Å, 2.73 Å, 2.11 Å, 2.10 Å and some other smaller peaks. In the scale and pipe scrape samples there was signature Barite peaks as well as halite (peaks: 2.82Å, 1.99Å, and 326Å). There was no sepiolite (the major peak of sepiolite is 12.30 Å) found in either the scrapings.
This indicates that scrapings were comprised of primarily drilling mud with sodium chloride salt from the brine, with no noticeable silicates. An amorphous silicate peak would have looked like a rounded hill-like bump, by its absence this indicates little or no amorphous silicate in the scales.
Barite = Barium Sulphate (BaSO4), Halite = Sodium Chloride (NaCl), Sepiolite = a complex magnesium silicate mineral (Mg4Si6O15(OH)2·6H2O). The following table provides a comparison of percentage mass concentrations on a dry basis, as per the liquid brine data discussed in section 4.2.2. This gives an indication of likely composition of external scales formed after the well is clean of mud and only brine is flown. Mass Percent (total non-water) Species mass measured/mass total Chloride 61.29% Reactive Silica (as SiO2) 0.62% Calcium 0.20% Potassium 4.09% Sodium 29.37%
HSM-FN-OT-RPT-00509-1.0 Exposure Page 13 of 19 Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow Oct 2012 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
Aluminium 0.01% Antimony 0.01% Arsenic 0.01% Barium 0.48% Boron 1.72% Lithium 1.85% Rubidium* 0.35%
Figure 8 - Dry weight comparison table
This corresponds with the XRD peaks observed; basically the majority of the compounds that can form a scale is sodium & chloride.
4.3 Noise monitoring
Noise monitoring results taken during the 33 litre per second & 201 °C open clean up flow on afternoon of 22 -10-12 were:
Noise inside H4 site office averaged a maximum of 70 dB(A) and was highest in the western half of the office near the louder air conditioner. Noise level immediately outside office = 84 dB(A) The highest reading taken was at exclusion fence around the hot dam, this was 105 dB(A).
Figure 9 - noise map
HSM-FN-OT-RPT-00509-1.0 Exposure Page 14 of 19 Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow Oct 2012 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
Figure 10 - Table 1 & 2 of the National Code of Practice for hearing loss
Single layer hearing protection was minimum requirement during higher rate open flows, this is consistent with requirements of the Australian Standard for hearing loss prevention.
4.4 Soil - potential environmental impacts
Baseline soil core samples were taken by LBW environmental (insert location data). The soil samples were taken before the cleanup flow activity commenced. Baseline soil results (incomplete interim report data only) are included as reference over page.
HSM-FN-OT-RPT-00509-1.0 Exposure Page 15 of 19 Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow Oct 2012 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
Figure 11 - Baseline Soil Chemistry Table
HSM-FN-OT-RPT-00509-1.0 Exposure Page 16 of 19 Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow Oct 2012 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Radiation - (from radiation report, section 2)
"The results of the monitoring show no measurable increase in radon and thoron levels above background attributable to the steam/gas/water plume. These background levels at no point approach working limits for radon. Therefore it can be concluded that the flow of production water (and associated steam and gases) pose no risk to personnel from an increase in radon or thoron levels. It is therefore not recommended that any further monitoring or management of radon and thoron exposures needs to be carried out at the Habanero 4 site."
Plume exposure - Health impacts: The levels of reported metals present in the air at the centre of the plume was found to not present a health hazard.
The results of the detailed metal analysis of the collected samples returned levels of all targeted metals below the limit of detection for the analytical method and all were well below their respective safe occupational exposure limits.
The amount of airborne solids inside the plume appears to have been in excess of the nuisance dusts exposure level and appropriate repertory protection should therefore be used at any time when work is carried out inside or near the plume. As the well is further cleaned it may be found that air borne concentrations are further reduced also. A shroud or other method to reduce or condense the spray created by the diffuser design may additionally reduce airborne solids.
Gravimetric analysis ranged showed 17.20 mg/m3 within the brine plume centre. This exceeds the exposure standard for general dust (DNOC) of 10 mg/m3.
Based on the results of the monitoring and the above information, BV Health recommended that "respiratory protection should continue to be worn when working in the vicinity of the brine plume". Liquid brine exposure - Health impacts: The brine is not suitable for use as drinking water. For the values for which drinking water maximums exist, the following list indicates the number of times that the prescribed maximum is exceeded: . Total Dissolved Solids 15 (preferential maximum only), . Chloride 38.4, . Boron 67.5, . Barium 107, . Arsenic 271, . Lithium 414, . Antimony 600. Other observations of note; the total dissolved solids in the brine is about half that of seawater. Recommendation: treat brine as a potential irritant due to lithium content until advice to the contrary becomes available. Scales deposited from plume - Hazards: Scrapings were comprised of primarily drilling mud with sodium chloride salt making up the reminder solid content, with no noticeable silicates. No amorphous silicate was evident in the scales analytical results.
HSM-FN-OT-RPT-00509-1.0 Exposure Page 17 of 19 Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow Oct 2012 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
Lithium may be present in quantities that could cause skin irritation in both the brine and in formed external scales. Dry mass concentrations of antimony and arsenic in future external scales are unlikely to pose a health risk. The concentration of lithium may be sufficient to consider the scale to be a potential skin irritant; and should be treated as such. Recommendation: A requirement for wearing of gloves and appropriate hygiene controls should be implemented for workers dealing with external scales.
Plume gas content exposure hazards: At the measured concentrations exposure limits were not reached. Heavy H2S gas could potentially be found at elevated concentrations after a prolonged low flow specific scenarios coinciding with prolonged low wind speed scenario or after prolonged shut-in periods. Recommendation: Based on a relatively low maximum (outlier with suspected positive bias) H2S gas exposure reading of 1.2 ppm, there is minimal exposure hazard concerns during warm brine flows or higher brine flows in unconfined locations with good ventilation - additional and ongoing caution should be in place during reduced cool start-up or low dilution flows and where brine is flown to (or a leak occurs) in or near confined spaces and depressions with poor ventilation.
Noise exposure during open flow The observed level of noise developed at the opening of the diffuser during open flow activity at higher the higher flow rate of 33l/sec & 201 °C was found to be in excess of exposure standards for between the diffuser and the office location. Noise volume increases with increases volumetric flow rate. Increasing either mass flow rate or flowing temperature will result in an increased volumetric flow rate and therefore noise output. Therefore, noise monitoring should be conducted again at each higher volumetric flow rate to determine exposure risk at each flow. Recommendation: Further noise monitoring be conducted periodically and at each time an increased volumetric flow rate is reached.
Soil environmental impacts, actual - Initial samples predate the H4 open flow plume so no conclusion can be made on this basis. Further work to be completed includes post activity sampling, testing and analysis to determine if environmental contamination has occurred. In the case the contamination has occurred a cleanup plan should be prepared and actioned according to best environmental practice. Recommendation: Proceed with current plan for soil sampling and testing after open flow activities have been completed.
HSM-FN-OT-RPT-00509-1.0 Exposure Page 18 of 19 Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow Oct 2012 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
6. REFERENCES
ENV-SY-OT-GDE-00512-1.0 SEO Enhanced Geothermal Systems Reservoir Stimulation and Evaluation, August 2010, Geodynamics Limited 2012 RADON INVESTIGATION REPORT INNAMINCKA, HABANERO 4 GEODYNAMICS PTY LTD", RADIATION PROFESSIONALS PTY LTD, 29th October 2012. GDY REF: HSM-FN-EX- RPT-00449-1.0 "Fluid Chemistry of the Innamincka Granite - understandings of June 2010", Revision 1, 28 June 2010, non authorised Geodynamics Ltd report, no document control number. HPP-FN-OT-PLN-00282-1.0 Activity HSE Management Plan - H04 Open Flow & Stimulation BV Dust & Metals report - 1103_001, [GDY REFHSM-FN-EX-RPT-00447-1.0].
HSM-FN-OT-RPT-00509-1.0 Exposure Page 19 of 19 Monitoring - H4 Cleanup Flow Oct 2012 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED
Appendix B2 - Habanero 4 Open Flow Test – Surface Soil Assessment
Appendix B2
Our ref: 12290 R02.docx
30 April 2013
Geodynamics Limited Level 3, 19 Lang Parade PO BOX 2046 Milton Qld 4064
Attention: Mr Claus Christoffersen
Dear Claus,
Habanero 4 Open Flow Test - Surface Soil Assessment
1 Introduction
LBW Environment (LBW) was commissioned by Geodynamic Limited (Geodynamics) to undertake an assessment of surficial soils at the Habanero 4 site, located near Innamincka in the Cooper Basin, South Australia. A site location plan is shown in Figure 1 (Attachment 1).
Based on the information provided by Geodynamics, LBW understood the following:
Geodynamics intended to start open-flow testing at their newest geothermal well, Habanero 4, intermittently over a number of weeks;
Geothermal brine from these activities was to flow into a lined dam at Habanero 4; and
There were concerns that due to the pressure and temperatures involved in the flow, that some spray or mist from the brine may go outside the dam area and affect local surface soils.
The objectives of the surface soil assessment were to:
Determine baseline surface soil data prior to the start of open-flow activities at the Habanero 4 dam; and
Re-assess the surface soils surrounding the Habanero 4 dam post open-flow activities to establish whether there have been changes to soil condition as a result of the planned activities and whether there is a risk posed to human health and/or the environment.
Soil assessment works were undertaken in accordance with LBW’s proposal P12557 dated 11 September 2012.
This letter report documents the soil assessment work undertaken by LBW, presents field observations and testing results from before and after the open flow testing.
2 Methodology
2.1 Method Guidance
The assessment was undertaken with reference to the guidance in the following publications:
LBW ENVIRONMENT PTY LTD ABN 58 126 992 274 184 Magill Road, Norwood SA 5067 PO Box 225 Stepney SA 5069 Phone: (08) 8331 2417 Fax: (08) 8331 2415
National Environment Protection Council. 1999. National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPM), and
Standards Australia. 2005. AS 4482.1-2005 Guide to the investigation and sampling of sites with potentially contaminated soil Part 1: Non-volatile and semi-volatile compounds.
2.2 Soil Sampling and Analysis
LBW attended the site on 19 September 2012 to collect baseline soil samples prior to open flow tests. Follow-up sampling was completed on 11 February 2013. The assessment undertaken by LBW consisted of the following:
Table 1 Soil Investigation Methodology
Activity Details
Prior to each sampling event, LBW prepared a site specific Environment, Health and Safety Environmental Health and Safety Plan. This plan was reviewed once Plan onsite and adjusted to address site specific hazards.
Sample locations were distributed in rings around the Habanero 4 Dam at radius of 20 m, 50 m and 100 m. The sample locations (as indicated on Figure 2) were determined by measuring the relevant radius distances from the dam. In addition, four sample locations (HA01-01 to Sample locations HA01-04) were positioned immediately adjacent to the dam. The GPS coordinates were recorded at each sampling location during the September 2012 sampling event. These GPS coordinates were used to relocate the sampling location during the February 2013 sampling event.
Soil samples were recovered from the surface (up to approximately 50 mm deep) and placed into laboratory supplied soil sample jars. Nitrile Soil Sampling gloves were worn whilst handling the samples. A total of 21 soil samples were collected during each sampling event.
Field duplicate samples for testing was obtained at a minimum rate of 1 Quality control duplicate in every 20 samples analysed based upon QA/QC recommendations in sampling and testing AS4482.1-2005.
Soil samples were stored under chilled conditions in an insulated chest Sample preservation immediately after sampling. Samples were kept chilled prior to and during delivery to ALS Laboratory Group (ALS).
Selected samples were submitted for laboratory analysis at ALS. For analysis of radionuclides, selected samples forwarded to SGS Australian Radiology Services (ARS). Both laboratories were NATA accredited for the analysis selected. Chemical analysis scope was based on our previous experiences with geothermal brine and on details supplied by Geodynamics about its chemical components. Baseline laboratory analysis was undertaken on selected samples from immediately adjacent the pond, and those from the inner-most ring (20 m radius). Analysis included: Laboratory testing Metals (Na, K, Mg, Ca, As, Sb, Ba, B)
Anions (Cl, SO4) Ammonia Cesium, Lithium, Rubidium, Thorium and Uranium Total Sulfate Radionuclides Fluoride
I:\Jobs\2012\12290 - Habanero 2 Dam Soil Assessment\Report\Hab 4 Soils\12290 R02.docx 2
3 Screening Criteria
3.1 Human and Environment Health
The NEPM provides a nationally consistent framework for assessing the presence and significance of site contamination in soil and groundwater. The NEPM methodology is based on assessing the potential for an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment by comparing concentrations of chemical substances to conservative, generic investigation levels for various environmental settings and land use scenarios.
Investigation levels are defined in the NEPM as… concentrations of a contaminant above which further appropriate investigation and evaluation will be required. They are not clean up or response levels. A response level is defined as… the concentration of a contaminant at a specific site based on a site assessment for which some form of response is required to provide an adequate margin of safety to protect public health and/or the environment.
The NEPM health investigation levels (HILs) are based on conservative assumptions around providing protection of the most sensitive site user subjected to exposure to contaminated soils. The most stringent HILs are assigned to sensitive land uses such as residential, child care centres and primary schools. Where the land use provides for reduced access to soils, or reduced time in the setting for a child (e.g. high density residential apartments or an industrial site), higher HILs are set respectively in the NEPM.
In the event that an investigation level is exceeded at a site, the nature of the appropriate response is typically determined by site-specific environmental or human health risk assessment.
Based on the likely exposure scenarios for humans at a commercial / industrial land use, LBW referred to the NEPM Health Investigation Levels (HILs) for exposure setting ‘F’ – Commercial / Industrial Land Use. The criteria adopted for assessing the contaminant status of soils at the site are provided in the chemical data tables in Attachment 2. The NEPM does not present investigation levels for many of the analytes tested for. A search of available national and international sources did not identify appropriate human health of environmental risk screening criteria for these remaining analytes.
3.2 Baseline Assessment Values
In order to interpret the laboratory results of soils samples and establish the likelihood and possible magnitude of soil impacts (if any) resulting from the open flow testing, assessment values were established from the baseline soil sampling results.
Although every effort was made to collect post-open flow samples from the same location as the baseline samples (i.e. using GPS), margins of error and inherent soil variability across the site meant comparison of samples from the same location were unlikely to indicate meaningful trends of impacts resulting from the open flow tests. Therefore the maximum observed concentrations across all samples tested from the baseline sampling event were used as assessment parameters. Laboratory results of soil samples from the post-open flow sampling event were compared against these assessment values, as shown in Attachment 2. Discussion of assessment value exceedances are presented in Section 6.
4 Observations During Open Flow Testing
The following information regarding observations during the open flow testing was provided by Geodynamics:
Total flow time was approximately 5 days, with overspray present for portions of this time;
A metal box was placed around the diffuser to contain much of the spray generated; and
Overspray consisted of both liquid and gas;
Overspray extended to the east of the dam and diffuser, as indicated on Figure 2; and
I:\Jobs\2012\12290 - Habanero 2 Dam Soil Assessment\Report\Hab 4 Soils\12290 R02.docx 3
Wind direction was variable during the open flow testing.
5 Results
Tabulated results of chemical testing undertaken on soil samples from both September 2012 and February 2013 are presented in Attachment 2. Concentrations exceeding the relevant criteria are highlighted. Concentrations from follow-up sampling Laboratory certificates and chain of custody documentation are presented in Attachment 4.
An overview of the analytical results, including a brief comparison of chemical concentrations before and after open flow testing, is provided below:
5.1 Heavy Metals and Metalloids
A total of eight samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of relevant metals after each sampling event.
Baseline Sampling
Chemical testing of samples collected prior to open flow testing indicated relatively consistent metal concentrations across each sample location. Samples with concentrations of barium exceeded the NEPM ecological investigation levels at all but two locations which was likely indicative of naturally elevated concentrations with soils at the site.
Post Open Flow Sampling
Chemical testing of samples after open flow testing indicated concentrations of metals consistent with the corresponding baseline sample results and within the adopted baseline assessment values, with exception of the following:
H401-01 (Sept 2012) and H402-01a (Feb 2013)
Boron, Cesium, Lithium, Sodium, Rubidium and Thorium
H401-06 (Sept 2012) and H402-06a (Feb 2013)
Boron, Cesium, Lithium, Potassium, Rubidium and Thorium
H401-12 (Sept 2012) and H402-12a (Feb 2013)
Boron, Cesium, Lithium, Potassium, Sodium, Rubidium and Thorium
5.2 Inorganics
A total of eight samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of relevant inorganics after each sampling event.
Baseline Sampling
Chemical testing of samples collected prior to open flow testing indicated relatively consistent concentrations across each sample location. Elevated concentrations of sulphate and chloride were identified at the site prior to open flow tests.
Post Open Flow Sampling
Chemical testing of samples after open flow testing indicated concentrations of inorganics consistent with the corresponding baseline sample results and within the adopted baseline assessment values, with exception of the following:
H401-01 (Sept 2012) and H402-01a (Feb 2013)
Chloride
H401-12 (Sept 2012) and H402-12a (Feb 2013)
I:\Jobs\2012\12290 - Habanero 2 Dam Soil Assessment\Report\Hab 4 Soils\12290 R02.docx 4
Chloride
5.3 Radionuclides
A total of four samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of relevant radionuclides after each sampling event.
Baseline Sampling
Chemical testing of samples collected prior to open flow testing indicated relatively consistent concentrations across each sample location.
Post Open Flow Sampling
Chemical testing of samples after open flow testing indicated radionuclide concentrations consistent with the corresponding baseline sample results and within the adopted baseline assessment values, with exception of the following:
H401-07 (Sept 2012) and H402-07a (Feb 2013)
Potassium-40
5.4 Quality Control Results
One blind coded field duplicate sample was collected during each sampling event and tested to assess the precision (repeatability) of the data provided by the primary contract laboratory.
Validation and interpretation of the QC data was undertaken by calculating the relative percentage differences (RPDs) for the primary sample and duplicate sample concentrations. RPD results are included in the summary tables in Attachment 2.
The RPD value for an analyte was calculated using the formula:
RPD (%) = 100(x1 – x2) / x
where x1, x2 = duplicate results and x = mean of duplicate results.
According to AS4482.1-2005,
typical RPD values for soils range from ±30 to ±50%;
an RPD within the range of -50% to 50% is considered to show acceptable agreement and, conversely, data is considered to have poor agreement where an RPD is outside this range.
5.4.1 Blind Field Duplicates
With the exception of one duplicate pair results for cesium, all RPDs were within the acceptable range of ±50% adopted from the AS 4482.1-2005, which indicated good analytical data correlation between primary samples and duplicate pairs. This one RPD exceedance was likely associated with chemical concentration in the primary and duplicate sample being close to the laboratory’s detection limit.
There was no evidence of systematic error(s) in the duplicate testing data, so the one RPD exceedance was most likely the result of sample heterogeneity. In this case, the primary and duplicate test result led to the same interpretation by LBW so there was no adverse effect on the outcome of the assessment.
Numerous RPDs could not be calculated due to one or both sample concentrations being below the laboratory’s PQLs, but the consistency of these results also indicated good data correlation.
5.4.2 Laboratory Internal QC
In accordance with NATA requirements, the analytical laboratory performed internal duplicate analysis, spike recovery analysis and method blank analysis. Details of laboratory QC results are included in the laboratory certificates of analysis (Attachment 3).
I:\Jobs\2012\12290 - Habanero 2 Dam Soil Assessment\Report\Hab 4 Soils\12290 R02.docx 5
The vast majority of internal duplicate analysis, spike-recovery analysis and method blank analysis complied with the laboratories quality control requirements.
5.4.3 QC Summary
Based on the results from the blind-coded field duplicate testing, laboratory duplicate testing, spike-recovery and blank analyses, LBW considered that the data quality was acceptable for the purposes of this assessment.
6 Discussion
Results of laboratory analysis of samples collected after open flow testing at locations to the north, west and south of the dam (H4-02, H4-03, H4-04, H4-08 and H4-10) indicated concentrations of all analytes compliant with the adopted assessment parameters.
Samples collected after open flow testing from locations to the east and south-east of the dam (H4-01, H4-05 and H4-12) indicated concentrations of boron, cesium, lithium, potassium, rubidium and thorium greater than the baseline sample from the corresponding location and were greater than the adopted baseline assessment values, as shown in Attachment 2. In addition, the sample locations correspond to the area where overspray was observed during the open flow testing, as shown in Figure 1 in Attachment 1. Based on these findings, it is likely that surface soils to the east and south-east of the dam have been impacted with brine overspray residue. The lateral and vertical extent of the residue impacts was not determined.
Chemical results were screened against relevant criteria, as shown in Attachment 2. Based on these results, the following comments can be made:
Elevated concentrations of sodium and chloride observed at H4-01, H4-05 and H4-12 after open flow testing are typical of salt residue and, at the concentrations observed, are not anticipated to pose a threat to human health or the environment;
Concentrations of boron in samples collected after open flow tests were below the NEPM health investigation levels for industrial/commercial sites. Risk to the environment from these concentrations of boron was considered negligible given its common presence in marine sediments and groundwater systems;
No human health or environmental risk screening levels were available for cesium, lithium, potassium, rubidium and thorium; and
Concentrations of radionuclides in post-open flow soil samples at all tested locations were compliant with the adopted baseline assessment values and therefore considered within ‘background conditions’ and unlikely to pose a risk to human health or the environment.
7 Conclusions and Recommendations
LBW was engaged by Geodynamics to undertake an assessment of surficial soils at the Habanero 4 site, located near Innamincka in the Cooper Basin, South Australia.
The objectives of the surface soil assessment were to:
Determine baseline surface soil data prior to the start of open-flow activities at the Habanero 4 dam; and
Re-assess the surface soils surrounding the Habanero 4 dam post open-flow activities to establish whether there have been changes to soil condition as a result of the planned activities and whether there is a risk posed to human health and/or the environment.
Based on the results of the laboratory soil testing program, LBW concluded the following:
Laboratory analysis of samples collected after open flow testing at locations to the north, west and south of the dam indicated concentrations of all analytes comparable to that of each corresponding baseline sample (pre-open flow testing);
I:\Jobs\2012\12290 - Habanero 2 Dam Soil Assessment\Report\Hab 4 Soils\12290 R02.docx 6
Samples collected after open flow testing from locations to the east and south-east of the dam (locations H4-01, H4-05 and H4-12) indicated concentrations of boron, cesium, lithium, potassium, rubidium and thorium greater than the adopted baseline assessment values (maximum observed concentrations across all tested baseline samples);
Concentrations of radionuclides in post-open flow soil samples at H4-01, H4-05 and H4- 12 were comparable to those of baseline soil samples (pre-open flow testing);
No human or environmental health screening levels were available for cesium, lithium, potassium, rubidium and thorium.
Our conclusions and recommendations are subject to the limitations expressed in Section 8.
8 Limitations
Scope of Services
This environmental assessment report (“the report”) has been prepared in accordance with the scope of services set out in the contract, or as otherwise agreed, between Geodynamics and LBW Environment (“scope of services”). In some circumstances the scope of services may have been limited by a range of factors such as time, budget, access and/or site disturbance constraints.
Reliance on Data
In preparing the report, LBW Environment has relied upon data, surveys, analyses, designs, plans and other information provided by Geodynamics and other individuals and organisations, most of which are referred to in the report (“the data”). Except as otherwise stated in the report, LBW Environment has not verified the accuracy or completeness of the data. To the extent that the statements, opinions, facts, information, conclusions and/or recommendations in the report (“conclusions”) are based in whole or part on the data, those conclusions are contingent upon the accuracy and completeness of the data. LBW Environment will not be liable in relation to incorrect conclusions should any data, information or condition be incorrect or have been concealed, withheld, misrepresented or otherwise not fully disclosed to LBW Environment.
Environmental Conclusions
In accordance with the scope of services, LBW Environment has relied upon the data and has conducted environmental field monitoring and/or testing in the preparation of the report. The nature and extent of monitoring and/or testing conducted is described in the report.
On all sites, varying degrees of non-uniformity of the vertical and horizontal soil or groundwater conditions are encountered. Hence no monitoring, common testing or sampling technique can eliminate the possibility that monitoring or testing results/samples are not totally representative of soil and/or groundwater conditions encountered. The conclusions are based upon the data and the environmental field monitoring and/or testing and are therefore merely indicative of the environmental condition of the site at the time of preparing the report, including the presence or otherwise of contaminants or emissions. It should be recognised that site conditions, including the extent and concentration of contaminants, can change with time.
Within the limitations imposed by the scope of services, the monitoring, testing, sampling and preparation of this report have been undertaken and performed in a professional manner, in accordance with generally accepted practices and using a degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised by reputable environmental consultants under similar circumstances. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
Report for Benefit of Client
The report has been prepared for the benefit of Geodynamics and no other party. LBW Environment assumes no responsibility and will not be liable to any other person or organisation for or in relation to any matter dealt with or conclusions expressed in the report, or for any loss or damage suffered by any other person or organisation arising from matters dealt with or conclusions expressed in the report (including without limitation matters arising from any
I:\Jobs\2012\12290 - Habanero 2 Dam Soil Assessment\Report\Hab 4 Soils\12290 R02.docx 7
negligent act or omission of LBW Environment or for any loss or damage suffered by any other party relying upon the matters dealt with or conclusions expressed in the report). Other parties seeking to reply upon the report shall be responsible for making their own assessment of the accuracy or completeness of any conclusions and should obtain independent advice in relation to such matters.
Other Limitations
LBW Environment will not be liable to update or revise the report to take into account any events or emergent circumstances or facts occurring or becoming apparent after the date of the report.
9 Closure
LBW appreciates the opportunity to provide environmental assessment services to Geodynamics. Please contact the undersigned on 8331 2417 if clarification is needed.
Yours sincerely for LBW Environment Pty Ltd
James Coley Graham Ohmsen Environmental Consultant Principal Environmental Scientist
Attachments: 1 Site Location and Site Sampling Plan 2 Chemical Results Summary Tables 3 Laboratory Certificates of Analysis
I:\Jobs\2012\12290 - Habanero 2 Dam Soil Assessment\Report\Hab 4 Soils\12290 R02.docx 8
Attachment 1
I:\Jobs\2012\12290 - Habanero 2 Dam Soil Assessment\Report\Hab 4 Soils\12290 R02.docx
FIGURE 1
Site Location Plan
Habanero 4
Surface Soil Assessment
For
Geodyanmics
N
Habanero 4
Job No: 12290 Drawn: S Boorman Checked: J Coley
ABN 58 126 992 274 184 Magill Road Norwood SA 5067 P: 08 8331 2417 Image source: Google Earth F: 08 8331 2415
FIGURE 2
Sample Location Plan Rev1
18 Habanero 4 100m Surface Soil Assessment
For
14 Geodynamics 50m 07 20m LEGEND 02 06 Approximate Habanero 19 08 4 Dam Footprint
03 13 Sample locations 05 H401-3 01 (H4-##) 09 04 Well head 12 15 10 11 Pipeline & Diffuser
16 17 Approximate sampling radius from Dam
Approximate extent of brine misting outside of dam area 20
21
Job No: 12290 Drawn: C Forster Checked: J Coley
N ABN 58 126 992 274 184 Magill Road Norwood SA 5067 Note: the features marked on this P: 08 8331 2417 Image source: maps.google.com (2012) figure are approximate only F: 08 8331 2415
Attachment 2
I:\Jobs\2012\12290 - Habanero 2 Dam Soil Assessment\Report\Hab 4 Soils\12290 R02.docx Habanero 4 Surface soils Chemical Summary Table
Metals Inorganics Radionuclides Antimony Arsenic Barium Boron Calcium Cesium Lithium Magnesium Potassium Sodium Uranium Rubidium Thorium Ammonia as N Chloride Fluoride Moisture Sulphate Uranium-238 (as thrium- 234) Radium-226 Lead-210 Radium-228 Thorium-228 Potassium-40 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg % mg/kg Bq.kg-1 Bq.kg-1 Bq.kg-1 Bq.kg-1 Bq.kg-1 Bq.kg-1 PQL 5 5 10 50 10 0.1 0.1 10 10 10 0.1 0.1 0.1 20 10 40 1 50 NEPM 1999 HIL F 500 15000 NEPM 1999 EIL 20 300 2000 Baseline 'Trigger Values' * <5 <5 3030 <50 3350 17.8 30.5 300 110 1550 0.4 12.8 3.9 50 3240 350 5.4 46,100 27 ±12 (39) 25.9 ±2.9 (28.8) 23.6 ±9.3 (32.9) 26.7±4.9 (31.6) 25.2 ±2.4 (27.6) 238 ±29 (269)
Sample Sample ID Sample Date Location H401-01 19/09/2012 <5 <5 <50 1340 2.8 9 180 50 1210 0.4 12.3 3.9 <20 2460 200 3.2 27 ±11 25.9 ±2.9 22 ±11 26.7 ±4.9 25.2 ±2.4 238 ±29 H4-01 540 3720 H402-01a 11/02/2013 5 <5 1110 230 200 35.2 243 270 100 5240 0.5 30.3 4.8 <20 10,700 180 3.4 5790 21.6 ±6.0 22.1 ±2.5 22.8 ±6.0 24.4 ±5.3 22.2 ±2.3 219 ±31 H401-02 19/09/2012 <5 <5 <50 690 5.8 9.7 100 50 890 0.3 10.6 2.8 <20 1070 140 1.6 1590 ------H4-02 740 H402-02a 11/02/2013 <5 <5 1160 <50 630 14.8 22.9 70 50 720 0.4 19.7 3.9 <20 1190 160 2.9 2200 ------H401-03 19/09/2012 <5 <5 <50 1600 13 17.7 140 70 1030 0.3 12.2 2.8 <20 1500 160 2.1 26 ±10 17.8 ±1.9 19 ±12 21.0 ±4.3 19.5 ±2.1 177 ±24 H4-03 730 4480 H402-03a 11/02/2013 <5 <5 970 <50 740 11.6 27.8 70 40 930 0.4 16.1 3.2 <20 1190 150 1.5 4350 25 ±11 19.8 ±2.3 28.1 ±9.7 19.3 ±2.6 19.6 ±2.4 186 ±122 H401-04 19/09/2012 <5 <5 240 <50 3350 2.4 9.4 300 40 1550 0.4 11 3.5 <20 2780 230 3 ------H4-04 16500 H402-04a 11/02/2013 <5 <5 490 <50 1860 5.3 15.5 160 40 1250 0.3 15 3.4 <20 1780 100 2.1 6400 ------H401-06 19/09/2012 <5 <5 <50 2960 2.2 14.4 260 110 750 0.3 11.7 3 50 1810 180 3.6 ------H4-05 1220 8000 H402-06a 11/02/2013 <5 6 630 140 3120 38.2 81.2 70 220 1140 0.5 36.9 4.3 <20 800 230 2.4 15700 ------H401-07 19/09/2012 ------27 ±12 22.8 ±2.4 20.0 ±9.4 21.9 ±3.5 21.4 ±3.0 219 ±26 H4-06 H402-07a 11/02/2013 ------19 ±14 29.7 ±2.9 37 ±13 31.1 ±4.4 27.4 ±1.8 345 ±27 H401-08 19/09/2012 <5 <5 <50 1430 17.8 30.5 80 110 870 0.3 12.8 2.1 <20 3240 330 2 ------H4-07 3030 2020 H402-08a 11/02/2013 <5 <5 1580 <50 70 10 21.6 <10 30 70 0.4 15.3 3.4 <20 120 390 2.4 1160 ------H401-10 19/09/2012 <5 <5 120 <50 3280 2.2 6.2 270 40 1200 0.2 7.5 2.1 <20 2020 350 4.1 ------H4-10 46100 H402-10a 11/02/2013 <5 <5 160 <50 3200 2.6 10.6 150 40 270 0.4 14.9 3.6 <20 60 230 3.2 36200 ------H401-11 19/09/2012 ------22.0 ±9.3 16.9 ±1.6 23.6 ±9.3 14.9 ±2.4 18.3 ±1.7 117 ±16 H4-11 H402-11a 11/02/2013 ------30.2 ±9.9 22.7 ±2.5 26.5 ±7.4 20.0 ±3.8 17.8 ±3.3 153 ±17 H4-12 H401-12 19/09/2012 <5 <5 190 <50 560 1 8.6 80 30 580 0.4 12.2 3.6 <20 1200 180 5.4 1250 ------H402-12a 11/02/2013 <5 6 910 340 1740 30.5 389 210 250 7160 0.4 36.3 5 <20 14,000 160 3.3 3330 ------
min <5 <5 120 <50 560 1 6.2 80 30 580 0.2 7.5 2.1 <20 1070 140 1.6 1250 ------19/09/2012 Range of max <5 <5 3030 <50 3350 17.8 30.5 300 110 1550 0.4 12.8 3.9 50 3240 350 5.4 46100 27 ±12 (39) 25.9 ±2.9 (28.8) 23.6 ±9.3 (32.9) 26.7±4.9 (31.6) 25.2 ±2.4 (27.6) 238 ±29 (269) results min <5 <5 160 <50 70 2.6 10.6 70 30 70 0.3 14.9 3.2 <20 60 100 1.5 1160 ------11/02/2013 max 5 6 1580 340 3200 38.2 389 270 250 7160 0.5 36.9 5 <20 14000 390 3.4 36200 ------
Intralab Duplicates H401-01 <5 <5 540 <50 1340 2.8 9 180 50 1210 0.4 12.3 3.9 <20 2460 200 3.2 3720 19/09/2012 DUP 1 <5 <5 610 <50 1390 1.6 9.4 190 50 1240 0.3 10.7 3.4 <20 2420 180 3.8 4410 RPD% ^ ^ 12% ^ 4% -55% 4% 5% 0% 2% -29% -14% -14% ^ -2% -11% 17% 17% H402-02a <5 <5 1160 <50 630 14.8 22.9 70 50 720 0.4 19.7 3.9 <20 1190 160 2.9 2200 11/02/2013 DUP 10 <5 <5 1560 <50 510 13 20.3 50 40 640 0.3 17 3.6 <20 1300 150 2.1 2140 RPD% ^ ^ 29% ^ -21% -13% -12% -33% -22% -12% -29% -15% -8% ^ 9% -6% -32% -3%
RPD value exceeds +/- 50% * Baseline 'Trigger Values' were established using the maximum observed %RPD = (Concentration 1 - Concentration 2) x 100 concentrations across all samples from the baseline sampling event Mean Concentration (19/09/2012).
^ RPD value could not be calculated due to both concentrations below PQL or one sample not analysed
1 of 1
I:\Jobs\2012\12290 - Habanero 2 Dam Soil Assessment\Laboratory\Hab 4 Soil Assessment\12290 - Chemical Summary Table - soil.xls 29/04/2013
Attachment 3
I:\Jobs\2012\12290 - Habanero 2 Dam Soil Assessment\Report\Hab 4 Soils\12290 R02.docx EM1210992
False 3 True
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Work Order : EM1210992 Page : 1 of 4 Client : L.B.W ENVIRONMENT PTY LTD Laboratory : Environmental Division Melbourne Contact : MR JAMES COLEY Contact : Samantha Smith Address : 184 MAGILL ROAD Address : 4 Westall Rd Springvale VIC Australia 3171 NORWOOD SA, AUSTRALIA 5067 E-mail : [email protected] E-mail : [email protected] Telephone : +61 08 8331 2417 Telephone : +61-3-8549 9644 Facsimile : +61 08 8331 2415 Facsimile : +61-3-8549 9601 Project : 11245 Habanero 4 Soil Assessment QC Level : NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement Order number : ---- C-O-C number : ---- Date Samples Received : 20-SEP-2012 Sampler : ---- Issue Date : 28-SEP-2012 Site : ---- No. of samples received : 23 Quote number : ADBQ/004/10 No. of samples analysed : 9 This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. All pages of this report have been checked and approved for release. This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information: l General Comments l Analytical Results
NATA Accredited Laboratory 825 Signatories This document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories indicated below. Electronic signing has been Accredited for compliance with carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11. ISO/IEC 17025. Signatories Position Accreditation Category Herman Lin Laboratory Coordinator Melbourne Inorganics Nikki Stepniewski Senior Inorganic Instrument Chemist Melbourne Inorganics Wisam Marassa Inorganics Coordinator Sydney Inorganics
Environmental Division Melbourne
4 Westall Rd Springvale VIC Australia 3171 Tel. +61-3-8549 9600 Fax. +61-3-8549 9601 www.alsglobal.com Page : 2 of 4 Work Order : EM1210992 Client : L.B.W ENVIRONMENT PTY LTD Project : 11245 Habanero 4 Soil Assessment General Comments
The analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the USEPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request. Where moisture determination has been performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis. Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis.
Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference.
When sampling time information is not provided by the client, sampling dates are shown without a time component. In these instances, the time component has been assumed by the laboratory for processing purposes.
Key : CAS Number = CAS registry number from database maintained by Chemical Abstracts Services. The Chemical Abstracts Service is a division of the American Chemical Society. LOR = Limit of reporting ^ = This result is computed from individual analyte detections at or above the level of reporting Page : 3 of 4 Work Order : EM1210992 Client : L.B.W ENVIRONMENT PTY LTD Project : 11245 Habanero 4 Soil Assessment Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Client sample ID H401-01 H401-02 H401-03 H401-04 H401-06 Client sampling date / time 19-SEP-2012 15:00 19-SEP-2012 15:00 19-SEP-2012 15:00 19-SEP-2012 15:00 19-SEP-2012 15:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EM1210992-001 EM1210992-002 EM1210992-003 EM1210992-004 EM1210992-006 EA055: Moisture Content Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) ---- 1.0 % 3.2 1.6 2.1 3.0 3.6 ED040: Sulfur as SO4 2- Sulfate as SO4 2- 14808-79-8 100 mg/kg 3720 1590 4480 16500 8000 ED040N: Sulfate - Calcium Phosphate Soluble (NEPM) Sulfate as SO4 2- 14808-79-8 50 mg/kg 1430 770 980 2250 2000 ED045G: Chloride Discrete analyser Chloride 16887-00-6 10 mg/kg 2460 1070 1500 2780 1810 ED093S: Soluble Major Cations Calcium 7440-70-2 10 mg/kg 1340 690 1600 3350 2960 Magnesium 7439-95-4 10 mg/kg 180 100 140 300 260 Sodium 7440-23-5 10 mg/kg 1210 890 1030 1550 750 Potassium 7440-09-7 10 mg/kg 50 50 70 40 110 EG005T: Total Metals by ICP-AES Antimony 7440-36-0 5 mg/kg <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Arsenic 7440-38-2 5 mg/kg <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Barium 7440-39-3 10 mg/kg 540 740 730 240 1220 Boron 7440-42-8 50 mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 EG020T: Total Metals by ICP-MS Caesium 7440-46-2 0.1 mg/kg 2.8 5.8 13.0 2.4 2.2 Uranium 7440-61-1 0.1 mg/kg 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 Lithium 7439-93-2 0.1 mg/kg 9.0 9.7 17.7 9.4 14.4 Rubidium 7440-17-7 0.1 mg/kg 12.3 10.6 12.2 11.0 11.7 Thorium 7440-29-1 0.1 mg/kg 3.9 2.8 2.8 3.5 3.0 EK040T: Fluoride Total Fluoride 16984-48-8 40 mg/kg 200 140 160 230 180 EK055: Ammonia as N Ammonia as N 7664-41-7 20 mg/kg <20 <20 <20 <20 50 Page : 4 of 4 Work Order : EM1210992 Client : L.B.W ENVIRONMENT PTY LTD Project : 11245 Habanero 4 Soil Assessment Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL Client sample ID H401-08 H401-10 H401-12 DUP 1 ---- Client sampling date / time 19-SEP-2012 15:00 19-SEP-2012 15:00 19-SEP-2012 15:00 19-SEP-2012 15:00 ----
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EM1210992-007 EM1210992-009 EM1210992-010 EM1210992-020 ---- EA055: Moisture Content Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) ---- 1.0 % 2.0 4.1 5.4 3.8 ---- ED040: Sulfur as SO4 2- Sulfate as SO4 2- 14808-79-8 100 mg/kg 2020 46100 1250 4410 ---- ED040N: Sulfate - Calcium Phosphate Soluble (NEPM) Sulfate as SO4 2- 14808-79-8 50 mg/kg 980 3740 760 1380 ---- ED045G: Chloride Discrete analyser Chloride 16887-00-6 10 mg/kg 3240 2020 1200 2420 ---- ED093S: Soluble Major Cations Calcium 7440-70-2 10 mg/kg 1430 3280 560 1390 ---- Magnesium 7439-95-4 10 mg/kg 80 270 80 190 ---- Sodium 7440-23-5 10 mg/kg 870 1200 580 1240 ---- Potassium 7440-09-7 10 mg/kg 110 40 30 50 ---- EG005T: Total Metals by ICP-AES Antimony 7440-36-0 5 mg/kg <5 <5 <5 <5 ---- Arsenic 7440-38-2 5 mg/kg <5 <5 <5 <5 ---- Barium 7440-39-3 10 mg/kg 3030 120 190 610 ---- Boron 7440-42-8 50 mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 ---- EG020T: Total Metals by ICP-MS Caesium 7440-46-2 0.1 mg/kg 17.8 2.2 1.0 1.6 ---- Uranium 7440-61-1 0.1 mg/kg 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 ---- Lithium 7439-93-2 0.1 mg/kg 30.5 6.2 8.6 9.4 ---- Rubidium 7440-17-7 0.1 mg/kg 12.8 7.5 12.2 10.7 ---- Thorium 7440-29-1 0.1 mg/kg 2.1 2.1 3.6 3.4 ---- EK040T: Fluoride Total Fluoride 16984-48-8 40 mg/kg 330 350 180 180 ---- EK055: Ammonia as N Ammonia as N 7664-41-7 20 mg/kg <20 <20 <20 <20 ----
Certificate of Analysis
REPORT №: 13-0731-R1
Issue date: 23rd October 2012
Client: LBW Environment
Address: 184 Magill Road Norwood SA 5067 (PO Box 225, Stepney SA 5069)
Contact: Mr. Jarrod Bishop
Telephone: (08) 8331 2417
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
Client reference: CoC dated 24th September 2012
SAMPLE DETAILS
Sample description or type: Soil
Number of samples received: Four
Date received: 25th September 2012
Analysis required: Naturally occurring radionuclides
AUSTRALIAN RADIATION SERVICES PTY. LTD.
Authorised signatory: Accreditation No. 16987 Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 Name: Mr. Ben Milne
Position: Radiochemist/Health Physicist
Important Note: a. This report supersedes any previous reports with this reference number. b. The results in this report apply to the sample(s) as received by Australian Radiation Services Pty. Ltd. c. This report has been prepared and issued in accordance with NATA’s accreditation requirements.
Page 1 of 2
REPORT №: 13-0731-R1
RESULTS:
Notes: a) Radionuclide or gross radioactivity concentrations are expressed in becquerel per kilogram of dried solid sample or becquerel per litre of water sample unless otherwise specified. The becquerel (Bq) is the SI unit for activity and equals one nuclear transformation per second. b) Less than (<) values indicate the detection limit for each radionuclide or parameter for the measurement system used. The respective detection limits have been calculated in accordance with ISO 11929. c) The reported uncertainty in each result is the expanded uncertainty calculated using a coverage factor of 2, providing a level of confidence of approximately 95%.
Test method: a. Preparation – ARS-SOP-AS303 – Solid samples for measurement by HPGe b. Measurement – ARS-SOP-AS406 – High resolution gamma ray spectrometry
Radionuclide Concentration Other naturally- Naturally-occurring uranium Naturally-occurring thorium occurring (U-238) series (U-232) series radionuclides Client Sample ID Uranium-238 Units Radium-226 Lead-210 Radium-228 Thorium-228 Potassium-40 (ARS Lab. ID) (as thorium-234)
H401-01 -1 Bq·kg 27 ± 11 25.9 ± 2.9 22 ± 11 26.7 ± 4.9 25.2 ± 2.4 238 ± 29 (13-0731-01) H401-03 -1 Bq·kg 26 ± 10 17.8 ± 1.9 19 ± 12 21.0 ± 4.3 19.5 ± 2.1 177 ± 24 (13-0731-02) H401-07 -1 Bq·kg 27 ± 12 22.8 ± 2.4 20.0 ± 9.4 21.9 ± 3.5 21.4 ± 3.0 219 ± 26 (13-0731-03) H401-11 -1 Bq·kg 22.0 ± 9.3 16.9 ± 1.6 23.6 ± 9.3 14.9 ± 2.4 18.3 ± 1.7 117 ± 16 (13-0731-04)
Page 2 of 2
EM1301405
False 8 8.00 False
Environmental Division CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Work Order : EM1301405 Page : 1 of 4 Client : L.B.W ENVIRONMENT PTY LTD Laboratory : Environmental Division Melbourne Contact : MR JARROD BISHOP Contact : Samantha Smith Address : 184 MAGILL ROAD Address : 4 Westall Rd Springvale VIC Australia 3171 NORWOOD SA, AUSTRALIA 5067 E-mail : [email protected] E-mail : [email protected] Telephone : +61 08 8331 2417 Telephone : +61-3-8549 9644 Facsimile : +61 08 8331 2415 Facsimile : +61-3-8549 9601 Project : 12290 Habanero 4 Dam Soil Assessment QC Level : NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement Order number : ---- C-O-C number : 12290 COC-02 Date Samples Received : 13-FEB-2013 Sampler : ---- Issue Date : 22-FEB-2013 Site : ---- No. of samples received : 24 Quote number : ADBQ/004 No. of samples analysed : 9 This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. All pages of this report have been checked and approved for release. This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information: l General Comments l Analytical Results
Address 4 Westall Rd Springvale VIC Australia 3171 | PHONE +61-3-8549 9600 | Facsimile +61-3-8549 9601 Environmental Division Melbourne ABN 84 009 936 029 Part of the ALS Group An ALS Limited Company Page : 2 of 4 Work Order : EM1301405 Client : L.B.W ENVIRONMENT PTY LTD Project : 12290 Habanero 4 Dam Soil Assessment General Comments
The analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the USEPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request. Where moisture determination has been performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis. Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis.
Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference.
When sampling time information is not provided by the client, sampling dates are shown without a time component. In these instances, the time component has been assumed by the laboratory for processing purposes.
Key : CAS Number = CAS registry number from database maintained by Chemical Abstracts Services. The Chemical Abstracts Service is a division of the American Chemical Society. LOR = Limit of reporting ^ = This result is computed from individual analyte detections at or above the level of reporting l Metals conducted by ALS Sydney, NATA accreditation no. 825, site no 10911.
NATA Accredited Laboratory 825 Signatories This document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories indicated below. Electronic signing has been carried out in Accredited for compliance with compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11. ISO/IEC 17025. Signatories Position Accreditation Category Celine Conceicao Senior Spectroscopist Sydney Inorganics Dilani Fernando Senior Inorganic Chemist Melbourne Inorganics Melbourne Inorganics Melbourne Inorganics Eric Chau Metals Team Leader Melbourne Inorganics Melbourne Inorganics Varsha Ho Wing Non-Metals Team Leader Melbourne Inorganics Melbourne Inorganics Page : 3 of 4 Work Order : EM1301405 Client : L.B.W ENVIRONMENT PTY LTD Project : 12290 Habanero 4 Dam Soil Assessment Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL (Matrix: SOIL) Client sample ID H402-01a H402-02a H402-03a H402-04a H402-06a
Client sampling date / time 11-FEB-2013 15:00 11-FEB-2013 15:00 11-FEB-2013 15:00 11-FEB-2013 15:00 11-FEB-2013 15:00
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EM1301405-001 EM1301405-002 EM1301405-003 EM1301405-004 EM1301405-006 EA055: Moisture Content Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) ---- 1.0 % 3.4 2.9 1.5 2.1 2.4 ED040: Sulfur as SO4 2- Sulfate as SO4 2- 14808-79-8 100 mg/kg 5790 2200 4350 6400 15700 ED040N: Sulfate - Calcium Phosphate Soluble (NEPM) Sulfate as SO4 2- 14808-79-8 50 mg/kg 3430 980 1620 2910 5050 ED045G: Chloride Discrete analyser Chloride 16887-00-6 10 mg/kg 10700 1190 1190 1780 800 ED093S: Soluble Major Cations Calcium 7440-70-2 10 mg/kg 200 630 740 1860 3120 Magnesium 7439-95-4 10 mg/kg 270 70 70 160 70 Sodium 7440-23-5 10 mg/kg 5240 720 930 1250 1140 Potassium 7440-09-7 10 mg/kg 100 50 40 40 220 EG005T: Total Metals by ICP-AES Antimony 7440-36-0 5 mg/kg 5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Arsenic 7440-38-2 5 mg/kg <5 <5 <5 <5 6 Barium 7440-39-3 10 mg/kg 1110 1160 970 490 630 Boron 7440-42-8 50 mg/kg 230 <50 <50 <50 140 EG020T: Total Metals by ICP-MS Caesium 7440-46-2 0.1 mg/kg 35.2 14.8 11.6 5.3 38.2 Uranium 7440-61-1 0.1 mg/kg 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 Lithium 7439-93-2 0.1 mg/kg 243 22.9 27.8 15.5 81.2 Rubidium 7440-17-7 0.1 mg/kg 30.3 19.7 16.1 15.0 36.9 Thorium 7440-29-1 0.1 mg/kg 4.8 3.9 3.2 3.4 4.3 EK040T: Fluoride Total Fluoride 16984-48-8 40 mg/kg 180 160 150 100 230 EK055: Ammonia as N Ammonia as N 7664-41-7 20 mg/kg <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 Page : 4 of 4 Work Order : EM1301405 Client : L.B.W ENVIRONMENT PTY LTD Project : 12290 Habanero 4 Dam Soil Assessment Analytical Results
Sub-Matrix: SOIL (Matrix: SOIL) Client sample ID H402-08a H402-10a H402-12a DUP10 ----
Client sampling date / time 11-FEB-2013 15:00 11-FEB-2013 15:00 11-FEB-2013 15:00 11-FEB-2013 15:00 ----
Compound CAS Number LOR Unit EM1301405-007 EM1301405-009 EM1301405-010 EM1301405-020 ---- EA055: Moisture Content Moisture Content (dried @ 103°C) ---- 1.0 % 2.4 3.2 3.3 2.1 ---- ED040: Sulfur as SO4 2- Sulfate as SO4 2- 14808-79-8 100 mg/kg 1160 36200 3330 2140 ---- ED040N: Sulfate - Calcium Phosphate Soluble (NEPM) Sulfate as SO4 2- 14808-79-8 50 mg/kg 60 5160 1540 1120 ---- ED045G: Chloride Discrete analyser Chloride 16887-00-6 10 mg/kg 120 60 14000 1300 ---- ED093S: Soluble Major Cations Calcium 7440-70-2 10 mg/kg 70 3200 1740 510 ---- Magnesium 7439-95-4 10 mg/kg <10 150 210 50 ---- Sodium 7440-23-5 10 mg/kg 70 270 7160 640 ---- Potassium 7440-09-7 10 mg/kg 30 40 250 40 ---- EG005T: Total Metals by ICP-AES Antimony 7440-36-0 5 mg/kg <5 <5 <5 <5 ---- Arsenic 7440-38-2 5 mg/kg <5 <5 6 <5 ---- Barium 7440-39-3 10 mg/kg 1580 160 910 1560 ---- Boron 7440-42-8 50 mg/kg <50 <50 340 <50 ---- EG020T: Total Metals by ICP-MS Caesium 7440-46-2 0.1 mg/kg 10.0 2.6 30.5 13.0 ---- Uranium 7440-61-1 0.1 mg/kg 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 ---- Lithium 7439-93-2 0.1 mg/kg 21.6 10.6 389 20.3 ---- Rubidium 7440-17-7 0.1 mg/kg 15.3 14.9 36.3 17.0 ---- Thorium 7440-29-1 0.1 mg/kg 3.4 3.6 5.0 3.6 ---- EK040T: Fluoride Total Fluoride 16984-48-8 40 mg/kg 390 230 160 150 ---- EK055: Ammonia as N Ammonia as N 7664-41-7 20 mg/kg <20 <20 <20 <20 ----
ARS-REP-AS005
Certificate of Analysis
REPORT №: 13-1846-R1
Issue date: 2nd April 2013
Client: LBW Environment
Address: 184 Magill Road Norwood SA 5069
Contact: Mr. Jarrod Bishop
Telephone: (08) 8539 2417
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
Client reference: Client job number 12290
SAMPLE DETAILS
Sample description or type: Soil
Number of samples received: Four
Date received: 15th February 2013
Analysis required: Naturally occurring radionuclides
SGS AUSTRALIAN RADIATION SERVICES
Authorised signatory: Accreditation No. 16987 Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 Name: Mr. Ben Milne
Position: Radiochemist/Health Physicist
Important Note: a. This report supersedes any previous reports with this reference number. b. The results in this report apply to the sample(s) as received by SGS Australian Radiation Services c. This report has been prepared and issued in accordance with NATA’s accreditation requirements.
Page 1 of 2
REPORT №: 13-1846-R1
RESULTS:
Notes: a) Radionuclide or gross radioactivity concentrations are expressed in becquerel per kilogram of dried solid sample or becquerel per litre of water sample unless otherwise specified. The becquerel (Bq) is the SI unit for activity and equals one nuclear transformation per second. b) Less than (<) values indicate the detection limit for each radionuclide or parameter for the measurement system used. The respective detection limits have been calculated in accordance with ISO 11929. c) The reported uncertainty in each result is the expanded uncertainty calculated using a coverage factor of 2, providing a level of confidence of approximately 95%.
Test method: a. Preparation – ARS-SOP-AS303 – Preparation of solid samples for measurement by HPGe. b. Measurement – ARS-SOP-AS406 – High resolution gamma ray spectrometry.
Radionuclide Concentration Other naturally- Naturally-occurring uranium Naturally-occurring thorium occurring (U-238) series (Th-232) series radionuclides Client Sample ID Uranium-238 (as Units Radium-226 Lead-210 Radium-228 Thorium-228 Potassium-40 (ARS Lab. ID) Thorium-234)
H402-01a -1 Bq·kg 21.6 ± 6.0 22.1 ± 2.5 22.8 ± 6.0 24.4 ± 5.3 22.2 ± 2.3 219 ± 31 (13-1846-01)
H402-03a -1 Bq·kg 25 ± 11 19.8 ± 2.3 28.1 ± 9.7 19.3 ± 2.6 19.6 ± 2.4 186 ± 22 (13-1846-02)
H402-07a -1 Bq·kg 19 ± 14 29.7 ± 2.9 37 ± 13 31.1 ± 4.4 27.4 ± 1.8 345 ± 27 (13-1846-03)
H402-11a -1 Bq·kg 30.2 ± 9.9 22.7 ± 2.5 26.5 ± 7.4 20.0 ± 3.8 17.8 ± 3.3 153 ± 17 (13-1846-04)
Page 2 of 2
Appendix C – Habanero Site Heritage Report
Appendix C
A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia
A report to Geodynamics Ltd
Allan Lance Heritage Consulting Australia Pty Ltd September 2010 Table of Contents
Executive summary...... i 1. Introduction...... 1 2. Environmental setting...... 1 2.1 Undulating Gibber Downs...... 4 2.2 Sand dunes...... 5 3. Previous archaeological studies...... 6 3.1 Site types...... 7 4. Study methodology...... 9 5. Results...... 11 6. Archaeological sensitivity...... 18 7. Summary and recommendations...... 18 8. References...... 19 9. Glossary...... 21
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia i Executive summary
Introduction Geodynamics Ltd proposes to drill a further geothermal well adjacent to the existing Habanero 3 well situated beside the Strzelecki Track (Dillons Highway) south of Innamincka in north eastern South Australia. Construction of the well lease will entail ground disturbance in the area to the east of the existing well.
To ensure that construction activities in the Habanero area do not result in impacts to Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultural heritage items, a site clearance has been conducted, making recommendations for the management of cultural heritage items found there.
The inspection of the Habanero area was conducted by archaeologist Allan Lance on 8 and 9 September 2010.
Study methodology A thorough inspection of the ground surface was carried out to identify cultural remains and delineate areas of high archaeological sensitivity to guide the placement of future construction activities. The survey area was examined closely by foot traverse.
Results A background scatter of stone artefacts was found across the survey area ranging in density from 1/500m2. to 1/100m2. Stone artefacts found in the gibber are made from silcrete or quartzite. A single large workshop site and raw material source was found to the south of the Habanero facility. This covers an area of 50x130m and here artefact densities are up to 25/m2.
A single sand dune is found in the investigated area. Small numbers of stone artefacts are found on this dune, although very poor ground surface visibility suggests that further artefacts may be present. For this reason, the dune has been designated a Potential Archaeological Deposit (PAD) and there is a strong likelihood that further archaeological traces will be present.
Recommendations To ensure that the cultural heritage values of the project area are not compromised it will be necessary for the avoidance of the two archaeologically sensitive areas identified in this site clearance. These are:
• Sand dune to the east of Haberno 1 (PAD1)
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia ii • Workshop and raw material source south of Haberno 1 (Habanero Site 1).
Construction of the Habanero 4 well will occur in an area that has either been previously disturbed by quarrying for road base, machinery accessing the quarry, or is located in an area with very low background artefact densities. Consequently, there will be no impacts to Indigenous heritage items.
It should be noted that all Aboriginal archaeological sites in South Australia are protected by provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act, 1988, which makes deliberate destruction of registered sites, without the written authorisation of the minister, an offence. If the archaeologically sensitive locations are excluded from development plans, there can be no objection on archaeological or Aboriginal heritage grounds to ground disturbance in the project area.
Archaeological items dating from the post-contact era are protected in South Australia under Section 27 of the Heritage Places Act, 1993, which makes their deliberate removal, damage or destruction an offence. No historical artefacts were located during the field reconnaissance. Should any be uncovered, it will be necessary for a heritage specialist to record and assess the item(s) and provide management advice on the most appropriate impact mitigation measures. There can be no objection on non-Indigenous cultural heritage grounds to construction in the project area.
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia iv 1. Introduction Geodynamics Ltd proposes to drill a further geothermal well adjacent to the existing Habanero 3 well situated beside the Strzelecki Track (Dillons Highway) south of Innamincka in north eastern South Australia. Construction of the well lease will entail ground disturbance in the area to the east of the existing well. Additionally, it will be necessary for associated infrastructure to be built in the surrounding area (Figures 1 and 2).
To ensure that construction activities in the Habanero area do not result in impacts to Indigenous cultural heritage items, representatives of the Yandrawantha/ Yawarrawarrka Native Title groups have previously conducted detailed heritage site clearances (certification that areas for development are clear of cultural heritage sites). These have included areas for existing wells, roads and other infrastructure (for example Lance 1996), although several small areas, including the area for the newly proposed well, had not been cleared. The present report documents the investigation of these previously uncleared areas, making recommendations for the management of cultural heritage items found there.
The inspection of the Habanero area was conducted by archaeologist Allan Lance on 8 and 9 September 2010.
2. Environmental setting The Habanero wells are located in an area of undulating gibber downs, approximately 7km south of Cooper Creek. Ordinarily, the gibber downs have a sparse cover of grasses and forbs although following heavy rainfall in the weeks preceding the site clearance, herbaceous vegetation had flourished. This reduced the ground surface visibility considerably across the survey area. Ground surface visibility averaged 30% in gibber areas, and less on the low dune found to the east of the Habanero 1 well.
The ground cover in the gibber comprised various varieties of chenopod: saltbush, bluebush and galvanised burr. On the sandy soil were a wide variety of grasses and forbs, including sandhill canegrass (Zygochloa paradoxa). A stand of sandhill wattle (Acacia ligulata) was also found on the dune crest.
A claypan that fills from local rainfall drained from the gibber is located to the south of the project area. At the time the survey was undertaken this claypan was full of water.
Several areas have been subject to intensive ground disturbance around the existing leases. These include a quarry to the south of Habanero 3. This covers an area of 80x100m and abuts the area disturbed during the preparation of the Habanero 3 lease,
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 1 Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 2 Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 3 which extends almost 300m south from the Strzelecki Track. Further disturbance is found around the McLeod 1 well lease. This lease was prepared for Santos and was drilled in 1983. The area of disturbance covers an area of approximately 100x100m and is located to the south of the quarry. This area of disturbance is situated to the east of the only sand dune in the area under investigation.
2.1 Undulating gibber downs The proposed development area is predominantly undulating gibber downs. The size and density of silcrete pebbles vary, and in some places the gibber is associated with small outcrops of unweathered rock. Red duplex soils underlie the stony gibber, comprising a loamy surface crust and an underlying clay sub-soil. These soils are subject to severe erosion when the protective gibber mantle is removed.
Plate 1. View across gibber downs north of the Strzelecki Track showing the extent of ground cover vegetation.
The vegetation includes grassland dominated by dense grasses and low chenopod shrubs. Barley Mitchell grass (Astrebla pectinata) is the dominant ground cover, with bluebush (Chenopodium auricomum) and saltbush (Atriplex spp.) (Division of Land Utilisation 1974). Whitewood (Atalaya hemiglauca) shrubs and trees occur in places (Boyland 1974, Laut et al. 1977).
From an Aboriginal perspective, the undulating gibber downs were a Land System with few food resources. Animals including macropods, reptiles and birds (especially emus) are found in this land system, however, these would have only been available in small numbers. A small range of economic plants was, however, available. These include the native plum (Santalum lanceolatum) and the ruby saltbush (Enchylaena tomentosa),
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 4 which bore edible fruit (Lance 1982).
While the undulating gibber downs may not have been rich in plant or animal resources, they did provide an abundance of raw materials suitable for the manufacture of stone tools. The gibber cobbles themselves were suitable for making “instant” tools (cf. Gould 1980:72, 131), which were discarded following use. Silcrete outcrops were quarried for stone suitable for making a range of chipped tools. These included long blades fashioned for trading purposes, rather than domestic use (Lance 1992).
2.2 Sand dunes A single sand dune is found to the east of the Habanero 1 well and campsite compound. Distinctive vegetation associations are found on this dune. The vegetation on the dune crest includes a range of species, the most common of which are: sandhill canegrass (Zygochloa paradoxa), spinifex, needlebush, hopbush, emubush, whitewood and chenopods, native fuchsias (e.g. Eremophila sturtii, E. duttonii, E. mitchellii), cassia, bladder saltbush (Atriplex vesicaria), and native grasses such as Aristida spp. The preference shown by Aboriginal people for sandy substrates on which to camp (cf Sullivan 1976, personal observation) concentrated occupation debris in dunes such as this.
Plate 2. View of exposure on sand dune to the east of the Habanero complex showing surrounding dense vegetation.
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 5 The foodstuffs available in the dunes were diverse and include seeds from various species of wattle, which were ground on sandstone grinding stones, baked and eaten or simply eaten raw. Sandhill goannas and marsupials including the bilby, mice and rats would have been dug from the dune sands.
In addition to the plants used for tools, grinding stones made from sandstone were obtained from outcrops in the dune corridors to the south of the project area. Two such quarries were discovered during a survey of the present alingment of the Strzelecki Track (Dillon’s Highway) (Lance 1996).
3. Previous archaeological studies Previous archaeological studies in Central Australia have revealed an Aboriginal presence in the interior of the continent at the height of the last glaciation, at least 24,000 years ago (Wright 1971, Smith 1989).
Hughes and Lampert (1980:60), observed scatters of stone artefacts on Pleistocene clay dune cores near Nappa Merrie. They excavated one site but found artefacts only in the upper, recent mobile sand layer, not in the Pleistocene aged dune core. The artefacts could also be assigned to microblade industries, generally accepted as being more recent than 4-5,000 years. Hughes and Lampert (1985:60) therefore concluded that none of the stone artefacts found at this site had been deposited during the Pleistocene.
Most investigated sites also date from the late Holocene period, more recent than 4-5,000 years ago (Williams 1988, Lampert and Hughes 1988). One Pleistocene site south of Moomba was investigated, where radiocarbon dating revealed occupation dating to at least 13,500 years (Wasson 1983:102). Hughes and Lampert (1980:63) claim to have located further in situ deposits in clay cores of a sand dune near Strzelecki Creek.
The limited numbers of Pleistocene sites and the predominance of small Holocene sites found in this region has been interpreted as the effect of fleeting visits into the desert during the Pleistocene, made by Aboriginal people who were based in areas with reliable water supplies such as the Flinders Ranges. The large numbers of late Holocene sites suggest that there was a significant increase in Aboriginal populations in the region during the recent past. It has been suggested (Lampert 1985:57-9) that the arid region was only colonised in the mid to late Holocene.
This interpretation is based on an analogy with Aboriginal land use patterns observed by early explorers in the period immediately following European settlement. These Aboriginal people maximised the use of resources by visiting normally dry areas after localised desert
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 6 rainfall (McKinlay 1862:48, Allen 1974, Peterson and Long 1986). Claypans throughout the eastern Strzelecki Desert are filled by rainfall or by overflow of the Cooper’s Creek - Strzelecki Creek system, and these provided a water supply allowing visitation of this otherwise dry dunefield. We can therefore expect that campsites found throughout this area result from episodic, short term occupation.
3.1 Site types Previous studies in the region have led to the discovery of a wide range of sites including stone artefact scatters, raw material sources, scarred trees, ceremonial sites and dwellings. Site densities are high, due to the important focus provided by the permanent or semi-permanent water from the creeks and the abundant raw materials for stone tool manufacture. Dense stone artefact scatters are found in the sand dunes near Cooper’s Creek and high background artefact scatter densities are also encountered in this area. Historical records from this region indicate that at the time of European contact, Aboriginal people in this region were reliant upon the resources provided by Cooper’s Creek, and that they would have moved from the permanent waterholes only after ephemeral water sources were replenished by local rainfall or flooding.
Stone artefact scatters The abundance of silcrete suitable for tool manufacture, results in the widespread distribution of flaked stone artefacts across the landscape. These scatters of stone artefacts are commonly found near water sources and generally mark the locations of prehistoric campsites. Other concentrations of stone artefacts are found at raw material sources (and quarries) and would have been formed as part of the process of working blocks of stone to produce cores and flakes for use as woodworking and cutting tools.
A general background scatter of stone artefacts is found on the undulating gibber downs. This variable density scatter represents the occasional discard of small numbers of tools by Aborigines over the period that the region was occupied. A long period of occupation and the ready availability of raw materials for stone artefact manufacture, combined to give the high background scatter densities found in this region. These background scatters range in density from 1 artefact/1,500m2 to 1 artefact/5m2.
Raw material sources Stone used for the manufacture of stone tools was readily available from scattered outcrops in the gibber. While silcrete is widespread, unweathered material was preferred for toolmaking, as it fractures more predictably. Silcrete cobbles were periodically used for the manufacture of impromptu tools. These would have been quickly discarded following use. Tools made from better raw materials were more likely to have been kept for later use (cf Gould 1977:164). Dense concentrations of stone artefacts in workshops near the
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 7 silcrete outcrops reveal the location of these stone sources.
In addition to providing stone for the production of tools used for domestic purposes, stone sources have been found which were used to make grinding stones for trade. Grinding stones are found in campsites throughout the Strzelecki Desert. Grinding stone quarries have been found in the dunes several kilometres south of the Habanero wells.
Scarred trees Trees from which pieces of bark were removed for utensils or shelter are found along major watercourses in this region. The origin of these scars is often difficult to distinguish, as scars were also caused by Europeans and by natural causes, including insect attack and fire. These scars provide evidence for an Aboriginal presence, however, they provide little information on Aboriginal domestic life, beyond that previously shown from historical accounts.
Ceremonial sites Ceremonial grounds marked by stone arrangements are known from this district. These comprise large circles of stones, sometimes associated with cleared pathways. A number of these sites are known from the Cooper’s Creek area (Lance and Hughes 1983, Hiscock 1984, McFarlane nd, Malcolm Ebsworth personal communication). These arrangements may have been associated with ceremonies or secular activities. Most recorded stone arrangements occur on tablelands where stone blocks and gibber cobbles occur, or on the gibber downs. A number of stone circles are known from dune country in the Strzelecki Creek area. In addition to the stone circles, other sites associated with ritual activities are known from the historical accounts of early settlers and amateur anthropologists (e.g. Horne and Aiston 1924). While these sites would have been of considerable importance to Aboriginal people in the past, knowledge of these sites has been lost with the break-down of traditional Aboriginal life and resultant loss of knowledge about sites and ceremony.
Dwellings A number of wooden structures, all that remains of Aboriginal dwellings, have been found to the north of the Habanero wells, on the hills overlooking Innamincka township. These structures would originally have formed the framework on which grass and reeds was placed to provide a water and wind proof covering. These structures were found during a program of field reconnaissance, when a number of such Aboriginal dwellings were recorded (Robins 1981, Lance 1996). The timber used for the construction of these structures bears cut marks which reveals that it was felled with a metal axe. This indicates that the structures were constructed since the arrival of Europeans in the district and may have been built by Aboriginal shepherds working in the area in the years from 1880 to 1910 (Robins 1981:89).
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 8 Because these structures are fragile and are destroyed by fire, white ant and flood, they are very rare and hence are of considerable archaeological value.
4. Study methodology A thorough inspection of the ground surface was carried out to identify cultural remains and delineate areas of high archaeological sensitivity to guide the placement of future construction activities (Figure 3). The survey area was examined closely by foot traverse. Areas with good ground surface visibility were targeted, when these were observed during the transects. A number of traverses across and along the sand dune, provided the best opportunity to detect Aboriginal habitation material, given the widespread occurrence of occupation materials found in dunes throughout the region. Traces of Indigenous habitation were recorded. There was no evidence of historical non-Indigenous activity.
Previous investigations in this region have revealed the presence of Aboriginal occupation material on the gibber downs. This primarily comprises a low-density background scatter of stone artefacts, with localised dense patches in areas with suitable tool-making stone. In these areas are found raw material sources with associated workshops. Criteria have been developed to distinguish the generalised background scatter found across the landscape from the denser clusters of artefacts that mark raw material sources and quarries.
These include:
1. Contain more than 5 artefacts. 2. Cover 5m2 or more in area. 3. The average artefact density is greater than 5x the average density of the background scatter. 4. Average density of at least 5/m2. 5. Contains a stone artefact assemblage rich in implements or conjoinable pieces (indicating a workshop), or contains cultural items other than stone artefacts, such as hearthstones, bone or shell.
As there were few clusters of artefacts, the distinction between the background scatters and sites was easily recognised. Site boundaries were defined on the basis of artefact density rather than boundaries of exposure.
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 9 Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 10 5. Results The background scatter of stone artefacts was found across the survey area. This varied according to location, with the lowest densities found on the gibber downs to the north of the Strzelecki Track. When the low ground surface visibility is factored into the survey coverage, the artefact density in this area was approximately 1/500m2. Artefact densities on the gibber downs in the southern part of the project area are also low, averaging 1/300m2. Stone artefacts found in the gibber are made from silcrete or quartzite. This ranges in quality from medium to very fine-grained. No formal tool types were discovered, although flake tools with edge damage were present, indicating woodworking tasks were being carried out.
Isolated Find 1 (GDA Zone 54J 475809 6923623) This small quartzite flake was found in an area with reduced vegetation cover, on the gibber downs to the north of the Strzelecki Track and the Habanero 2 well lease. It bears some edge damage on one margin, but no cortex.
Plate 3. Quartzite flake (IF1) showing dorsal flake surface.
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 11 Isolated Find 2 (GDA Zone 54J 476398 6923860) This silcrete flake was located to the north of the proposed Habanero 4 well lease, in an area of moderate density gibber cover and with thick vegetation cover. The artefact is made from a moderately coarse raw material and retains cortex on the platform surface. It is an outrepassé (overshot) flake, with the flake including a portion of the lower core margin. The raw material type, the cortical platform and shallow core, indicate the core from which this flake was struck was obtained locally.
Plate 4. IF2 showing dorsal flake surface with cortex at bottom of flake.
Isolated Find 3 (GDA Zone 54J 476366 6923904) This large silcrete flake (60.3x41.9mm) was found 60m to the northwest of IF2. It has been made from a very fine-grained (cryptocrystalline) raw material although there are small inclusions of a coarser material in the matrix. There is no cortex on this artefact, suggesting that this prepared flake was brought from a more distant raw material source. Fine edge damage is found along one flake margin. This comprises scalloped bifacial flake scars ranging from 0.5-1.5mm in width. This edge damage is consistent with timber cutting activities.
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 12 Plate 5. IF3 showing dorsal flake surface. Note fine-grained raw material.
Plate 6. Usewear along left-hand margin of IF3 shown in Plate 5.
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 13 Isolated Find 4 (GDA Zone 54J 477116 6923850) This silcrete flake was found just to the south of the Strzelecki Track. It is a coarse-grained artefact with a dorsal face completely covered with cortex. This suggests the flake was produced from a core derived from a local outcrop. The flake is thick and measures 60x78mm.
Plate 7. IF4 showing dorsal flake surface.
Isolated Find 5 (GDA Zone 54J 476247 6923053) A quartzite flaked piece was found on a gibber pavement at the southern edge of the survey area. This bore cortex on the platform and dorsal flake surface. It bore edge damage and retouch on one margin and measured 33x47mm.
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 14 Plate 8. Quartzite flaked piece (IF5) showing flake scars on lower margin.
Habanero Site 1 (GDA Zone 54J 475788 6923013 at centre of site) To the south of the Habanero facility is a very dense scatter of silcrete artefacts. This is located on a gentle gibber-covered slope, immediately to the east of the Strzelecki Track. The site has been bisected by a vehicle track, and fines washed from upslope, have been deposited on the central part of the site. Artefacts are clustered in an area of 50x130m at densities of up to 25/m2. The raw material from which these artefacts have been made is a coffee-coloured, uniform textured stone. The majority of artefacts are flakes and flaked pieces, with small numbers of cores. Artefacts in this tool-making workshop are predominantly large, with elongate flakes measuring up to 15cm. The presence of mainly large, elongate flakes (blade-like) and prepared, single platform blade cores reveals the use of this workshop as the source of trigonal blades manufactured for trade. The silcrete blocks that provided the raw material for production of these blades have been completely exhausted in the tool-making process, leaving nothing more than flaking debris.
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 15 Plate 9. View south across Habanero Site 1 showing flaked blocks and scattered artefacts.
Plate 10. Habanero Site 1 showing dense scatter of flaked stone artefacts.
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 16 PAD 1 (GDA Zone 54J 476117 6923252 at northern end) This Potential Archaeological Deposit (PAD) comprises the sand dune located to the east of the Habanero 1 well and camp. Despite the very poor ground surface visibility, nine silcrete artefacts were found on the crest, slopes and around the base of the dune. These included four silcrete cores, four silcrete flakes and a silcrete flaked piece. Average artefact density here was approximately 1/100m2, although locally, this was as high as 1/20m2. Artefacts are all made from coarse or medium grained silcrete. Artefacts are clustered in two locations on and around the dune. The first location is on the western dune slope, where a core, flake and flaked piece were found within 5m. The second cluster is found 200m to the south and at the base of the dune, where two coarse-grained silcrete cores and a medium-grained silcrete flake were found within 10m. An isolated artefact was found on the dune crest, 50m to the east. This is a silcrete decortication flake with thick cortex. The presence of artefacts with a high proportion of cortex suggests collection of stone from the adjacent gibber downs, followed by preparation of cores and reduction at the dune. There is a high potential for further occupation material to be contained in the sand dune, although from the small number of artefacts found on the surface, it is unlikely to be very abundant.
Plate 11. PAD1 showing stone artefact on scalded surface on the dune crest near the northern end of the dune.
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 17 6. Archaeological sensitivity Localised raw material sources with associated workshops are found through the gibber downs, although the location of these cannot be predicted. The presence of campsite debris, such as occurs on and around the sand dune is more readily predicted. Campsites are normally found on dunes, particularly those near water sources. The presence of a minor spring on the western side of the dune, and a claypan to the south, would have provided a focus for Aboriginal habitation in the past. Low artefact densities on the dune may either reflect infrequent use of the location, or indicate that the absence of erosion of the dune has led to artefacts remaining beneath the dune sand, rather than exposed on the surface. No artefacts were found in the shallow blow-outs in the dune crest. Despite the paucity of evidence of habitation sites in the dune, there remains the very real potential for there to be significantin situ deposits in this dune. If activities that disturbed this dune were to occur, further investigation of the occupation deposits should be undertaken first.
7. Summary and recommendations Small numbers of flaked stone artefacts are found throughout the gibber downs as part of the widespread background scatter. At suitable outcrops, more extensive working has taken place, sometimes for the manufacture of locally used tools, in the present survey area, the discovered raw material source has supplied long blades for the manufacture of trade goods.
In addition to the sporadic occurrence of flaked stone artefacts in the gibber, a higher density scatter of artefacts is found on and around the edges of the low sand dune to the east of Habanero 1.
To ensure that the cultural heritage values of the project area are not compromised it will be necessary for the avoidance of the two archaeologically sensitive areas identified in this site clearance. These are:
• Sand dune to the east of Habanero 1 (PAD1) • Workshop and raw material source south of Habanero 1 (Habanero Site 1).
To ensure that there are no further impacts to the workshop site, it may be prudent to block access to the minor vehicle track that traverses the site. Alternative access routes are available to the pumping station south of the project area (Figure 2).
Construction of the Habanero 4 well will occur in an area that has either been previously disturbed by quarrying for road base, machinery accessing the quarry, or is located in an area with very low background artefact densities. Consequently, there will be no impacts to Indigenous heritage items.
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 18 It should be noted that all Aboriginal archaeological sites in South Australia are protected by provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act, 1988, which makes deliberate destruction of registered sites, without the written authorisation of the minister, an offence. If the archaeologically sensitive locations are excluded from development plans, there can be no objection on archaeological or Aboriginal heritage grounds to ground disturbance in the project area.
Archaeological items dating from the post-contact era are protected in South Australia under Section 27 of the Heritage Places Act, 1993, which makes their deliberate removal, damage or destruction an offence. No historical artefacts were located during the field reconnaissance. Should any be uncovered, it will be necessary for a heritage specialist to record and assess the item(s) and provide management advice on the most appropriate impact mitigation measures. There can be no objection on non-Indigenous cultural heritage grounds to construction in the project area.
8. References Allen, H. 1974 The Bagundji of the Darling Basin: cereal gatherers in an uncertain environment. World Archaeology 5:309-322
Boyland, D.E. 1974 Vegetation. In Division of Land Utilisation. Western Arid Region Land Use Study. Technical Bulletin No. 12.
Division of Land Utilisation 1974 Western Arid Region Land Use Study. Technical Bulletin No. 12.
Gould, R.A 1977 Ethno-archaeology; or, where do models come from? In R.V.S. Wright (ed) Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity. pp. 162-8. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies: Canberra.
Gould, R.A. 1980 Living Archaeology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Hiscock, P. 1984 An archaeological survey of the Jackson to Naccowlah road/ pipeline corridor and associated developments, Southwestern Queensland. An unpublished report to Delhi Petroleum.
Horne, G. and G. Aiston 1924 Savage Life in Central Australia. Macmillan and Co.: London.
Hughes, P.J. and R.J. Lampert 1980 Pleistocene occupation of the arid zone in southeast
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 19 Australia: research prospects for the Coopers Creek -Strzelecki Desert region. Australian Archaeology 10:52-67
Lampert, R. 1985 Archaeological reconnaissance on a field trip to Dalhousie Springs. Australian Archaeology 21:57-62.
Lampert, R. J. and P.J. Hughes 1988 Early human occupation of the Finders Ranges. Records of the South Australlan Museum 22:139-68
Lance, A. 1982 Plants and sites: an archaeological botany of the Graman rock shelters. Unpublished BA (Hons) thesis. Department of Prehistory and Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra.
Lance, A. 1996 The Strzelecki Track realignment Innamincka to Della. Route revision at Innamincka, South Australia: archaeology. A report to DMR South Australia.
Lance, A. 1992 An archaeological investigation of the South West Queensland Gas Project. A report to Santos Ltd.
Lance, A. and P.J. Hughes 1983 An archaeological survey of the revised route of the Jackson Oilfield access road. A report to Delhi Petroleum Pty Ltd through Hollingsworth Consultants Pty Ltd, Brisbane.
Laut, P., G.Keig, M. Lazarides, E. Löffler, C. Margules, R.M. Scott and M.E. Sullivan 1977 Environments of South Australia, Province 8 Northern Arid. Division of Land Use Research. CSIRO: Canberra.
McFarlane, E.H. nd Land of Contrasts: recollections. Self published.
McKinlay, J. 1862 McKinlay’s Journal of Exploration in the Interior of Australia. 1962 reprint, Public Library of South Australia, Adelaide.
Peterson, N. and J. Long 1986 Australian territorial organization: a band perspective. Oceania Monograph 40.
Robins, R. 1981 Four Aboriginal dwelling sites in southwest Queensland. Australian Archaeology 12:79-90
Smith, M.A. 1989 The case for a resident human population in the Central Australian
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 20 Ranges during full glacial aridity. Archaeology in Oceania 24:93-109
Sullivan, M.E. 1976 Archaeological occupation site locations on the south coast of New South Wales. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 11:56-69
Wasson, R.J. 1983 The Cainozoic history of the Strzelecki and Simpson dunefields (Australia), and the origin of the desert dunes. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 45:85-115.
Williams, E. 1988 The archaeology of the Cooper Basin: report on fieldwork. Records of the South Australian Museum 22:53-62.
Wright, R.V.S. (ed) 1971 Archaeology of the Gallus Site, Koonalda Cave. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies: Canberra.
9. Glossary Archaeology Techniques used to study the human past by looking at their material remains
Artefact An object made by humans, more commonly referred to stone artefacts in the Australian context
Bifacial flaking Flakes removed from two opposite faces, sometimes with a deliberate rotation of the core using the flake scars from one sequence of flake removals as a platform for the removal of the next sequence of flakes
Bulb of percussion Protrusion on the ventral [inner] surface of a flake or blade, caused by the force used in the manufacture of the flake. This feature is characteristic of a culturally rather than naturally derived stone fractures
Core A lump or nodule of stone from which one or more flakes have been removed
Conjoin analysis Investigation of stone tool technology through the refitting of flakes to cores to reveal the techniques of core preparation and flake removal, and to identify the end-products of reduction.
Cortex Outer weathered surface of a block of stone, which can fracture unpredictably and does not hold an edge and is therefore usually removed
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 21 prior to controlled flaking of a core
Decortication Removal of the outer weathered surface from cores or nodules of rock to permit the controlled working of stone to produce flakes
Exposure Extent to which ground surface has been revealed by erosion or disturbance. Archaeological sites which are covered by sediments cannot be detected without subsurface investigation ie excavation
Flake A piece of stone detached from a core, which has a bulb of force and a platform
Flaked piece A piece of stone which has negative flake scars, indicating that it is an artefact, but which does not bear the two essential characteristics of a flake, namely a striking platform or bulb of percussion
Gibber Rounded pebbles and cobbles of weathered silcrete, generally bearing a weathering skin (cortex). The gravel covered gibber downs are the dominant land system in the Innamincka area.
Ground surface visibility Degree to which the ground surface can be seen. This is a function of vegetation cover and in the present study was uniformly poor (averaging around 30%).
Knapping The removal of flakes from a core using percussion or pressure
Microblade A tool-making tradition that employed small cores, with abundant platform preparation to ensure the removal of small regular blades (elongate flakes).
Outrepassé (overshot) flake A flake which does not terminate with a thinning of the raw material, in the standard feather termination, but includes the lower part of the core. This results from short cores, or use of excessive force for flake removal.
Potential Archaeological Deposit (PAD) This is a landscape unit shown from previous investigation to have a high potential to contain evidence of prior Aboriginal habitation. PADs include sand dunes, particularly those near water sources, creek banks, rocky outcrops.
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 22 Platform A flat area on a flake, where the core was struck to remove the flake (striking platform)
Pleistocene While the Pleistocene epoch began approximately 1.64 million years ago, it is the late Pleistocene period between about 60,000 and 10,000 years that is of greatest interest to those studying Australian archaeology, as it was within this time that Indigenous people first arrived an flourished on the Australian continent.
Quartzite A hard, conchoidally fracturing rock with a sugary texture and comprising sand grains cemented by silica. When the rock fractures, the fracture line follows the grain boundaries rather than passing through the grains as is the case with silcrete
Reduction The deliberate working of a core to produce flakes, increasing the by- products while at the same time decreasing the mass of the core
Retouch The removal of flakes from a stone artefact, typically a flake, to either sharpen a blunted edge or to deliberately blunt an edge to assist in its handling or hafting
Silcrete Stone type made up of silicified sandstones and conglomerates, fracturing with a glassy fracture that made it suitable for the manufacture of stone tools
Site Any location bearing evidence of past human activity
Site clearance Inspection of prospective development area, identifying areas of high archaeological or cultural sensitivity, where development should not proceed. This contrasts with a standard archaeological survey where sites are identified for avoidance. A site clearance permits traditional owner groups the opportunity to protect culturally significant areas without necessarily revealing the reason for that significance.
Stone artefact scatter Surface scatter of stone tools and/or stone refuse discarded in their manufacture
Trigonal blades Blades (elongate flakes) witha triangular or trapezoidal cross section, removed from long cores, often following platform preparation. These
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 23 long blades were mostly produced for trade, rather than for domestic use. They are thought to have been used as knives, or broken into segments and reworked, by the people who acquired them. Few trigonal blades are found at local campsites through the Cooper Basin, while many traces of their manufacture are found at workshops in the Innamincka district
Workshop Often dense scatter of flaked stone, made from the same raw material that has been knapped at the same time. Workshops can potentially be reconstructed, with the flakes being refitted to the cores from which they were struck.
Lance 2010 A heritage site clearance of developments at Habanero, Strzelecki Desert, South Australia 24
Appendix D – Alien Species Flora Assessment
Appendix D
Alien Flora Species Assessment Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA
This should be aligned to the right
Alien Flora Species Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA
20 November 2012 Version 2
Prepared by EBS Ecology for Geodynamics Pty Ltd.
Document Control
Revision No. Date issued Authors Reviewed by Date Reviewed Revision type 1 16/11/2012 A. Sinel T. How 16/11/2012 Draft 2 20/11/2012 A. Sinel T. How 20/11/2012 Final
Distribution of Copies
Revision No. Date issued Media Issued to 1 16/11/2012 Electronic Steve Fermio, Steve Fermio Environmental 2 20/11/2012 Electronic Steve Fermio, Steve Fermio Environmental
COPYRIGHT: Use or copying of this document in whole or in part (including photographs) without the written permission of EBS Ecology’s client and EBS Ecology constitutes an infringement of copyright.
LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of EBS Ecology’s Client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between EBS Ecology and its Client. EBS Ecology accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.
CITATION: EBS Ecology (2012) Alien Flora Species Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin SA. Report to Geodynamics Pty Ltd. EBS Ecology, Adelaide.
Front cover photo: Argemone ochroleuca (Mexican Poppy) at Habanero 1 camp area.
Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Objectives ...... 1
2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...... 2 2.1 Site details ...... 2 2.1.1 Threatening processes ...... 2 2.1.2 Location and land use ...... 2 2.1.3 Climate ...... 4 2.1.4 Statutory requirements ...... 4
3 METHODS ...... 5 3.1 Field survey...... 5
4 RESULTS ...... 6 4.1 Field survey...... 6 4.1.1 Alien flora species ...... 6 4.1.2 Notes on other species recorded ...... 7 4.1.3 Introduced species which occur in the general area but were not recorded within the well lease areas...... 8 4.2 Individual site summaries ...... 9 4.2.1 Habanero 1 ...... 9 4.2.2 Habanero 2 ...... 11 4.2.3 Habanero 3 & 4 ...... 13 4.2.4 Lay down yard and storage compound ...... 13 4.2.5 Jolokia ...... 13 4.2.6 Savina ...... 13
5 DISCUSSION ...... 16
6 CONTROL METHODOLOGY ...... 17 6.1 Spot spraying ...... 17 6.2 Hand pulling / chipping ...... 17 6.3 Suitable Products ...... 18 6.3.1 Herbicides ...... 18 6.3.2 Additives...... 18
ii
Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA List of Tables Table 1. Alien flora species recorded at individual sites during assessment...... 6
List of Figures Figure 1. Location of Geodynamics operational areas...... 3 Figure 2. Average annual rainfall and 2012 to end October rainfall at Moomba Airport...... 4 Figure 3. Habanero 1 and Camp weed occurrences...... 10 Figure 4. Low area adjacent the dam where weed invasion would be expected...... 11 Figure 5. Habanero 2 weed occurences...... 12 Figure 6. Habanero 3 and 4 and laydown area weed occurrences...... 14 Figure 7. Jolokia weed occurrences...... 15
iii
Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA 1 INTRODUCTION
EBS Ecology was engaged by Geodynamics Pty Ltd. to undertake an assessment to indicate the presence and density of alien flora species in and around their operational areas in the Cooper Basin near Innamincka, in the north-eastern pastoral zone of South Australia. This specifically involved all existing geothermal well sites, camp areas and lay down (storage) yards.
It is understood that the results of this survey will guide and contribute to future weed management strategies required as part of the responsible stewardship of Cooper Basin exploration lease areas.
1.1 Objectives
The objectives of the project were to:
Record the incidence of alien flora species within and in the vicinity of operational areas
List species of higher priority due to legislative listings, invasiveness and frequency of occurrence
Highlight flora species not recorded at the time of the survey but likely to be in the area periodically
Manage the overall spread of weeds
Recommend management strategies and methods for control of specific species.
1
Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.1 Site details
Geodynamics Pty Ltd has a number of well sites located in the Cooper basin area, south of Innamincka, South Australia (Figure 1). These are located within the Innamincka Regional Reserve which is 13,818 km2 in size and located in the far north-east of South Australia, approximately 1,100 km from Adelaide. Innamincka Regional Reserve is bounded to the east by the South Australia / Queensland border. The township of Innamincka is located within the Reserve’s boundaries, but is not included as part of the Reserve. The project area falls within the Marree Soil Conservation District (Far North Region Department of Environment and Land Management 1993; North Region Heritage and Biodiversity 1998).
2.1.1 Threatening processes
The main cause of degradation is over-grazing by stock, however, a number of pest species such as Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), Camels (Camelus dromedarius), Pigs (Sus scrofa), Goats (Capra hircus), Foxes (Vulpes vulpes), and feral Cats (Felis catus) are also present (Australian Natural Resources Atlas 2007).
2.1.2 Location and land use
The dominant land uses in Innamincka Regional Reserve are pastoralism, tourism, petroleum and natural gas production. The Bioregion is located in the Eromanga Basin, which contains major oil and natural gas deposits. Wildlife and landscape conservation is also a key purpose of the Reserve, as well as the conservation of historic structures. Innamincka Regional Reserve has been declared a State Heritage Area. The Reserve has been grazed since the 1870’s and is currently leased and managed by Kidman and Co. Pastoral Company. The area is significant to Aboriginal people of the Yandruwandha, Yarrawarka and Dieri groups.
2
Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA
Figure 1. Location of Geodynamics operational areas.
3
Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA
2.1.3 Climate
Data averages were obtained from the nearest Bureau of Meteorology weather station with long term data at Moomba Airport. Data obtained from the Moomba Airport weather station show that the average annual rainfall is 189.8 mm. 2012 has so far received 184.8mm of rainfall with most of that falling early this year (Figure 2). The period in the three months leading up to the survey have been dry with 2.8mm of rainfall falling from the start of July 2012.
160 140 120
100 80 60 Rainfall (mm) 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Average Rainfall Rainfall to date 2012
Figure 2. Average annual rainfall and 2012 to end October rainfall at Moomba Airport.
2.1.4 Statutory requirements
This report fulfils obligations stated under the Statements for Environmental Objectives for Drilling and Well Operations and the 1MW Power Plant which is a requirement of the Petroleum and Geothermal Regulations 2000 sections 12 and 13 under the Petroleum and Geothermal Act 2000.
4
Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA 3 METHODS
3.1 Field survey
Field survey was conducted on the 24 – 25th October 2012. This was undertaken on foot at each location where the general area was surveyed using a ramble method with a priority on targeting areas such as dam overflow areas, tracks and camp areas. Outbreaks of individual significant weeds and patches was marked using a hand held GPS unit which gives an accuracy of +/-5m. Photos of individual alien species were taken to aid in identification for ongoing weed management purposes.
5
Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA 4 RESULTS
4.1 Field survey
Six individual sites were assessed as part of this survey and are listed below;
Habanero 1, includes the camp and main administrative areas, with water treatment areas, storage facility and car parks
Habanero 2, primarily well pad with associated water storage area
Habanero 3, well site and Habanero 4 well site and associated infrastructure for ongoing works including drill sump and soil stockpiling area.
Habanero Lay down yard and associated storage compound
Jolokia 1, rehabilitated well pad, camp pad and associated water storage dam
Savina 1, Well pad and fenced stock proof operational area which has undergone rehabilitation.
4.1.1 Alien flora species
Ten alien flora species were observed across all sites assessed (Table 1). The majority of these were recorded at the Habanero 1 site which includes the camp, workshops and storage area. Jolokia recorded two weed species while the remaining sites each recorded one alien flora species.
Table 1. Alien flora species recorded at individual sites during assessment. Habanero Habanero Habanero Lay Species Common name Jolokia Savina 1 2 3&4 Down Argemone ochroleuca Mexican Poppy Brassica tournefortii Wild Turnip Citrullus colocynthis Colocynth Conyza bonariensis Flax-leaf Fleabane Cynodon dactylon Common Couch Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce Lepidium bonariense Cut-leaf Peppercress Malvastrum americanum Malvastrum Solanum nigrum Black Nightshade Sonchus oleraceus Common Sow-thistle
The most commonly recorded weed species was Lactuca serriola (Prickly Lettuce) and Sonchus oleraceus (Sow Thistle).
6
Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA
Two individual plants of Argemone ochroleuca (Mexican Poppy) were recorded. This species has no herbarium records from the area and is commonly regarded as being restricted more to the south of the pastoral region. It has however, been observed previously by the author on the floodplain of the Cooper Creek. The sample collected during this survey is to be lodged with the state herbarium.
The majority of the alien species recorded in northern South Australia have Mediterranean or South African origins and flourish in periods following good winter rainfall. Although there was above average autumn rainfall in 2012, this did not necessarily result in the growth conditions that could have enabled many species to become prevalent for the spring season. It is still expected however, that species which would normally occur onsite were present at the time of the survey.
Salsola tragus (Buckbush) is the species reported as being the most common alien plant at the camp area by the initial Fatchen 2002 Environmental report and was still observed as being common across all well sites. This species is regarded as a cosmopolitan rather than alien species and so should not be included in the list of alien plants.
4.1.2 Notes on other species recorded
Citrullus colocynthis (Colocynth)
This perennial species is very common in northern South Australia, particularly following late spring and summer rainfall. This was recorded in the drainage channel to the south of the Habanero 1 site. Not considered a high threat for invasiveness and is controlled relatively easily if located and removed prior to fruiting.
Cynodon dactylon (Couch)
Found at the rear of the camp adjacent the soakage pit area. This is a common species along drains and around water points throughout the surrounding pastoral country. Best sprayed with a knockdown herbicide and followed up periodically.
Solanum nigrum (Black Nightshade)
Recorded near the visitors centre, it is common in similar habitats throughout much of the northern pastoral areas of South Australia. This can be controlled with a knockdown herbicide and should be sprayed prior to flowering during periods of active growth. High invasiveness which can rapidly cover large areas.
Sonchus oleraceus (Common Sow-thistle)
Found in the soakage pit areas at the Habnero 1 site, it was also found growing in many other temporarily wet areas at all sites. This is a common species along drains and around water points
7
Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA throughout the surrounding pastoral country. Very easily controlled with knockdown herbicides and while a prolific seeder, does not overtake areas other than permanently wet sites.
Lactuca serriola (Prickly Lettuce)
Located at the Jolokia well site at the rear of the temporary camp pad and was also recorded in high numbers in the lay down yard. A common species in arid regions often found in sites where disturbance occurs. This species can be invasive, however it is rarely seen in large patches. Best control methods are to spray with a knockdown herbicide of manually removed with a grubber.
4.1.3 Introduced species which occur in the general area but were not recorded within the well lease areas.
Cenchrus ciliaris (Buffel Grass)
This species has been widely planted for stock fodder by pastoralists in northern South Australia. It was present on the sandy rises surrounding the Cooper Creek floodplain. This is a high threat weed that should be removed immediately once observed. Forms a large tussock once established and is a prolific seeder.
Chenopodium murale (Nettle-leaf Goosefoot)
This species is common at many pastoral watering points and stock yards taking advantage of nutrition loading at these sites.
Cucumis myriocarpus (Paddy Melon)
Widespread and common species occurs as an ephemeral species often growing quickly after rainfall with the vine dying down leaving scattered yellow and green lined prickly grape sized fruits.
Sisymbrium irio (London Mustard)
This is a common species in wet, shaded habitats, particularly along watercourses, throughout the surrounding pastoral country.
Carrichtera annua (Wards Weed)
Commonly found in low lying areas with sandy loam soils, often by roadsides and under trees. Associated with areas which have been grazed heavily of soil disturbance has occurred.
8
Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA 4.2 Individual site summaries
4.2.1 Habanero 1
The Habanero 1 area is subjected to the highest levels of potential weed invasion due to the proximity to the Dillon’s Highway. There are a high number of vehicles arriving and departing each day including operational vehicles and delivery vehicles. This gives the highest potential for infiltration of seed, from manmade vectors and carried by animals which are attracted to the area for water and food.
Several weed species were present in the immediate area with most of these near the visitors centre and main office. The highest density of weeds was where the septic pit soakage areas were which contained Sonchus oleraceus (Sow Thistle) which out competes all other weeds in the area. These were mixed with dense thickets of the native shrubs Enchylaena tomentosa (Ruby Saltbush) and Einadia nutans (Berry Saltbush). Lepidium bonariense (Cut Leaf Peppercress) was scattered throughout the area, predominantly in the camp area as individuals. The native species Lepidium phlebopetalum (Veined peppercress) was also present throughout the site which is identifiable by its shorter stature, leathery linear leaves and deep purple colour of the fruits. Refer to Figure 3 for locations of weed species occurrences.
9
Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA
Figure 3. Habanero 1 and Camp weed occurrences.
10
Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA
4.2.2 Habanero 2
This site was within an Atalaya hemiglauca (Whitewood) low open woodland on sandy soils with a native understory of grasses such as Aristida contorta (Kerosene Grass). Alien species recorded were Sonchus oleraceus (Sow Thistle) which was scattered throughout the lowest areas of the site where water pools following rain events. An example of this is at the western edge of the dam complex that was dominated by indigenous species (Figure 4).No other weed species existed onsite and targeted searches in areas where disturbance has occurred turned up no results (Figure 5).
Figure 4. Low area adjacent the dam where weed invasion would be expected.
11
Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA
Figure 5. Habanero 2 weed occurences.
12
Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA
4.2.3 Habanero 3 & 4
The Habanero 4 project was underway at the time of the survey and weed occurrences were limited to the office compound area where a large patch of Sonchus oleraceus was present along the fence line, possibly due to water runoff from equipment or infrastructure associated with the project office. Habanero 3 was fenced and had no alien species present in the vicinity (Figure 6).
Surrounding vegetation was dominated by Astrebla pectinata (Mitchell Grass) and Sporobolus actinocladus (Ray Grass). There was no evidence of weed invasion in the surrounding indigenous vegetation in the vicinity of this site.
4.2.4 Lay down yard and storage compound
Large numbers of Lactuca serriola (Prickly Lettuce) were recorded across the entire yard but mostly as individuals or groups of up to five (Figure 6). These could be manually removed using a grubber or shovel. No other alien species were observed in the vicinity of the yard.
4.2.5 Jolokia
Very few alien species were observed in the Jolokia wellsite and associated water retention areas (Figure 7). Overflow areas and low lying depressions were all weed free. One Sonchus oleraceus (Sow Thistle) and a group of approximately 30 Lactuca serriola (Prickly Lettuce) plants at the former drillers camp area were the alien species observed at the time of the survey. Large numbers of emergent indigenous shrubs such as Hakea eyreana (Corkwood) were observed in the area and on the rehabilitated sections of the well pad.
4.2.6 Savina
The Savina well site was recently rehabilitated and contour ripped which has left a large area of disturbed ground. No weed species invasion was visible in these areas however a lerge number of indigenous species had begun to emerge. These included Stemodia florulenta (Bluerod), Sclerolaena calcarata (Sclerolaena), Goodenia fasciculiflora (Silky Goodenia) and Sclerolaena bicornis (Goat head Burr). Sonchus oleraceus (Sow Thistle) was present in the remaining undisturbed native vegetation stratum at densities that were consistent with the surrounding floodplain area.
13
Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA
Figure 6. Habanero 3 and 4 and laydown area weed occurrences.
14
Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA
Figure 7. Jolokia weed occurrences.
15
Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA 5 DISCUSSION
Overall weed densities are considered to be low and previous control efforts for many species appeared to have been moderately successful. The Jolokia and Savina well sites have very low weed occurrences and considering their proximity to the Cooper Creek floodplain and previous high rainfall seasons, these would be very good results for any area which has undergone significant activity in recent years. The main campsite has the most species and highest densities of anywhere most likely due to the high incidences of outside transportation of goods from regional areas. A focus on this site for future monitoring is the preferred option considering the proximity to the main road and the geographical proximity to an ephemeral drainage channel south of the camp.
No alien species recorded onsite are listed as weeds of national significance or declared under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004. Solanum nigrum (Black Nightshade) has the highest invasion potential but was not recorded in high densities that would indicate a threat to native species diversity.
Target areas for weed monitoring are the low drainage depressions south of the camp area where damp conditions may persist for extended periods. This gives emergent species a better chance of surviving to maturity and may also grow at densities that exclude resources for indigenous species downstream reducing biodiversity values.
Rainfall totals for the region are average or above for 2012 with good fall occurring during March and in June which would have allowed alien species to germinate and maintain growth through the cooler months leading into spring. Despite this, the results show that alien species do not present a significant threat at this point in time. In an effort to ensure that this situation remains a three monthly weed monitoring survey should be conducted with control methods undertaken as necessary. It is imperative that alien species are not given the opportunity to develop to a maturity that allows the next generation of seed to remain behind. A monitoring survey and weed control actions undertaken by Geodynamics staff at intervals of 5-8 weeks following rainfall totals of 10mm or more would result in a reduction in alien species abundances.
16
Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA 6 CONTROL METHODOLOGY
There are a variety of weed control methods that can be utilised to effectively control different weed species. Due to the nature of the weed species found within the project area, it is recommended that weeds are either spot sprayed with a knockdown herbicide (such as a glyphosate based herbicide) or hand pulling / chipping. The way to carry out each method effectively and safely is detailed below:
6.1 Spot spraying
The most effective time of the year to spray is when the plant is actively growing;
Look for native plants and cover with plastic bags or sheeting while spraying. If there are too many native plants amongst the weeds then this method should not be used;
Always read the label on the herbicide container, follow the instructions and wear protective clothing. Dilute the mixture as recommended. Add a dye to the herbicide mixture that will help to indicate where spraying has already been done;
If spraying near creeks or other water bodies, care needs to be taken due to the aquatic environment. Herbicides can have a negative effect on aquatic fauna such as frogs. It is preferable to use other more accurate methods such as cut and swab and drill and fill along creek lines;
Surfactants can also be used when spraying plants which have a waxy leaf surface. A surfactant can be added to the herbicide mix which will increase the uptake of the poison through the waxy leaf surface. Surfactants should not be used on or near plants growing in water as they are suspected of affecting frogs;
Where weeds have narrow vertical leaves, spraying might result in herbicide running off or drifting onto non-target plants. In this situation, wipe on the herbicide mixture with a weed wand, sponge or wick applicator;
To increase the effectiveness of the herbicide whilst spraying large tussocks of grass, the grass can be slashed and then left to re-grow for several weeks. The regrowth can then be sprayed.
6.2 Hand pulling / chipping
Hand pulling of smaller plants is easiest when there is moisture in the soil making it soft and the seedlings are much easier to pull out;
Seedlings: take hold of the plant at ground level and pull. If you pull at any point higher on the stem it may break and the plant will then require swabbing with herbicide;
17
Alien Species Flora Assessment, Geodynamics Operations, Cooper Basin, SA
Small woody plants: Take hold of the stem at ground level and gently rock the plant back and forth until it comes away cleanly;
If needed, a screw driver or similar can be used to gently lift the bulb out of the ground;
If possible place both feet or fingers on either side of the plant when pulling out. This helps to keep the soil in place and avoids unnecessary disturbance of the soil.
To chip plants out, use a mattock to remove plants from the ground. Minimise soil disturbance whilst undertaking this activity but ensure that the entire plant and where possible, all of the roots are removed. A number of plants can re-shoot from roots left in the ground. Ensure that any disturbed soil is replaced and patted down.
6.3 Suitable Products
Listed below are a range of products that are available for use in sensitive environments and areas where translocation due to rainfall runoff is an issue. These products are available from Globe Australia ([email protected]) which is a company specialising in chemical products for the turf industry where environmental performance is required.
6.3.1 Herbicides
Gullf Ag, ClearUp Bio 360- Non selective herbicide for general weed control around urban areas,parks,gardens, bushland and other environmentally sensitive areas. For the control of a range of grass, broadleaf and woody weeds around creeks, rivers, lakes, dams, channels and drains. Apply at rates of 75-100ml/15L knapsack.
Monsanto, Roundup Biactive 360g/L Controls many weeds, both in aquatic situations and in a wide range of use situations. Roundup Biactive can be used safely for weed control in aquatic and sensitive environmental areas such as channels, drains, streams and rivers.
6.3.2 Additives
Spraymate Liase Liquid Herbicide Adjuvant Contains 417g/L ammonium sulphate for use with glyphosate based herbicides to minimise anatonism when tank mixing flowable herbicides and improve performance under adverse environmental conditions.
EnviroDye Red Liquid marking dye Environmentally compatible courant for use as a spray marker with pesticide sprays to indicate where pesticide has been applied. Excellent compatibility with herbicides and safe to use with Glyphosate.
18
EBS Ecology 3/107 Hayward Avenue Torrensville, SA 5031 www.ebsecology.com.au t. 08 7127 5607 f. 08 8354 2403
Appendix E – Risk Assessment
Page 52 of 66
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCE/S MITIGATION MEASURES LIKELIHOOD CONSEQUENCE RISK RANKING
EVENT/ACTIVITY
Soil erosion Soil disturbance and erosion All staff inducted into Geodynamics environmental requirements and provided with a copy of The Green Book Signage and fencing used to restrict access to undisturbed areas and those undergoing revegetation and rehabilitation Sediment controls installed in eroding areas within the site Areas not required for operations cordoned off to optimise vegetation cover Possible Moderate Medium Erosion and sediment control measures regularly inspected and maintained Disturbed areas of the site progressively stabilised and rehabilitated Stormwater flows onto, through and from the site controlled Controlled vehicle access to the site through dedicated entry/ exit points, roadways and parking areas Weeds and pests Increased weed occurrence All staff inducted into Geodynamics environmental and competition with native requirements and provided with a copy of The species Green Book Introduction of weed and Geodynamics’ Weed Identification and Controls pest species Poster placed in offices and other prominent site areas Unlikely Minor Low Weed and pest management undertaken in accordance with Geodynamics’ Environmental Management Plan - Cooper Basin Regular site inspections to check for weed infestations Access outside existing site areas restricted through
Page 53 of 66
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCE/S MITIGATION MEASURES LIKELIHOOD CONSEQUENCE RISK RANKING
EVENT/ACTIVITY the use of signage and fencing Newly arrived equipment to site washed at Habanero wash bay All interstate or high risk vehicles or equipment checked and cleaned prior to entering the Cooper Basin area All vehicles required to remain on formed roads and tracks within the project area Disturbance and clearance of native groundcover minimised as far as possible; and Domestic waste stored in covered skips to minimise scavenging Dust Smothering and reduced Areas of native vegetation not required for plant growth operations cordoned off and retained Possible Insignificant Low Potential effect on local air Speed limit of 80km/hr enforced on all roads used quality by site staff and contractors Groundwater and geofluid Reduction in groundwater Geofluid will be discharged and stored in the three levels, availability and quality lined ponds near the Power Plant (Dams 1 – 3); Reduction in surface water Any overflow of geofluid from these ponds will be quality directed to the large lined pond at Habanero 2 (Dam Potential effect on local flora 4); and fauna The maximum amount of geofluid stored will not Contamination of surface exceed the safe storage capacity7 of Dams 1 – 4 Unlikely Moderate Low soils which is approximately 40ML; and Potential negative effect on Final storage/disposal of geofluid salt/brine to be the health and amenity of assessed and approved by DMITRE through people and stock Activity Notification process Groundwater extracted and used in accordance with licence conditions and exemptions applying to
7 Includes a minimum free board of at least 1m in all dams
Page 54 of 66
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCE/S MITIGATION MEASURES LIKELIHOOD CONSEQUENCE RISK RANKING
EVENT/ACTIVITY the use of groundwater for geothermal exploration and development purposes Groundwater bores inspected regularly to check for any potential contamination issues Groundwater levels, extraction volumes and water quality monitored and reported during operations in accordance with the Habanero Drinking Water Monitoring Plan (prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act 2012). Native fauna & flora Potential mortality due to All staff inducted into Geodynamics environmental collisions requirements and provided with a copy of The Potential injury/mortality due Green Book to trapping in well cellars and Habanero Environmental Control Plan posted in water storages on site prominent areas on site Risk of introduced species Fauna management measures implemented in Potential reduction in accordance with Geodynamics’ Environmental species due to movement Management Plan - Cooper Basin away from the area Areas of native vegetation on site that are not required for plant operations retained Access outside existing site areas restricted through Unlikely Minor Low the use of signage and fencing Strict site rules adhered to - to minimise off-road driving and access to non-designated work areas Site fencing maintained to avoid, minimise and manage impacts associated with native animals gaining access to water storages associated with the Power Plant on site Waste management procedures adhered to - to reduce potential food sources for introduced pests and vermin Clearance of native vegetation is avoided as far as
Page 55 of 66
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCE/S MITIGATION MEASURES LIKELIHOOD CONSEQUENCE RISK RANKING
EVENT/ACTIVITY reasonably practical Facilities, pits/cellars and water storages appropriately fenced/covered to minimise access to native fauna Well cellars and water storages regularly inspected to check for trapped animals; and Large dam at Habanero 2 will have fauna and personnel emergency egress mats installed Indigenous heritage Disturbance of Aboriginal All staff inducted into Geodynamics environmental heritage sites requirements and provided with a copy of The Green Book Habanero Environmental Control Plan posted in prominent areas on site Indigenous heritage management measures implemented in accordance with Geodynamics’ Environmental Management Manual Site fencing to prevent access to the sand dune to the east of the main Habanero camp and the indigenous heritage workshop and raw material Unlikely Minor Low area immediately south of the site; and If Aboriginal heritage objects are discovered work stopped and: o the Aboriginal Affairs Division of the Department of Premier and Cabinet notified; and o heritage specialist commissioned to record and assess the item(s) and provide management advice on the most appropriate impact mitigations measures and any consultation required with traditional owners.
Page 56 of 66
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCE/S MITIGATION MEASURES LIKELIHOOD CONSEQUENCE RISK RANKING
EVENT/ACTIVITY
Fuels, chemicals and Contamination of soil, Fuels and chemicals stored in accordance with EPA wastewater groundwater and surface requirements water caused by spills or Chemical flushings are managed in accordance inappropriate storage of with Geodynamics’ procedure Caustic Cleaning fuels and chemicals Brine Heat Exchangers Operating Procedure All staff inducted into Geodynamics environmental requirements and provided with a copy of The Green Book Fuels and chemicals stored in accordance with Geodynamics’ Environmental Management Plan - Cooper Basin consistent with the requirements of the South Australian EPA’s bunding guideline 080/12 Bunding & Spill Management (August 2012) Spills cleaned up immediately and any contaminated soil treated and disposed of in accordance with the waste management procedure Unlikely Minor Low Spill kits located in close proximity to fuel and chemical storage and refuelling areas Sites regularly inspected to ensure chemicals and fuels stored in bunded and/or double skinned storage tanks and areas in accordance with EPA requirements. Incident Response and reporting procedures implemented in accordance with Geodynamics’ corporate management system requirements Material Safety Data Sheets available on site for all fuels and chemicals stored on site Wastewater treatment plants regularly inspected and maintained by manufacturer’s service representatives Effluent disposal/transpiration areas regularly
Page 57 of 66
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCE/S MITIGATION MEASURES LIKELIHOOD CONSEQUENCE RISK RANKING
EVENT/ACTIVITY inspected to ensure compliance with Geodynamics’ Environmental Management Plan - Cooper Basin
Waste materials Contamination of soil, All wastes to be disposed of at an EPA licensed groundwater and surface facility water No wastes disposed of at the Innamincka landfill Impact on local air quality Wastewater must be treated and disposed of in and environment accordance with the SA Public Health (Wastewater) Health impacts from toxic Regulations 2013 and the SA Health On Site and hazardous substances Wastewater Systems Code, April 2013 on personnel and public All staff inducted into Geodynamics environmental requirements and provided with a copy of The Green Book Wastes managed in accordance with Geodynamics’ Environmental Management Plan - Cooper Basin. Production of waste minimised and waste products reused and recycled wherever practically possible Possible Insignificant Low Domestic and potentially wind borne waste (e.g. paper, plastic etc.) stored in covered skips Waste segregated for recycling No burial or burning of waste on-site Contaminated soil and other material requiring disposal to special facilities stored separately Wastes covered when transported offsite Listed Wastes managed in accordance with Geodynamics’ Environmental Management Plan - Cooper Basin and EPA requirements including no such wastes to be removed from site without the necessary authorisation and paperwork completed. Solid or liquid waste removed from opened
Page 58 of 66
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCE/S MITIGATION MEASURES LIKELIHOOD CONSEQUENCE RISK RANKING
EVENT/ACTIVITY equipment items shall be treated as hazardous and contained in suitable containers for off-site processing or disposal in accordance with EPA requirements.. Site rehabilitation Unsuccessful rehabilitation Site areas no longer required for operations Unacceptable erosion rates cordoned off to encourage regrowth of vegetation Loss of critical vegetation Disturbed areas not required for operations Sub-optimal regrowth of rehabilitated in accordance with Geodynamics’ vegetation Environmental Management Plan - Cooper Basin Impact on visual amenity of Stock proof fencing of any remaining vegetation or site regrowth within site areas maintained until vegetation is sufficiently established The Implementation of erosion and sediment controls as Possible Moderate Medium required Ripping of compacted surfaces (other than gibber surfaces) to encourage regrowth All equipment (including ancillary equipment) decommissioned and removed from site Any stockpiled topsoil material respread over the site Ground surface re-contoured to approximate pre- existing contours. Plant or pipeline failure & Contamination of soils, Plant operated and managed in accordance with other operational hazards surface water & shallow DMITRE approved 1MW Power Plant Operational groundwater aquifers with Manual/Procedures geofluid GDY Cooper Basin Emergency Response Plan in Injury to staff and public place and equipment and facilities available on site Unlikely Major Medium Risk to human health to deal with any emergency incident at the Power Effect on local air quality Plant or associated infrastructure Any modifications or repairs to plant and equipment installed at the Power Plant to be in accordance
Page 59 of 66
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCE/S MITIGATION MEASURES LIKELIHOOD CONSEQUENCE RISK RANKING
EVENT/ACTIVITY with Australian Standards, or approved international equivalents that are equally stringent, to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements of Australia Chemical flushings from equipment in the Power Plant shall be conveyed to the ‘chemical dam’ and waste tank via the drain piping. The ‘chemical dam’ contents shall be treated as hazardous, with procedures and PPE requirements developed for activities that involve contact with fluids All high pressure piping in the vicinity of vehicle traffic shall have barrier protection 40 ML dam at Habanero 2 will have fauna and personnel emergency egress mats installed Uninsulated piping will be fenced, screened, or barricaded off to prevent accidental contact with personnel, unless located in remote areas of the plant, in which case it shall have safety signage.
Page 60 of 66
Appendix F – The Green Book
Appendix F
THE GREEN BOOK INTRODUCTION CONTENT The Green Book is provided to all personnel and visitors who successfully Introduction 2 complete Geodynamics’ (or one of its contractor’s) site environmental Further Information 2 inductions. Environmental Policy 4 It is intended as an easy to read guide for site personnel and visitors to help Environmental Management System 6 them minimise the impacts of geothermal exploration and development activities on the natural environment, heritage and local community in the Environment Plans & Guidance Notes 6 Cooper Basin. Environmental Approvals 7 More detailed information and guidance on the topics covered in the Green Section 1 Permit To Excavate or Clear 8 Book (and others) is provided in Geodynamics’ Environmental Manual, a copy Housekeeping 9 of which is held by its Cooper Basin Area Manager (CBAM). Section 2 Environmental Incidents 10 Although arid, the Cooper Basin area is one of Australia’s most sensitive and precious natural and cultural environments with a wealth of rare and What to do in the event of a spill 11 threatened species and Aboriginal and European heritage. Section 3 Managing Waste 12 Cooper Creek is one of the few remaining river systems in Australia still in a Section 4 Fuel & Chemical Storage 14 natural state with relatively little water use. It flows into Coongie Lakes, an Section 5 Erosion Control 16 internationally protected wetland with very high conservation value. Section 6 Heritage 18 Causing damage (even accidental), to the environment or heritage can incur heavy penalties, including jail. To avoid causing any impacts you must follow Section 7 Flora & Fauna 20 Geodynamics’ Environmental Management System (EMS), or that of your Section 8 Weed Control 22 employer (if you are working for a contractor), at all times while working on Section 9 Noise & Air Quality 24 site in the Cooper Basin. Water Quality & Monitoring 25 FURTHER INFORMATION The CBAM holds a copy of Geodynamics’ Environmental Manual which contains additional information and details on environmental management in the Cooper Basin. If you are in doubt or require further information or guidance, please do not hesitate to contact the CBAM or Geodynamics’ Environmental and Approvals Manager: Howard Coombes
M: 0400 723 302 E: [email protected] Notice boards in site offices and amenities also carry copies of any relevant Strzelecki Desert Environmental Control Maps, Guidance Notes and posters. 2 3 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Our environmental performance needs to be consistent with what the To put this policy into effect, Geodynamics maintains and community, our regulators and shareholders expect from a renewable energy implements an EMS that is accredited to international environmental company working in one of Australia’s most fragile environments. Our standard ISO 14000. environmental policy (below) reflects the need to maintain a high level of The EMS sets out processes and procedures to be followed by all environmental performance: staff and contractors working for Geodynamics on site. Following Geodynamics Limited is committed to the effective environmental management these procedures will reduce the likelihood of an environmental of all its exploration, development and operating activities, while at the same time incident occurring and the potential for your company – or you minimising the social impact for the benefit of present and future generations. personally – to be prosecuted or fined under environmental laws. Our vision is to become a world leading geothermal energy company, supplying The structure and main components of the EMS are set out below: competitive zero carbon energy and base load power to the Australian market. The Company recognises that there are potential environmental impacts associated with exploration and resource development which must be identified at the outset and managed effectively throughout the life of the project. To achieve this, we will: • Maintain and continually improve the Environment Management System across Environmental the organisation. Policy • Comply with all relevant laws, regulations and standards and aspire to higher standards within the business. • Ensure that all employees and contractors receive appropriate training to fulfil EMS their individual environmental responsibilities. • Ensure that we have the necessary resources and skills to achieve our environmental commitments. • Implement strategies to minimise pollution, manage waste effectively, Environmental Environmental Induc- Management Manual use water and energy efficiently and address relevant cultural heritage and Green Book tions, Guidance Notes, biodiversity issues. (CBAM) & Control Plans • Formally monitor, audit, review and report annually on our environmental performance against defined objectives. • Require that companies providing contract services to Geodynamics manage their environmental performance in line with this Policy. • Work towards the achievement of a high level of external recognition for the quality of our on-site environmental management. Geodynamics is committed to providing the resources and support required for the achievement of best practice and the ongoing improvement of environmental management at all of our sites. 4 5 ENVIRONMENT PLANS & GUIDANCE NOTES ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS Some sites (eg Habanero) are covered by Environmental Control Plans (ECP). All activities carried out by Geodynamics and its contractors in the ECP’s are posted on notice boards and walls in site offices and amenities: South Australian part of the Cooper Basin must be carried out in accordance with Statements of Environmental Objectives (SEOs). You should familiarise yourself with any ECP covering areas you are working in and understand the location of: SEOs set out the environmental objectives and criteria applying to ‘regulated activities’ such as: • Site layout and boundary • Aboriginal heritage ‘access prohibited’ and environmentally sensitive zones • Physical and geophysical surveys of land • Approved wastewater treatment and disposal areas • Drilling of wells • Water storages and pipelines • Injection of water or other substances to enhance fractures • Waterways and drainage lines • Forcing water into a geothermal energy resource • Other details relevant to the site • Processing of substances recovered from a well Environmental Guidance Notes (EGNs) are also posted in prominent locations • Construction of borrow pits around site offices and amenities. EGNs provide similar information to that • Installation and operation of plant and equipment presented in this handbook and cover specific topics such as chemical and • Use of a natural reservoir to store a regulated substance fuel storage, flora and fauna, Aboriginal heritage, etc. • Water disposal • Construction of camps, roads, airports, buildings and other infrastructure SEO’s are the main environmental regulatory instrument covering our site activities in South Australia and are issued by the Department of Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy (DMITRE).
Note: Before undertaking a ‘regulated activity’ on site, it is necessary for Geodynamics to notify DMITRE by preparing an Activity Notification (for approval by DMITRE and to also notify adjoining landowners by providing them with a Notice of Entry.
No ‘regulated activity’ can be carried out until DMITRE has approved the relevant Activity Notification. Always check with Geodynamics’ Environmental and Approvals Manager that DMITRE approval has been received before commencing the activity.
Geodynamics exploration tenements in SA & Qld
6 7 PERMIT TO EXCAVATE OR CLEAR HOUSEKEEPING 1 No excavation or clearing work can be carried out without an approved Good site housekeeping is not only good environmental practice Permit to Excavate/Clear. Only the CBAM can issue this permit. Its purpose is but helps to maintain safe and more efficient operations. A tidy to minimise the risk of: site presents a good first impression to authorities, management, auditors and visitors who may arrive at any time without warning. • Unapproved disturbance or destruction of environmentally sensitive 2 areas and heritage sites Do’s • Facilities being located in the wrong place or not in an approved area. 33 Store materials and containers in designated areas. 33 Use bunds and spill pallets where provided Only the CBAM can approve excavation or clearing work carried 33 Notify your manager if you see a potential hazard (leaking 3 out by Geodynamics or its contractors. drum, chemical/fuel spill etc). 33 Ensure the site is kept as tidy as possible and rubbish is placed in waste skips/bins. You must check with your supervisor whether excavation or clearing work is 33 Use designated loading/unloading and parking areas at all times 4 approved otherwise YOU could be held liable for illegal clearing or damage to Aboriginal heritage. 33 Replace coverings (tarpaulins etc) over bins and skips where provided Dont’s 5 22 Store, place or lay materials outside the designated site area 22 Park outside designated parking areas 22 Ignore litter – pick it up and place it in a bin. 6
7
8
Excavation and Clearing at Habanero 4
Good housekeeping practice - placing generators on spill pallet 9 8 9 ENVIRONMENTAL INCIDENTS WHAT TO DO IN THE EVENT OF A SPILL 1 Not all incidents are serious but any incident, no matter how small, must be reported immediately to your supervisor. STOP THE SPILL Large incidents and emergencies will be managed through the Emergency Management Plan or for an incident at a drilling rig, through the relevant rig Stop the source of the spill immediately, IF SAFE TO DO 2 Emergency or Incident Management Plan. Environmental incidents include SO, in a way that is appropriate to the chemicals involved. but are not limited to: This will reduce the level of possible contamination to the environment and groundwater. • Any explosion, fire or burning of materials 3 • Any spill or leak of fuel or chemicals onto the ground CONTAIN THE SPILL • Disturbance of Aboriginal or European heritage items • A complaint by a member of the public or an official Control the flow of the spill appropriate to the type of liquid involved. (REFER TO THE MSDS FOR THE • Presence of weeds or feral animals 4 SUBSTANCE). Prevent the spill from entering any • Unauthorised work or activity drainage line or waterway, by isolating inlets.
CLEAN UP THE SPILL 5
Clean up the spill by referring to the MSDS for the chemical involved. Cleaning up a spill promptly will help to protect the local environment including groundwater. 6
REMEMBER TO REPORT THE SPILL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO YOUR SUPERVISOR 7
Before reporting any environmental incident to a government authority Geodynamics’ Environmental and Approvals Manager must be contacted: 8
Soil contamination caused by fuel leak from generator Howard Coombes M: 0400 723 302 E: [email protected] 9 10 11 MANAGING WASTE Do’s 1 Geodynamics’ policy is to manage waste effectively and reduce the amount 33 Ensure recyclable wastes are separated and placed in the of waste generated by its activities in the Cooper Basin. correct bins/skips The cost of transporting materials into, and wastes away from, remote areas 33 Close/secure lids and coverings on waste skips and bins is very high and there are limited waste disposal facilities available in the 33 Cover dry wastes stored in drums to prevent windblown 2 Cooper Basin. Therefore, Geodynamics’ applies the Waste Management dispersal of potentially hazardous dust Hierarchy set out below: 33 Pick up waste where safe and place in bins/skips provided Reduce 33 Cover all loads of waste prior to transport 33 Report full or overflowing bins to your supervisor Reuse 3 Dont’s Repair 22 Allow waste or rubbish to be left behind at disused or Recycle abandoned sites 22 Store wastes in areas susceptible to flooding or inundation 4 Dispose 22 Burn or bury any waste material on site 22 Allow stock or native animals or birds to forage through waste 22 Throw cigarette butts on the ground – bins are provided 5
However, even after applying the Waste Management Hierarchy there will still be waste materials that can only be disposed of offsite. An example is hazardous and contaminated wastes. These wastes can only be 6 removed from site by EPA licensed waste transporters to ensure such wastes are properly managed in transit and disposed of at authorised locations. To ensure the correct procedure is followed in the transport and disposal of hazardous and contaminated wastes, Geodynamics’ policy is that the CBAM is responsible for authorising the removal and transport of ALL WASTES from 7 its sites in the Cooper Basin. In relation to the management of waste materials generally, the following rules are to be observed. 8 UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES IS WASTE TO BE Good practice - Covered skip prevents waste becoming windblown DISPOSED OF AT THE INNAMINCKA TOWN TIP. and scavenging by animals and birds. 9 12 13 FUEL & CHEMICAL STORAGE 1 Fuels and chemicals must be correctly stored to prevent contamination of soil and groundwater (drinking water used on site comes from groundwater only 20 metres below the surface). Spills and overflows of incorrectly stored fuels and chemicals are one of the 2 most common causes of surface and groundwater pollution.
Do’s 3 33 Store fuel and chemicals in bunded areas or on spill pallets. 33 Refuel in designated areas wherever possible. 33 Ensure lids on fuel and chemical containers are closed/tightened when not in use. 33 Check that bunds/spill pallets are empty of storm water or other 4 liquids before using. 33 Ensure all fuels and chemical containers have content labels and Good practice - Placing of chemical and fuel on spill palette Material Safety Data Sheets are available Dont’s 5
22 Store fuel or chemical containers directly on ground or wooden pallets placed above ground. 22 Leave fuel or chemical containers at disused sites. 22 Damage or obscure labels on containers/drums – they must be legible 6 at all times 22 Overfill bunds, they need ot contain 120% of the largest tank or 25% of total volume of smaller containers 7
Poor practice - Chemicals stored directly over ground, not bunded 8
9 14 15 EROSION CONTROL 1 The soils in the Cooper Basin area are some of the most easily eroded and fragile in Australia. Once erosion starts in this area it is almost impossible to prevent it from spreading. The best way of reducing erosion in the Cooper Basin area is by eliminating 2 or minimising the need to disturb top soil especially in stoney country and vegetation in the first place. For example, if a pipeline or service conduit can be laid safely on the surface or overhead - this is preferred over excavating a trench. 3 Do’s
33 Lay pipelines and services on the surface or overhead wherever safe and practicable to do so 33 Roll/crush vegetation instead of removing it to create access tracks 4 wherever possible 33 Stockpile topsoil to assist site rehabilitation Poor Practice - Track cut by grader has caused severe gully erosion. 33 Orient tracks through more open areas to avoid removing trees and vegetation 33 Divert ‘clean’ runoff around ‘dirty’ areas (eg hardstands, waste and 5 chemical storage, workshops etc wherever possible 33 ‘Walk’ machinery and dozers across floodplain and stony country Dont’s
22 Disturb soil or vegetation any more than absolutely necessary 6 22 Channel or divert runoff into xistinge erosion gullies 22 Scrape tracks into stony surface unless absolutely necessary 22 Disturb or remove vegetation on creek beds or banks 22 Remove stony (also known as gibber) surface unless absolutely 7 necessary
Good Practice - Rolled track on stony (Gibber) surface.
8
9 16 17 HERITAGE 1 Aboriginal and European heritage of national significance is found in the Cooper Basin. It is an offence to destroy or damage heritage items or areas unless a valid approval or permit is held. Aboriginal sites are indicated as ‘access prohibited’ areas on maps 2 (Environmental Control Maps) displayed on notice boards in site offices and amenities.
On the ground, ‘access prohibited’ areas may also be marked with warning tape and/or signage to prevent unauthorised disturbance and entry. 3
Do’s 33 Stay out of ‘access prohibited’ areas – usually fenced off or marked 4 with tape and/or signage European heritage - The ‘Dig Tree’ ( Bourk and Wills) 33 Immediately stop work and notify your supervisor if you think you have found an Aboriginal or European heritage item 33 Exercise caution around sand dunes, clay pans, rocky outcrops 5 Dont’s
22 Drive off approved access tracks or public roads 22 Interfere with or move a suspected heritage item or site 22 Collect Aboriginal artefacts such as stone tools etc 6
7
8 Aboriginal heritage - Dense scatter of flaked stone artefacts
9 18 19 FLORA & FAUNA 1 Many plants, animals and birds in the Cooper Basin are threatened or rare and protected by law. Due to its proximity to Coongie Lakes and Cooper Creek, many protected migratory bird species pass through the area. 2 Santos and Natural Resource Management Board (NRMB) posters identifying animals found in the Cooper Basin area can be found on notice boards and in office/amenity areas. The Woma Python and Dusky Hopping Mouse are icons of the sandy and 3 stony deserts of inland Australia, and the NRMB needs our help to better understand these rare species. Womas are non-venomous, long-lived, mainly nocturnal snakes usually found in sandy country and can grow to nearly 3m and weigh up to 6 kg. They eat lizards, other snakes, birds, small mammals and are one of the few large, 4 native predators in arid Australia. Plains Wanderers are usually seen as single birds but may also be seen in Threatened species: Woma Python pairs and families while breeding. Both sexes have bright yellow bills, legs and fawn plumage. They grow up to 20cm in length and when disturbed will 5 usually run for cover like a quail. Both species are thought to be declining in SA and the NRMB needs more information to get a better picture of their distribution and abundance. 6
If you think you have seen a Woma or a Dusky Hopping Mouse please tell the CBAM or Geodynamics’ Environment and Approvals Manager. 7
8 Threatened species: Dusky Hopping Mouse
9 20 21 WEED CONTROL FLORA FAUNA & WEED CONTROL 1 Several declared weed species are known to occur in the area including khaki weed, mesquite, parkinsonia, African rue, innocent weed, buffel grass and Noogoora burr. Do’s The SEOs covering Geodynamics’ activities in the Cooper Basin require strict 2 weed control and eradication if infestations are found. 33 Stay out of ‘access prohibited’ areas, typically fenced or roped off areas around individual trees or other sensitive All vehicles and earth moving machinery arriving on site for the first vegetation time must be inspected and cleaned at the high pressure washbay at 33 Leave dead trees, limbs and rocks in place where possible Geodynamics’ Habanero camp. 33 Stay on established tracks wherever possible 3 It is critical to ensure any mud and soil containing weed seeds is removed 33 Report injured wildlife to your supervisor. before equipment is used. 33 Fence off or cover well cellars and pits to prevent fauna becoming trapped 33 Keep waste skips/bins covered to prevent foraging 4 33 Monitor pits, wells cellars, holes, sumps and excavations daily for trapped fauna 33 Report any sightings of Plains Wanderer or Woma Pythons – and any other unusual animals to the CBAM or Environment and Approvals Manager 5 Dont’s
22 Leave well cellars or other pits uncovered or open 22 Kill or harm any wildlife, including snakes 22 Unnecessarily clear vegetation other than the minimum 6 required for the job 22 Park vehicles or store equipment under the drip line of trees 22 Use newly arrived vehicles/machinery until they’ve been Noogoora burr embedded in 4WD tyre washed and inspected in the washbay at Habanero 22 Unnecessarily damage trees by driving or working too close 7 – maintain adequate separation distance by staying outside Remember - all vehicles and earth moving machinery the drip line arriving on site for the first time must be cleaned at the high pressure washbay at Habanero camp. 8
9 22 23 NOISE & AIR QUALITY WATER QUALITY & MONITORING 1 Construction, drilling, stimulation and other activities carried out by Geodynamics undertakes a range of water quality testing in the Geodynamics and its contractors have the potential to cause noise, vibration Cooper Basin area including: and air quality impacts. • Testing local bore water used for drinking and amenities to While most operations are undertaken in areas remote from any residential ensure it meets drinking water standards 2 or other noise sensitive areas, it is possible that very high noise generating • Monitoring wastewater treatment plant effluent from the activities could disturb other people. camps to ensure manufacturers specifications and regulatory For example stimulation pumping (particularly if carried out at night), could requirements are being met and any threats to human or be audible in the Innamincka township or in campsites used by tourists near environmental health are identified Strzelecki and Cooper Creeks under certain climatic conditions that occur in 3 • Monitoring and testing local water bores for future use and to the cooler months. ensure current operations are not causing any groundwater Dust generated from vehicles travelling between sites and trucks transporting depletion or contamination. materials and equipment to site are the most common cause of air quality nuisance, particularly for other road users and tourists. The speed limit for all 4 Geodynamics’ and contractor vehicles in the Cooper Basin is 80km/hour.
5 Do’s
33 Select the quietest available equipment and maintain noise reducing equipment (eg mufflers, bafflestc). e 33 Locate stationary noise sources as far as possible from sensitive areas 6 such as camping sites on the Creeks. 33 Notify neighbours – including campers - when operating noisy equipment outside of normal operating hours. 33 Monitor noise and vibrations in sensitive areas. 33 Take any noise complaints seriously and immediately report these to 7 Geodynamics’ Environment and Approvals Manager 33 Comply with the speed limit of 80km/hour at all times
Water sampling using a stainless steel downhole bailer 8
9 24 25 Notes:
26 27 Geodynamics Limited Level 3, 19 Lang Parade Milton 4064 Ph: 07 3721 7500 Fax: 07 3721 7599 [email protected]
The Environment & Approvals Manager gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Steve Fermio and Friederike Grasser in preparation of this guide.
This booklet is printed on Forest Stewardship Council 50% recycled paper
Appendix G – Weed Identification and Controls Poster
Appendix G
Camel Melon (Citrullus colocynthis) Often known as the Camel or Bitter Melon this species is Paddy Melon (Cucumis myriocarpus) not considered a high threat for invasiveness despite being one of the most widespread alien species in the arid region. Manual removal of the root base is the best control method as these are regarded as being perennial in nature and will reshoot from here after rain.
Paddy Melon is a widespread and common trailing annual herbaceous species. Primarily occurs as an ephemeral spe- cies, often growing quickly after rainfall rapidly developing large numbers of yellow bell shaped flowers. Fruits are grape sized yellow and green lined covered with soft bris- tles. Easily manually removed. Paddy Melon (Cucumis myriocarpus)
Wards Weed is commonly found in low lying areas with sandy to clay loam soils, often by roadsides and under drip lines of trees. Grows to around 40cm high, mostly branching from the base. Associated with areas which have been grazed heavily or where soil disturbance has occurred. Spray with se- lective or knockdown herbicide.
Black or Deadly Nightshade is a common species in similar habitats throughout much of the northern pastoral areas of South Australia. Best controlled with a knockdown herbicide and should be sprayed prior to flowering during periods of Wards Weed (Carrichtera annua) active growth. High invasiveness which can rapidly cover large areas. Control with selective or knockdown herbicides. Black Nightshade (Solanum Nigrum) Copied from anbg.gov.au Image by M. Fagg.
Prickly Lettuce is a common species in arid regions often growing to a height of up to 2 metres. The leaves have a dis- tinct blue colouration which are deeply divided attached to stems covered in a mass of short spines. Best control meth- ods are manual removal or spraying with a knockdown herbi- cide.
Buffel Grass was widely planted for stock fodder by pastor- alists in South Australia and is locally present on the sandy rises surrounding the Cooper Creek floodplain. This is a high threat weed that should be removed immediately once ob- served. Forms large tussocks once established and is a pro- lific seeder. Manually remove small outbreaks. Prickly Lettuce (Lactuca serriola) Buffel Grass (Cenchrus ciliaris)
Sow Thistle, also known as the milk thistle grows up to 1.2m high. This widespread species is native to the Mediterranean and south-west Asia. Leaves are lobed and clasp the stem. Can be found flowering for most of the year in good conditions. Control with selective broadleaf herbicide.
Mexican Poppy is a widespread species, often observed lo- cally as single individuals on the Cooper Creek floodplain following periods of inundation. Appears to favour areas where there is a lack of competition from other species. Best controlled by manual removal with hand tools or sprayed with a knockdown herbicide prior to flowering. Sow Thistle (Sonchus oleraceus ) Mexican Poppy (Argemone ochroleuca)
Couch Grass is a common species along drains and around water points throughout the surrounding pastoral country. Best sprayed with a knockdown herbicide applied at the high- er label rates and followed up periodically to ensure new growth from rhizomes does not occur. Can overtake ephem- eral drainage areas.
London Rocket is often found in damp areas such as drain- age channels and water overflow sites. Highly invasive, out- competing indigenous species for resources. Grows to around a metre in height with distinctive long narrow fruits bearing numerous seeds. Knockdown herbicide applications Couch Grass (Cynodon Dactylon) gives adequate control. London Rocket (Sisymbrium irio)
Appendix H – Caustic Cleaning Brine Heat Exchangers Operating Procedure
Appendix H
Caustic Cleaning Brine Heat Exchangers
Operating Procedure
Document Number: HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00513 Revision No: 1.0 Date: 27 January 2013
Head Office Level 3, 19 Lang Parade, Milton Queensland 4064 Australia | Phone: +61 7 3721 7500 | Fax: + 61 7 3721 7599 Email: [email protected] | Web: www.geodynamics.com.au | ABN 55 095 006 090 | Power from the Earth
CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE ...... 4 2. SCOPE ...... 4 3. FULL PROCEDURE ...... 4 4. RECORDING SHEET ...... 15
HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00513-1.0 Caustic Page 3 of 15 Cleaning Brine Heat Exchangers UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Operating Procedure
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this document is to detail the requirements for caustic cleaning of the brine heat exchangers.
2. SCOPE
This covers:
Isolation of the brine heat exchanger system System filling and venting of air Chemical mixing Caustic cleaning Flushing
It does not cover:
Starting power systems Starting the DCS Operating the wells Isolation of brine heat exchangers Shutdown of the 1MW Plant
Applies to
Operations staff
Frequency
Engineering will determine frequency by evaluation of heat exchanger efficiency.
References:
HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00550 Plant Forced Cool Down Operating Procedure HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00573 Brine System Shutdown and Drainage Procedure HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00510 Diesel Generator Pre-Start Check and Start Procedure
3. FULL PROCEDURE
Before you begin, you need:
This procedure Confirmation that all Permits to Work affecting the plant are cancelled A Permit to Work is in place for caustic cleaning Access to the plant and Distributed Control System (DCS) MCC powered Air system healthy Relevant MSDS’s (Sodium Hydroxide, Propylene Glycol)
HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00513-1.0 Caustic Page 4 of 15 Cleaning Brine Heat Exchangers UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Operating Procedure
Safety
The chemicals being used, as well as constituents of the brine, are potentially hazardous to humans. MSDS’s shall be consulted prior to the activity and appropriate risk mitigation steps shall be taken. The hazardous substances present include:
Antimony Sulphide (Stibnite) Caustic solution Glycol Arsenic Hydrogen Sulphide (geothermal brine only)
There is also the potential of Stibine gas being generated if very low pH solutions are created by the addition of acid. This can occur just with localised low pH concentrations so the amount of acid can be a relatively small amount. Aluminium combined with the solution can also create Stibine gas.
Stibine gas is highly toxic with an LC50 of 100ppm in mice. It has a similar rotten egg smell to that of hydrogen sulphide. However, it is quite unstable and rare so the likelihood of generation is low but the consequences are potentially catastrophic.
PPE
1. Safety glasses
2. High visibility vest
3. Long sleeve shirts and trousers
4. Safety boots 5. Ear plugs Additionally if at risk of Caustic or Glycol exposure may require:
1. Face shield/ goggles
2. Nitrile/ neoprene gloves
3. Rubber apron/ overalls
4. Rubber boots
HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00513-1.0 Caustic Page 5 of 15 Cleaning Brine Heat Exchangers UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Operating Procedure
Step Action Status Initial
Caustic Skid Preparation 1. The caustic skid should be prepared for cleaning in advance. This involves setting up all valves and transferring an amount of water into the mixing tank from the flush water tank.
1. System prechecks as per Caustic cleaning IOM 2. HA0-QCH10-CL001 Operational Flush Water Tank Lvl Ind 3. HA0-QCH30-CP001 Operational Glycol Pump Dis Pressure Ind 4. HA0-QCH50-CT001 Operational Mixing Tank Temp Trans 5. HA0-QCH50-CL001 Operational Mixing Tank Lvl Trans 6. HA0-QCH50-CL002 Operational Mixing Tank Lvl Ind 7. HA0-QCH60-CQ001 Installed & Caustic Circ Pump Dis pH Trans Operational 8. HA0-QCH60-CP001 Operational Caustic Circ Pump Dis PT 9. HA0-QCH80-CP001 Operational Clean Return Pressure Ind 10. HA0-QCH10-AP001 Energised Flush Water Pump 11. HA0-QCH20-AP001 Energised& Safe Shower Pump Tested 12. HA0-QCH30-AP001 Energised Glycol Pump 13. HA0-QCH40-AP001 Energised Caustic Dosing Pump 14. HA0-QCH40-AP001 Functional & Caustic Dosing Pump EagleBurgmann Seal Pot pressurised Ensure filled with fresh water and pressurise to 300kPa using hand pump
HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00513-1.0 Caustic Page 6 of 15 Cleaning Brine Heat Exchangers UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Operating Procedure
Step Action Status Initial
15. HA0-QCH60-AP001 Energised Caustic Circ Pump 16. HA0-QCH10-BB001 Full Flush Water Tank 17. HA0-QCH50-BB001 Empty Mixing Tank 18. HA0-QCH10-AA001 Open Flush Water Pump Suc Vlv 19. HA0-QCH10-AA003 Closed Flush Water Pump Dis Vlv 20. HA0-QCH20-AA001 Open Safe Shower Pump Suc Vlv 21. HA0-QCH30-AA001 Open Glycol Pump Suc Vlv 22. HA0-QCH30-AA003 Closed Glycol Pump Dis Vlv 23. HA0-QCH40-AA001 Open Caustic Dosing Pump Suc Vlv 24. HA0-QCH40-AA003 Closed Caustic Dosing Pump Dis Vlv 25. HA0-QCH50-AA001 Open Mixing Tank Inlet Iso Vlv 26. HA0-QCH50-AA002 Open Mixing Tank Outlet Iso Vlv 27. HA0-QCH60-AA001 Open Caustic Circ Pump Suc Vlv 28. HA0-QCH60-AA004 Closed Caustic Circ Pump Dis Vlv 29. HA0-QCH60-AA003 Closed Clean Dis Iso Vlv 1 30. HA0-QCH60-AA013 Closed Clean Dis Iso Vlv 2 31. HA0-QCH70-AA401 Closed Clean Dis Sample Vlv 32. HA0-QCH80-AA001 Closed Clean Return Iso Vlv 1 33. HA0-QCH80-AA011 Closed Clean Return Iso Vlv 2 34. HA0-QCH80-AA401 Closed Clean Return Sample Vlv 35. HA0-QCH80-AA002 Open to Clean Return Three Way Vlv Mixing Tank 36. Confirm Caustic Waste Tank empty (or with enough space for clean), a Empty minimum of 6,000L is required 37. Confirm Caustic Supply Bins are connected and have 1,550 L minimum As required of pumpable contents and isolation valves are open
HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00513-1.0 Caustic Page 7 of 15 Cleaning Brine Heat Exchangers UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Operating Procedure
Step Action Status Initial
38. Confirm Glycol Supply Bins are connected and have 280 L minimum of As required pumpable contents and isolation valves are open 39. Confirm Caustic Skid Control Panel is energised Energised 40. Start the Flush Water Pump Running HA0-QCH10-AP001 41. Open Flush Water Pump Discharge Isolation Valve & pump 2,800 L Open into Mixing Tank HA0-QCH10-AA003 42. Stop Flush Water Pump Stopped HA0-QCH10-AP001 43. Shut Flush Water Pump Discharge Isolation Valve Closed HA0-QCH10-AA003 Comments: The valve must be shut as The Flush Water Tank has enough head to overflow the Mixing Tank. 44. Ensure that caustic cleaning drop out spools are cleaned and ready to be installed. 1MW Plant Preparation 1. Prior to cleaning, the 1MW plant will typically be in 1 of 3 states; (i) online, (ii) offline but still hot (circulating water >100°C), or (iii) offline and cold (circulating water <100°C). The operator must first determine the state of the plant and: i. If the plant is online then the 1MW plant must be shutdown and cooled prior to cleaning. ii. If the plant is offline but still hot, say from a trip event, then the 1MW plant needs to be cooled prior to cleaning. iii. If the plant is offline and cold then the brine heat exchangers are ready for cleaning 2. Prior to shutdown, record the Brine Heat Exchanger Temperature Profile 3. For case (i) & (ii) much of the residual heat stored on the circulating water side of the brine heat exchangers needs to be removed to prevent the cleaning solution temperature from exceeding the material limits. 4. In any case, the brine heat exchanger system including mini heat exchanger needs to be completely isolated from the brine system. 45. If the 1MW Plant is online then: Execute a controlled turbine shutdown in accordance with procedure - Steam Turbine Generator Shutdown Operating Procedure Isolate and Drain Brine Heat Exchangers in accordance with procedure HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00573 Brine System Shutdown, Isolation and Drainage Procedure Leave 825kVA DG online supplying plant auxiliaries and caustic cleaning skid Perform controlled forced cool-down of plant in accordance with procedure HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00550 Plant Forced Cool Down Operating Procedure 46. If the 1MW plant is offline but still hot then: Isolate and Drain Brine Heat Exchangers in accordance with procedure HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00573 Brine System Shutdown, Isolation and Drainage Procedure Leave 825kVA DG online supplying plant auxiliaries and caustic cleaning skid (or start in accordance with HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00510 Diesel Generator Pre-Start Check and Start Procedure) Perform controlled forced cool-down of plant in accordance with procedure HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00573 Brine System Shutdown and Drainage Procedure
HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00513-1.0 Caustic Page 8 of 15 Cleaning Brine Heat Exchangers UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Operating Procedure
Step Action Status Initial
47. If the 1MW plant is offline and cold then: Isolate and Drain Brine Heat Exchangers in accordance with procedure HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00573 Brine System Shutdown, Isolation and Drainage Procedure Leave 825kVA DG online supplying plant auxiliaries and caustic cleaning skid (or start in accordance with HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00510 Diesel Generator Pre-Start Check and Start Procedure) Install Drop Out Spools 1. Drop out spools prevent the inadvertent connection of the high pressure brine system to the low pressure caustic system. These need to be installed before cleaning can take place. 2. It is necessary to positively isolate the brine system from the tie in points. This work should be carried out under a PTW. 48. Close and Lock Caustic Cleaning HP Upstream Isolation Valve Closed & HA1-ENT20-AA001 Lock 49. Close and Lock Caustic Cleaning LP Upstream Isolation Valve Closed & HA1-ENT20-AA003 Lock 50. Slowly Open Caustic Cleaning HP Upstream Blind Flange Bleed Valve Open Ensure there is no trapped pressure, Ensure HA1-ENT20-AA001 is not leaking 51. Remove Caustic Cleaning HP Upstream Blind Flange Removed 52. Slowly Open Caustic Cleaning LP Upstream Blind Flange Bleed Valve Open Ensure there is no trapped pressure, Ensure HA1-ENT20-AA003 is not leaking 53. Remove Caustic Cleaning LP Upstream Blind Flange Removed 54. Install Drop Out Spool with HA0-ENT20-AA901 bleed valve Install 55. Close Drop Out Spool bleed valve Closed HA0-ENT20-AA901 56. Close and Lock Caustic Cleaning HP Downstream Isolation Valve Closed & HA1-ENT20-AA002 Lock 57. Close and Lock Caustic Cleaning LP Downstream Isolation Valve Closed & HA1-ENT20-AA004 Lock 58. Slowly Open Caustic Cleaning HP Downstream Blind Flange Bleed Open Valve Ensure there is no trapped pressure, Ensure HA1-ENT20-AA002 is not leaking 59. Remove Caustic Cleaning HP Downstream Blind Flange Removed 60. Slowly Open Caustic Cleaning LP Downstream Blind Flange Bleed Open Valve Ensure there is no trapped pressure, Ensure HA1-ENT20-AA004 is not leaking 61. Remove Caustic Cleaning LP Downstream Blind Flange Removed 62. Install Drop Out Spool with HA0-ENT20-AA902 bleed valve Install 63. Close Drop Out Spool bleed valve Closed HA0-ENT20-AA902 64. Unlock and Open Caustic Cleaning HP Upstream Isolation Valve Open HA1-ENT20-AA001 65. Unlock and Open Caustic Cleaning LP Upstream Isolation Valve Open HA1-ENT20-AA003 66. Unlock and Open Caustic Cleaning HP Downstream Isolation Valve Open HA1-ENT20-AA002 67. Unlock and Open Caustic Cleaning LP Downstream Isolation Valve Open HA1-ENT20-AA004
HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00513-1.0 Caustic Page 9 of 15 Cleaning Brine Heat Exchangers UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Operating Procedure
Step Action Status Initial
68. The system is now ready to be cleaned Fill and vent Brine Heat Exchanger system including mini heat exchangers and achieve stable temperature using following procedure: 1. The system needs to be completely full of water and vented free of air 2. The Brine Heat Exchangers will contain about 1,000L of geothermal brine which maybe hot. In addition stored heat may exist in the circulating water side of the Brine Heat Exchangers. This heat will cause the temperature of filling water to rise. 3. It is important to achieve a stable and uniform temperature in the system before any chemicals are added. This will be achieved by circulating the system with water for 10 minutes or until the temperature in the mixing tank is stable (whichever is longer). 4. The stable temperature must be below 70°C for a 10% caustic solution (HPP-FN-EX-RPT-00494 Process Control Philosophy for HPP Caustic Cleaning System should be consulted for other solutions) 69. Open Clean Dis Iso Vlv 1 Open HA0-QCH60-AA003 70. Open Clean Return Iso Vlv 1 Open HA0-QCH80-AA001 71. Open Brine Heat Exchanger 1 Vent Valves Open HAD01-AC011-KA81 & HAD01-AC011-KA82 72. Open Brine Heat Exchanger 2 Vent Valves Open HAD01-AC021-KA81 & HAD01-AC021-KA82 73. Open Brine Heat Exchanger 3 Vent Valves Open HAD01-AC031-KA81 & HAD01-AC031-KA82 74. Open Brine Heat Exchanger 4 Vent Valves Open HAD01-AC041-KA81 & HAD01-AC041-KA82 75. Start Caustic Circ Pump Running HA0-QCH60-AP001 76. Slowly Open Caustic Circ Pump Dis Vlv Open & HA0-QCH60-AA004 Throttled Throttle as necessary to achieve slow and steady flow rate. 77. Monitor the filling of the system and control bleeding from vents by partially closing. NOTE: If the mixing tank reaches Low Low Level prior to the system being filled then more water from the flush water tank will need to be added to the mixing tank. Stop the current process and go back to steps 40-43 and add the required amount. HOLD: Once all the air is removed from the system the BHX vent valves can be shut and the operator can proceed. 78. Close Brine Heat Exchanger 1 Vent Valves Closed HAD01-AC011-KA81 & HAD01-AC011-KA82 79. Close Brine Heat Exchanger 2 Vent Valves Closed HAD01-AC021-KA81 & HAD01-AC021-KA82 80. Close Brine Heat Exchanger 3 Vent Valves Closed HAD01-AC031-KA81 & HAD01-AC031-KA82 81. Close Brine Heat Exchanger 4 Vent Valves Closed HAD01-AC041-KA81 & HAD01-AC041-KA82 82. Fully open Caustic Circ Pump Dis Vlv Open HA0-QCH60-AA004 83. Monitor and record the circulation pressures and temperatures to ensure system is operating correctly. Circulate for 10 minutes or until the temperature in the mixing tank is stable (whichever is longer).
HOLD: The operator may only proceed if the temperature is <70°C. Otherwise continue to circulate.
HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00513-1.0 Caustic Page 10 of 15 Cleaning Brine Heat Exchangers UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Operating Procedure
Step Action Status Initial
Caustic Cleaning 1. The caustic cleaning system is now circulating through the brine heat exchangers and the mini heat exchangers at a stable temperature and is ready for the addition of chemicals. 2. The glycol is added first using the timer to give the desired amount and then the caustic is added by watching the levels in the caustic dosing bins to give the desired amount 3. A visual trending process will be used to judge the completion of the clean. This will be done by taking test tube samples and adding hypochlorite which will cause the stibnite to precipitate as a red substance. A simple test tube rack as shown HPP-FN-EX-RPT-00494-1.0 Process Control Philosophy for HPP Caustic Cleaning will be used to visually trend the cleaning process. 4. A trend of increasing quantity of stibnite in test tubes indicates that the stibnite is still being removed and cleaning should continue. If the quantity of stibnite is stable in sequential test tubes then this indicates that no more stibnite is being removed and cleaning is finished. A trend of decreasing quantity of stibnite in test tubes indicates that stibnite is re-precipitating, probably due to cooling of the cleaning solution, and the solution should be diverted to waste (preferred option) or process heat should be added, or additional caustic added. 5. Comparing discharge samples with return samples can also indicate how the cleaning process is progressing. 6. In addition, a before sample will give a baseline for comparison, and a final sample will indicate the total amount of stibnite removed. 7. Once the cleaning is complete the solution needs to be sent to waste and the system flushed with water as described below. Samples of the flush water should also be taken to ensure the level of particulates is low, such as corrosion products. If particulates are deemed to be too high then repeat the flushing process 84. Take baseline samples and Record starting parameters on the record Sample & sheet attached Record 85. Set Glycol timer to 280s Set Note: The glycol pump is a positive displacement pump that delivers at 1 L/s 86. Open Glycol Pump Dis Vlv Open HA0-QCH30-AA003 87. Start Glycol Pump Running HA0-QCH30-AP001 88. Monitor the glycol pump to ensure that it switches off after 280L NOTE: The accuracy of the timer and pump performance should be checked from time to time by visually inspecting how much glycol is sucked from the glycol dosing bins 89. Close Glycol Pump Dis Vlv Closed HA0-QCH30-AA003 90. Start Caustic Dosing Pump Running HA0-QCH40-AP001 91. Open Caustic Dosing Pump Dis Vlv Open HA0-QCH40-AA003 92. Monitor the caustic dosing bins and pump 1,550 L into the mixing tank 93. Stop Caustic Dosing Pump Stopped HA0-QCH40-AP001 94. Close Caustic Dosing Pump Dis Vlv Closed HA0-QCH40-AA003 Note: The cleaning is now taking place. 95. Circulate the cleaning solution for 1 hour or as indicated by monitoring detailed in the next step (whichever is longer)
HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00513-1.0 Caustic Page 11 of 15 Cleaning Brine Heat Exchangers UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Operating Procedure
Step Action Status Initial
96. Monitor the cleaning process every 10 mins by: 1. Taking a test tube sample from the discharge isolation sample line at valve HA0-QCH70-AA401 and adding hypochlorite 2. Taking a test tube sample from the return isolation sample line at valve HA0-QCH80-AA401 and adding hypochlorite 3. Check operating values including pH, mixing tank temperature, mixing tank level, discharge pressure, and return pressure to ensure system is operating as expected 97. The cleaning process can be deemed complete when: 1. The quantity of the stibnite in sequential test tubes is the same indicating that the solution is not dissolving any more stibnite, or 2. The quantity of the stibnite in sequential test tubes is decreasing indicating that the solution is re-precipitating stibnite, or 3. The pH level is constant (only relevant at pH’s <14 as 14 is the pH meters maximum reading), or 4. If the above indicators are not useful then a time based clean of 90 mins should be used, and 5. When the plant is back online, comparison of the pre clean and post clean brine heat exchanger temperature profile will give indication of the effectiveness of the clean. 98. Once cleaning is complete divert the cleaning solution to waste: 1. Switch the 3 Way Valve HA0-QCH80-AA002 from the mixing tank to waste tank NOTE: The mixing tank level will start to decrease and will be empty in less than 3 minutes. It is important to reduce the level in the mixing tank to as low as possible without damaging the circulating pump. A Low alarm and Low Low trip is in place to protect the pump. 99. Monitor the volume in the mixing tank and circulating pump until Low Low level trips the circulating pump.
NOTE: The next step is to flush the system with water 100. Start the Flush Water Pump HA0-QCH10-AP001 Running 101. Open Flush Water Pump Discharge Isolation Valve Open HA0-QCH10-AA003 102. Fill Mixing Tank with flush water until High High Level is reached as Running indicated by light on local control panel 103. Stop Flush Water Pump Stopped HA0-QCH10-AP001 104. Close Flush Water Pump Discharge Isolation Valve Closed HA0-QCH10-AA003
Comments: The valve must be shut as The Flush Water Tank has enough head to overflow the Mixing Tank. 105. Close Caustic Circ Pump Dis Vlv Closed HA0-QCH60-AA004 106. Start Caustic Circ Pump Running HA0-QCH60-AP001 107. Slowly Open Caustic Circ Pump Dis Vlv Open HA0-QCH60-AA004
HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00513-1.0 Caustic Page 12 of 15 Cleaning Brine Heat Exchangers UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Operating Procedure
Step Action Status Initial
108. Displace the cleaning solution to waste by pumping water through the system. Monitor the flushing process by: 1. Taking a test tube sample from the discharge isolation sample line at valve HA0-QCH70-AA401 2. Taking a test tube sample from the return isolation sample line at valve HA0-QCH80-AA401 3. Review samples and assess for particulates, if the particulates are very high then the flushing process should be carried out a second time, with due caution to the limited capacity of the waste tank
NOTE: The mixing tank level will start to decrease and will be empty in less than 4 minutes. It is important to reduce the level in the mixing tank to as low as possible without damaging the circulating pump. A Low alarm and Low Low trip is in place to protect the pump. 109. Monitor the volume in the mixing tank and circulating pump until Low Low level trips the circulating pump.
NOTE: The caustic cleaning process is now complete Remove drop out spools so that plant can be brought back online
110. Close Caustic Circ Pump Dis Vlv Open HA0-QCH60-AA004 111. Close Clean Dis Iso Vlv 1 Closed HA0-QCH60-AA003 112. Close HA0-QCH80-AA001 Closed Clean Return Iso Vlv 1 113. Close and Lock Caustic Cleaning HP Upstream Isolation Valve Closed & HA1-ENT20-AA001 Lock 114. Close and Lock Caustic Cleaning LP Upstream Isolation Valve Closed & HA1-ENT20-AA003 Lock 115. Open Drop Out Spool bleed valve Closed HA0-ENT20-AA901 Remove Drop Out Spool 116. Removed 117. Install Caustic Cleaning HP Upstream Blind Flange Installed 118. Close Caustic Cleaning HP Upstream Blind Flange Bleed Valve Closed 119. Install Caustic Cleaning LP Upstream Blind Flange Installed 120. Close Caustic Cleaning LP Upstream Blind Flange Bleed Valve Closed 121. Close and Lock Caustic Cleaning HP Downstream Isolation Valve Closed & HA1-ENT20-AA002 Lock 122. Close and Lock Caustic Cleaning LP Downstream Isolation Valve Closed & HA1-ENT20-AA004 Lock 123. Open Drop Out Spool bleed valve Closed HA0-ENT20-AA902 124. Remove Drop Out Spool Removed 125. Install Caustic Cleaning HP Downstream Blind Flange Installed 126. Close Caustic Cleaning HP Downstream Blind Flange Bleed Valve Closed 127. Install Caustic Cleaning LP Downstream Blind Flange Installed
HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00513-1.0 Caustic Page 13 of 15 Cleaning Brine Heat Exchangers UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Operating Procedure
Step Action Status Initial
128. Close Caustic Cleaning LP Downstream Blind Flange Bleed Valve Closed
NOTE: The brine heat exchangers are now ready to be brought back online in accordance with procedure HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00542 Brine System Fill, Pressurisation & Warming Procedure
Set the caustic cleaning system to short term storage mode 1. The intent is to store the system to prevent any closed systems over pressurising due to ambient temperature changes while minimising corrosion 129. HA0-QCH60-AA003 Open Clean Dis Iso Vlv 1 130. HA0-QCH60-AA013 Open Clean Dis Iso Vlv 2 131. HA0-QCH80-AA001 Open Clean Return Iso Vlv 1 132. HA0-QCH80-AA011 Open Clean Return Iso Vlv 2 133. HA0-QCH60-AA004 Open Caustic Circ Pump Dis Vlv 134. HA0-QCH80-AA401 Open Clean Return Sample Vlv NOTE: This valve is to be opened to allow for thermal expansion 135. HA0-QCH70-AA401 Open Clean Dis Sample Vlv NOTE: This valve is to be opened to allow for thermal expansion 136. Ensure that pH transmitter probe is wet due to pipe being full of water to prevent it from drying out. If not, remove pH transmitter and store so that probe end is kept wet using supplied re-usable cap and buffer fluid as per IOM 137. Ensure that system is maintained and stored as per IOM
HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00513-1.0 Caustic Page 14 of 15 Cleaning Brine Heat Exchangers UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Operating Procedure
4. RECORDING SHEET
Equipment to be cleaned: Operator: Date: Parameters prior to plant shutdown and prior to clean: Gross plant power output: Brine Flow: Ambient Temperature: Temp upstream of BHX1: Temp upstream of BHX2: Temp upstream of BHX3: Temp upstream of BHX4: Temp downstream of BHX4: Parameters after plant startup and after to clean: Gross plant power output: Brine Flow: Ambient Temperature: Temp upstream of BHX1: Temp upstream of BHX2: Temp upstream of BHX3: Temp upstream of BHX4: Temp downstream of BHX4: Stibnite Level (in Time Temp °C mm from bottom Comments of test tube) Discharge Sample 0
(Baseline) Return Sample 0 (Baseline) Discharge Sample 1 Return Sample 1 Discharge Sample 2 Return Sample 2 Discharge Sample 3 Return Sample 3 Discharge Sample 4 Return Sample 4 Discharge Sample 5 Return Sample 5 Discharge Sample 6 Return Sample 6 Discharge Sample 7 Return Sample 7 Discharge Sample 8 Return Sample 8 Flush water Discharge
Sample 1 Flush water Return Sample 1 Stibnite Level (in Time Temp °C mm from bottom Comments of test tube) Flush water Discharge
Sample 2 Flush water Return Sample 2 Comments:
HPP-SY-OT-PRO-00513-1.0 Caustic Page 15 of 15 Cleaning Brine Heat Exchangers UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Operating Procedure
Appendix I – Flora & fauna impact assessment
Appendix I
2/48 Barwell Ave Kurralta Park SA 5037
Ph: 08 7127 5607 [email protected] www.ebservices.com.au
FLORA AND FAUNA IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR GEODYNAMICS GEOTHERMAL LICENCE AREA:
SEPTEMBER 2009
2/48 Barwell Ave Kurralta Park SA 5037
Ph: 08 7127 5607 [email protected] www.ebservices.com.au
FLORA AND FAUNA IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR GEODYNAMICS GEOTHERMAL LICENCE AREA: AUGUST 2009
Report to Geodynamics Pty Ltd Supplementary report to March 2009 flora and fauna survey
Document Control Revision Date Approved Revision Author Date approved No. issued by type 1.0 17/08/2009 Deb Frazer / Luke Einoder Travis How 18/08/2009 1st Draft 2.0 25/08/2009 Deb Frazer / Luke Einoder Minor Changes 2nd Draft
Distribution of copies Revision Issue date Quantity Media Issued to No. 1.0 18/08/2009 1 Electronic Steve Milne (RPS) 2.0 4/09/2009 1 Electronic Steve Milne (RPS)
COPYRIGHT: Use or copying of this document in whole or in part (including photographs) without the written permission of Environmental and Biodiversity Services constitutes an infringement of copyright.
LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Environmental and Biodiversity Services Client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between Environmental and Biodiversity Services and its Client. Environmental and Biodiversity Services accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party. Environmental and Biodiversity Services
CONTENTS PAGE
1 OVERVIEW ...... 4 1.1 Potential Impacts ...... 5 1.2 Assessment Methodology ...... 6 1.2.1 Habitat Availability Assessment ...... 6 1.2.2 Threatened species impact assessment ...... 8 2 THREATENED FAUNA SPECIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 12 2.1 Overview ...... 12 2.2 Terrestrial Mammals and Reptiles...... 13 2.2.1 EPBC Act listed Species ...... 14 2.2.2 NPW Act Listed Species ...... 16 2.3 Birds ...... 22 2.3.1 EPBC Act listed Species ...... 23 2.3.2 NPW Act listed Species ...... 26 3 THREATENED FLORA SPECIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 33 3.1 Overview ...... 33 3.2 Flora species ...... 34 3.2.1 EPBC Act Listed Species ...... 34 3.2.2 NPW Act Listed Species ...... 34 3.3 Threatened Ecological Communities ...... 40 3.3.1 EPBC Act Listed Threatened Ecological Communities...... 40 3.3.2 NPW Act Listed Threatened Ecological Communities ...... 40 4 REGIONAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 46 5 SEB DISCUSSION ...... 47 6 RECOMMENDATIONS...... 49 7 REFERENCES ...... 50
i
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
List of Tables
Table 1.1. Total landsystems available within each IBRA sub-region compared to ha available within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area ...... 7
Table 2.1. Threatened fauna species that occur or may occur within the Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area ...... 12
Table 2.2. Potential for occurrence of threatened species on-site considering habitat preferences ... 19
Table 2.3. Potential for significant impacts on EPBC Act and NPW Act listed species (highly likely, likely, unlikely, very unlikely). Assessments relate to the varied impacts of each proposed development, such as habitat loss (clearance) and installation of the Transmission Line assessed within March 2009 survey...... 20
Table 2.4. Potential for occurrence of threatened or migratory species on-site, ordered in terms of their habitat preferences...... 28
Table 2.4. Continued ...... 29
Table 2.5. Potential for significant impact of Transmission lines on EPBC listed birds under the Significant Impact Guidelines, and potential for impacts on NPW listed birds (highly likely, likely, unlikely, very unlikely), that are likely to occur within project area (species outside their current range have been excluded-see Table 2.4). Assessments relate to the varied likelihood of collision risk with transmission lines due to their proposed height and location. Species are ordered according to habitat preferences (see Table 2.4)...... 30
Table 2.5. Continued ...... 31
Table 2.6. Potential for significant impact of habitat loss and disrupted movements on EPBC listed birds under the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines and potential for impacts on NPW listed birds (highly likely, likely, unlikely, very unlikely) that are likely to occur within project area (species outside their current range have been excluded-see Table 2.4)...... 32
Table 3.1. Threatened flora species that occur or may occur within the Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area ...... 33
Table 3.2. Potential for occurrence of state threatened flora species occurring on-site considering habitat preferences ...... 35
Table 3.3. Potential for significant impacts on NPW Act listed flora species (highly likely, likely, unlikely, very unlikely). Assessments relate to the varied impacts of each proposed development, such as habitat loss (clearance), and installation of the Transmission Line assessed within March 2009 survey ...... 37
Table 3.4. Threatened ecological communities that occur within the Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area ...... 41
ii
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 3.5. Potential for occurrence of state threatened ecological communities occurring on-site considering habitat preferences ...... 43
Table 3.6. Potential for impacts (highly likely, likely, unlikely, very unlikely) on State listed threatened ecological communities. Assessments relate to the varied impacts of each proposed development, such as habitat loss (clearance), and installation of the Transmission Line assessed within March 2009 survey ...... 44
Table 5.1. SEB ratios and associated vegetation condition ...... 48
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Location of Geodynamic Geothermal Licence Area within IBRA sub-regional boundaries, showing land system habitats both within and outside the Licence Area ...... 8
Figure 2.1. Location of EPBC listed species, Dusky Hopping-mouse and Plains Rat, records within IBRA sub-regional boundaries, showing land system habitats both within and outside the Licence Area ...... 16
iii
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
1 OVERVIEW
Environmental and Biodiversity Services (EBS) was commissioned by Geodynamics Ltd. (Geodynamics) to undertake a flora and fauna survey within their South Australian geothermal exploration site area near Innamincka, South Australia. The initial ecological survey was conducted within four separate survey areas by EBS and completed in March 2009. For further details on site descriptions, results and discussion of this survey refer to the original Innamincka Report ‘Innamincka / Moomba Biological Survey - March 2009’ (EBS 2009).
This Impact Assessment is subsequent to the March 2009 survey report, and presents additional considerations of the potential impacts on threatened species and communities associated with the construction and operation activities within the Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area. This report assesses the likelihood of significant impacts by considering: habitat clearance, the construction of infrastructure such as powerlines and buildings, and the potential impact of transmission lines. The potential impact of habitat clearance has been assessed by considering the proportion of habitat removed within the project footprint relative to the amount of habitat available across the region.
At the time of writing this report specific boundaries or locations of operational infrastructure and associated activities were not available. Consequently, broad discussions of the proposed and potential impacts resulting from geothermal operations on the surrounding environment could only be inferred. More specific quantitative analysis requires further details of the exact size and location of the intended infrastructure project footprint.
Specifically, the objectives of the impact assessment are to determine the:
1. potential impacts of project activities on threatened species recorded during the March 2009 survey (both State and nationally listed species and communities) with reference to Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EBPC Act) significance guidelines where appropriate; 2. potential impacts of project activities on threatened species or migratory species that may occur on site, but were not recorded in the March 2009 survey;
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 4
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
3. potential impacts of the transmission lines on bird species using the Coongie Lakes Ramsar wetland; 4. potential impacts of project activities on the ecological character of the Ramsar wetland in relation to bird populations and migratory species; 5. size and scale of the project footprint and the associated vegetation clearance in relation to overall available habitat or significant vegetation within the wider region; 6. possible SEB ratios of broad vegetation habitats and provide broad discussions; and 7. key recommendations and mitigation measures that may facilitate avoidance of impacts or minimise impacts.
1.1 Potential Impacts
Overall, three key potential impacts that may occur as a result from geothermal operations have been identified. The degree to which the impact will have on the ecological value of the area (individual species, vegetation communities, and available habitat) is discussed in the following sections. The three potential impacts are defined as:
Habitat clearance Bird collisions with transmission lines (low and high) Potential for the creation of artificial waterbodies attracting birds from Coongie Lakes and Cooper Creek areas.
The assessment considered the potential impacts resulting from installation of geothermal power plant sites, transmission lines between power plants, and other associated facilities, as well as the two proposed transmission line options to Moomba surveyed within the March 2009 survey (refer to the March 2009 survey report for description and locations of the transmission line options).
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 5
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
1.2 Assessment Methodology
1.2.1 Habitat Availability Assessment
The degree of floristic mapping available for the project area, as defined by GIS datasets developed by Department for Environment and Heritage (DEH), is incomplete in some areas, and limited in other areas. As a result, to determine the impact of proposed vegetation / habitat clearance of the project in relation to the wider region and on individual flora / fauna species, EBS has utilised land system data within IBRA sub-regional boundaries1 whereby the environmental landscape has been categorised into overall land system habitats.
The Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area spans three sub-regional boundaries which are: Coongie (CHC6), Sturt Stony Desert (CHC2) (which both fall within the Channel Country Bioregion), and Strzelecki Desert (SSD5) (which falls within the Simpson-Strzelecki Dunefield Bioregion; predominantly, most of the Licence Area falls within the Coongie sub-region. In total there are three land system habitats that fall within the boundaries of the Geothermal Licence Area and are Cooper, Merninie, and Tingana, which can generally be associated as floodplain, gibber tableland, and sand dunes, respectively (Figure 1.1).
The total area of the three land system habitats within the Geothermal Licence Area were compared to the total available habitat of the same three land systems within the wider region (i.e. within the borders of the three sub-regions) (Table 1.1). These comparisons permitted an overall assessment of the size and scale of the project footprint and potential vegetation clearance within the Geothermal Licence Area to overall available habitat or significant vegetation remaining within the wider region (see Section 4 for discussion). The below figures do not represent the actual area of impact, as only a small portion of land within the Geothermal Licence Area will be impacted, not the entire licence area.
1IBRA: Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (Version 6.1) is divided into biogeographical regions , of which the regions are further divided into biogeographical sub-regions
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 6
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 1.1. Total landsystems available within each IBRA sub-region compared to ha available within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area
Total Landsystems within each IBRA Subregion IBRA Sub-region Cooper Merninie* Tingana* Coongie 1263000 9848 21330 Strzelecki Desert 165300 6701 1158000 Sturt Stony Desert 14880 172000 4205 Combined Total (ha) Total (ha) 1443180 188549 1183535 2815264
Total Landsystems within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area IBRA Sub-region Cooper Merninie* Tingana* Coongie 153558 2527 1167 Strzelecki Desert 3103 49 9677 Sturt Stony Desert 6794 16278 3508 Combined Total (ha) Total (ha) 163455 18854 14352 196661 Total % of each IBRA sub-region present 11.3% 10.0% 1.2% 7% inside Licence Area
*Please note: total calculations for both Merninie and Tingana land systems are incomplete and underrepresented as IBRA sub-region data was only available for SA and not Qld or NSW, which the sub-regions also occur within.
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 7
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Figure 1.1. Location of Geodynamic Geothermal Licence Area within IBRA sub-regional boundaries, showing land system habitats both within and outside the Licence Area
1.2.2 Threatened species impact assessment
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 8
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
1.2.2.1 Selection of Species Assessed
The threatened species impact assessment reviews the likelihood of the potential impacts (detailed in section 1.1) resulting in a significant impact on conservation listed species (national and state) known to occur on site (recorded during the March 2009 survey) and those with the potential to occur on site (as detailed in governmental databases).
For the March 2009 survey, an EPBC Act Protected Matters database search was undertaken to determine any flora or fauna species that may occur within the project area. The query was undertaken for an 85 x 100 km area (approx. 8,500 km2 search area with an additional 5 km buffer). Similarly, a search of the Biological Database of South Australia (BDBSA) was conducted by Department for Environment and Heritage, within the same search area (including a 20 km buffer) to obtain an inventory of flora and fauna records previously recorded within the region. All fauna and flora species known to occur, or that may occur within the project area were categorised as occurring within one of the three individual land system habitats, based on their known habitat preferences.
1.2.2.2 Assessment Guidelines - EPBC listed species
The significance of the impacts of the construction and operation within the Geothermal Licence Area on EPBC Act listed species (excluding migratory species) was determined through the EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1 ‘Significant Impact Guidelines’ (Australian Government 2006).
The ‘Significant Impact Guidelines’ were utilised to determine if the project area supports ‘important populations’, or represents ‘critical habitat’ for any threatened species.
An ‘important population’ is defined as being either:
‘a key source population for breeding or dispersal, a population that is necessary for the maintenance of genetic diversity, and/or a population that is near the limit of a species range’
The definition of ‘critical habitat’ is defined as habitat used for:
‘activities such as foraging, breeding, roosting, or dispersal; the long-term maintenance of the species; the reintroduction of populations or recovery of a species; or to maintain genetic diversity and long term evolutionary development’,
Where the impacts of the proposed actions may affect an ‘important population’, or ‘critical habitat’, they have been highlighted as potentially presenting a significant impact on a non-migratory EPBC
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 9
Environmental and Biodiversity Services listed species. Whether or not an action is actually likely to have a significant impact depends upon the sensitivity, value, and quality of the environment which is impacted, and upon the intensity, duration, magnitude and geographic extent of the impacts (Australian Government 2006). Also, in determining the nature and magnitude of an action’s impact, it is important to consider all direct and indirect impacts, the total impact which can be attributed to that action over time, and the degree of confidence with which the impacts of the action are known and understood. This detailed determination has been addressed where possible, but given the uncertainty in exact project locations and footprints, has not been conclusively addressed for most species.
1.2.2.3 Assessment Guidelines - Migratory EPBC listed bird species
The significance of the impacts of construction and operation within the Geothermal Licence Area on migratory EPBC listed species was determined by identifying whether the site contains ‘important habitat’. Important habitat for these species is defined as an area that:
‘supports an ‘ecologically important proportion of population’; is at the limit of the species range; is of critical importance to life-cycle stages; and/or, is in an area where the species is declining’
For migratory species there is no definition of an ‘ecologically significant proportion’ of the population under the EPBC Act 1999. For migratory birds it is considered that the criteria used to identify areas of national importance, also provides an adequate indication of an ‘ecologically significant proportion’ of the Australian population of a species. These criteria are outlined by Watkins (1993), whereby an area that supports greater than 1% of the Australian population of a migratory species is considered a site of national importance.
Where the impacts of construction and operation within the Geothermal Licence Area affect an ‘ecologically significant proportion of the population’, or ‘important habitat’, they have been highlighted as potentially presenting a significant impact on migratory EPBC listed species. While the Geodynamics geothermal operations may not have a significant impact in the context of the Significant Impact Guidelines (Australian Government 2006), it may still be deemed as having the potential to impact on the State or regional population. For species where no significant impact was identified, the impact on the State or regional population was assessed by defining whether impacts are highly likely, likely, or unlikely (as described below for NPW listed species).
1.2.2.4 Assessment Guidelines - State listed species / communities
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 10
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
The impact of the proposed construction and operation within the Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area on species or vegetation communities of state conservation significance was considered. Unlike nationally listed species (EPBC Act 1999) there are no clearly defined parameters or guidelines for identifying important populations or habitats for state listed species (NPW Act 1972). As it is difficult to determine exact population numbers of state rated species or communities due to lack of available information, this appraisal is based on an assessment of the likelihood of potential impact of the geothermal operations on each species. We broadly assessed the likelihood of potential impact, via either the removal of preferred habitat, or from direct fatalities. Four broad categories have been used to assess the degree of impact on individual species and communities. These categories are;
Highly Likely – Where there is a good possibility that geothermal operations will result in an impact: Likely – Where there is a possibility that geothermal operations will result in an impact: Unlikely – Where there is a limited possibility that geothermal operations will result in an impact: and, Very Unlikely – Where there is an extremely low possibility that geothermal operations will result in an impact.
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 11
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
2 THREATENED FAUNA SPECIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT
2.1 Overview
Overall, 37 threatened fauna species (2 mammals, 33 birds, 2 reptiles) are reviewed within this impact assessment. Table 2.1 details the threatened fauna species identified as likely to inhabit the Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area, specifying the source used (i.e. EBS March 2009 survey or database searches). This assessment reviews terrestrial mammals and reptiles (section 2.2) and birds (section 2.3) separately.
Table 2.1. Threatened fauna species that occur or may occur within the Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area Family Species name Common name AUS SA Source AVES Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper R BDBSA EPBC AVES Amytornis barbatus barbatus Grey Grasswren (Bulloo) VU R BDBSA AVES Amytornis barbatus diamantina Grey Grasswren R BDBSA AVES Anas rhynchotis Australasian Shoveler R BDBSA AVES Anhinga novaehollandiae Australasian Darter R BDBSA AVES Aprosmictus erythropterus Red-winged Parrot R BDBSA AVES Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift Mm, Lis EPBC AVES Ardea alba Great Egret, Mi, Mm, Lis EPBC AVES Ardea ibis Cattle Egret Mi, Mm, Lis EPBC AVES Ardea intermedia Intermediate Egret R BDBSA AVES Ardeotis australis Australian Bustard V BDBSA AVES Biziura lobata Musk Duck R BDBSA Major Mitchell's BDBSA R AVES Cacatua leadbeateri Cockatoo AVES Cladorhynchus leucocephalus Banded Stilt V BDBSA AVES Egretta garzetta Little Egret R BDBSA AVES Elanus scriptus Letter-winged Kite R BDBSA AVES Falco hypoleucos Grey Falcon R BDBSA AVES Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon R BDBSA AVES Grantiella picta Painted Honeyeater R BDBSA AVES Grus rubicunda Brolga V BDBSA AVES Hamirostra melanosternon Black-breasted Buzzard R BDBSA AVES Lophoictinia isura Square-tailed Kite E BDBSA AVES Microeca fascinans fascinans Jacky Winter R BDBSA AVES Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater Mt, Lis EPBC AVES Myiagra inquieta Restless Flycatcher R BDBSA Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 12
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Family Species name Common name AUS SA Source AVES Ninox connivens Barking Owl R BDBSA AVES Oxyura australis Blue-billed Duck R BDBSA AVES Phaps histrionica Flock Bronzewing R BDBSA AVES Pedionomus torquatus Plains-wanderer VU E EBS AVES Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis R BDBSA AVES Podiceps cristatus Great Crested Grebe R BDBSA AVES Stictonetta naevosa Freckled Duck V BDBSA AVES Rostratula australis Australian Painted Snipe VU V EPBC BDBSA MAMMALIA Notomys fuscus Dusky Hopping-mouse VU V EPBC EBS Plains Mouse (Plains MAMMALIA Pseudomys australis VU V BDBSA Rat) REPTILIA Aspidites ramsayi Woma R BDBSA REPTILIA Emydura macquarii Macquarie Tortoise V BDBSA
KEY
Regions: AUS: Australia (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999) SA: South Australia (National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1972)
Conservation Codes: En or E: Endangered Vu or V: Vulnerable R: Rare Mm: Migratory Marine species Mi: Migratory wetland species, Lis: Listed overfly marine area
BDBSA – Threatened species records detailed within the Biological Database of South Australia EPBC – Threatened species identified within the EPBC Act Protected Matters Database Search EBS – Threatened species observed or captured within the EBS March 2009 survey
2.2 Terrestrial Mammals and Reptiles
Two nationally rated species listed as Vulnerable have been identified for the area, the Dusky Hopping-mouse (Notomys fuscus) and the Plains Rat (Pseudomys australis). Two species with a state conservation rating under the NPW Act identified on the BDBSA have been previously detected within the project area and were the Rare Woma (Aspidites ramsayi) and the Vulnerable Macquarie Tortoise (Emydura macquarii). Table 2.2 details the habitat preferences of the above mammal and reptile species and the likelihood of their occurrence on site.
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 13
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
The potential impacts that are most likely to affect mammals and reptile species are habitat clearance associated with the installation of all infrastructure. Table 2.3 details the potential impacts on terrestrial fauna species and the extent of the impact.
2.2.1 EPBC Act listed Species
2.2.1.1 Dusky Hopping-mouse
One individual of the Dusky Hopping-mouse was caught during the March 2009 survey, and another 12 records have been identified on the BDBSA (Figure 2.1). The Dusky Hopping-mouse was also identified on the EPBC protected matters database search.
This species inhabits soft sandy habitats, preferring dunes with Sandhill Canegrass, Sandhill Wattle, Nitrebush, Sticky Hopbush and other ephemeral plants (Moseby et al. 1999). In South Australia, well- known populations predominantly exist within the Simpson Strzelecki Dunefields Bioregion. The Dusky Hopping-Mouse is known from locations along the Strzelecki Track at Carraweena ruins, Montecollina Bore and near Lake Crossing Bore, Waraninna Creek (Murnpeowie Pastoral Lease), and locations within Quinyambie Pastoral Lease (Neagle 2003).
Within the Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area, the preferred land system of the Dusky Hopping- mouse would be Tingana within the Strzelecki Desert sub-region. Within the Tingana land system across all IBRA sub-regions, the Licence Area contains 1.2 % of the total and therefore only a small proportion of the Licence Area would be impacted by Geodynamics activities. As a result 98.8% of this land system is located outside the Licence Area, with most of the remaining habitat falling within the Strzelecki Desert IBRA sub-region.
Generally, most of the habitat clearance is to be concentrated within the Coongie sub-region in the northern section of the Licence Area. Preferred habitat of the Dusky Hopping-mouse is considered to exist within the Strzelecki Desert sub-region, which largely remains unaffected by any operations or disturbance resulting within the Geodynamics Licence Area. Based on the known evidence and locations of BDBSA records, it is considered that the activities associated with the Geodynamics geothermal operations are unlikely to have a ‘significant impact’ on the Dusky Hopping-mouse considering the amount of critical habitat remaining; however, to conclusively determine if the outcome of proposed development will have a significant impact on this species (particularly in relation to transmission line Option 2), clearly defined areas to be disturbed are necessary for detailed analysis. If most of the disturbance is concentrated away from dunefield country, the impact of habitat clearance is considerably lowered. There has been little survey effort through the region for
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 14
Environmental and Biodiversity Services the Dusky Hopping-mouse; therefore the lack of records for this species in particular areas does not necessarily indicate their absence. The impact assessment has relied on grouping large land systems together, with disregard to detailed habitat descriptions throughout the project area. It should be noted that patches of dune systems and preferred habitat for this species is available within the Coongie IBRA sub-region, despite not being detected in the overall analysis.
2.2.1.2 Plains Rat
After a review of available habitat for the Plains Rat it is considered possible, but very unlikely an ‘important population’ would be found within the project area. A Plains Rat has been recorded only once before within the project area (GPS coordinates: 461960, 6912004); this record is from 1957 and exists within the Strzelecki Desert sub-region on the fringe of the Merninie (gibber) and Tingana (sand dunes) land systems, not the preferred gibber tableland habitat (Figure 2.1). Neagle (2003) lists the Plains Rat as ‘presumed extinct’ in the Channel Country Bioregion, as it has not been located east of Lake Eyre since 1975.
While the area supports chenopod shrublands that have the potential to provide habitat, the Geodynamics Licence Area does not support large expanses of gibber plains and mild slopes containing gilgais and cracking clays that are commonly associated with preferred Plains Rat habitat. However, Plains Rat populations can rapidly increase after good rainfall and then decline severely within months as conditions deteriorate (Ehmann, 2005; Moseby 2006). In times of good years (high rainfall and available resources), it is possible that the Plains Rat may utilise the sandy interdune swales within the project area if they were to occur.
Within the Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area, the preferred land system of the Plains Rat would be Merninie within the Sturt Stony Desert Sub-region. Within the Merninie land system across all IBRA sub-regions, the Licence Area contains 10.0 % of the total and only a small proportion of the Licence Area would be impacted by Geodynamics activities. A total of 90.0% of this land system is located outside the Licence Area with, most of the remaining habitat falling within the Sturt Stony Desert sub-region, whereby the figures are underrepresented due to the Queensland data being unavailable.
Based on the known evidence, it is considered that the activities associated with the Geodynamics geothermal operations will not have a ‘significant impact’ on the Plains Rat as the area does not support a ‘significant population’ or ‘critical habitat’ for the species.
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 15
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Figure 2.1. Location of EPBC listed species, Dusky Hopping-mouse and Plains Rat, records within IBRA sub-regional boundaries, showing land system habitats both within and outside the Licence Area
2.2.2 NPW Act Listed Species Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 16
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
2.2.2.1 Woma
Four records of the Woma have been identified on the BDBSA. The Woma is a cryptic species and is often hard to detect (Ehmann 2005), despite its presence on site. While this species was not detected during the March 2009 survey, anecdotal evidence suggests the Python is definitely present within the area.
The Woma inhabits desert dunefields and sandy plains, usually with hummock grasses but also other natural vegetation. They often inhabit rabbit burrows but may also shelters under hummock grasses or dense bushes. Many sightings of Woma Pythons in South Australia have come from sandy areas in the north-east of the state, predominantly along the Birdsville and Strzelecki Tracks (Wilson & Swan 2005).
Similar to the Dusky Hopping-mouse the Woma is most suited to utilising habitat within Tingana land systems within the Strzelecki Desert sub-region. As detailed for the Dusky Hopping-mouse, within the Tingana land system the Licence Area contains 1.2 % of the total and therefore only a small proportion of the Licence Area would be impacted by Geodynamics activities. As a result 98.8% of this land system is located outside the Licence Area.
Based on the known evidence and locations of BDBSA records, it is considered the Woma would be plausibly common within the area. However, the activities associated with the Geodynamics geothermal operations are unlikely to have a ‘significant impact’ on the Woma considering the amount of critical habitat remaining (dunefield habitat) in the wider region, which should generally remain undisturbed; it is expected there will be some impact on this species from habitat clearance, noise and associated vibration disturbances.
2.2.2.2 Macquarie Tortoise
Four records of the Macquarie Tortoise have been identified on the BDBSA. As the Macquarie Tortoise is restricted to larger rivers and associated large waterholes on floodplains (Cogger 2000) it is hard to detect within terrestrial fauna surveys. While this species was not detected during the March 2009 survey, it is most probable this species exists within the main channel of the Cooper Creek and associated tributaries.
Within the Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area, the Macquarie Tortoise would mostly inhabit the Cooper land system (i.e. floodplain habitat), of which 11.3% is within the Licence Area; therefore, within the wider region, 88.7% (1 279 725 ha) of the Cooper land system is outside the Licence Area. Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 17
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
However, it is expected this species is confined to larger watercourses which will not be significantly impacted upon by geothermal operations.
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 18
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 2.2. Potential for occurrence of threatened species on-site considering habitat preferences
STATUS SPECIES COMMON IDENTIFIED LAND LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE PRIMARY HABITAT NAME NAME SYSTEM HABITAT ON SITE AUS SA
Dusky Hopping Mice inhabit soft sandy Dusky habitats, preferring dunes with Sandhill High - This species was detected Notomys Hopping- VU V Canegrass, Sandhill Wattle, Nitrebush, Sticky Tingana (sand dunes) during survey and has been fuscus mouse Hopbush and other ephemeral plants (Moseby recorded 12 times on the BDBSA. et al. 1999). Cracking clay habitats in northern South Australia. Very Unlikely, but possible – One Plains Rats are found on stony (gibber) plains and record of the species has been mild slopes that have gilgais, predominantly within recorded within the BDBSA chenopod shrubs as well as ephemeral plants that Plains previously in 1957. Most of the Pseudomys require good rains to flourish. In very good years Merninie (gibber Mouse VU V project area does not support australis they can occur on adjoining sandy plains and may tableland) (Plains Rat) ‘preferred habitat’; however, the also occur on gypseous clay soils with deep gibber tableland in the northern cracks and sparse perennial vegetation (Ehmann, section of the project area could 2005; Menkhorst & Knight 2004; Moseby, 2006; potentially provide suitable habitat. Bandle & Moseby, 1999). Woma Pythons are found in desert dunefields and High – This species has been on sandy plains, usually with hummock grasses Tingana (sand dunes), Aspidites recorded 4 times on the BDBSA Woma n/a R but also other natural vegetation. They often Mernine (gibber ramsayi and the project area is within their inhabit rabbit burrows but may also shelters under tableland) known distribution. hummock grasses or dense bushes. Very Unlikely, but possible - This species has been recorded 6 times on the BDBSA and the project area Murray / Darling River System. Restricted to larger Emydura Macquarie is within their known distribution; n/a V rivers and associated large waterholes on Cooper (floodplain) macquarii Tortoise however, the species inhabits floodplains (Cogger 2000). major channels and waterholes, which will not be cleared by geothermal operations.
KEY
Regions: AUS: Australia (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999) SA: South Australia (National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1972)
Conservation Codes: Vu or V: Vulnerable R: Rare E: Endangered
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 19
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 2.3. Potential for significant impacts on EPBC Act and NPW Act listed species (highly likely, likely, unlikely, very unlikely). Assessments relate to the varied impacts of each proposed development, such as habitat loss (clearance) and installation of the Transmission Line assessed within March 2009 survey.
POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACT SPECIES COMMON NAME NAME Transmission Line Option 1 – Transmission Line Option 2 – Habitat Overall Habitat Loss Habitat Loss Loss Unlikely - sand dune country (Tingana Likely - The location of Transmission Unlikely - The location of land system) within the Licence Area is Line Option 2 spans some sand dune Transmission Line Option 1 spans considered to comprise a small portion of country within the Strzelecki Desert sub- floodplain country within the Coongie overall habitat within the wider region region, which supports preferred habitat sub-region, which most supports (1.2%) and only a fraction of this would of the Dusky Hoping Mouse, which is the Dusky Hopping- floodplain habitat (Cooper land Notomys fuscus be impacted. Habitat clearance may have land system where most known records mouse system) which is not the preferred an impact, but it will most likely not be a or populations of this species occur. Due habitat of the Dusky Hoping Mouse. ‘significant impact’ due to available to the broad nature of this assessment Most records or known populations of habitat existing within the wider region, further impact assessment would need the Mouse fall within the Strzelecki primarily within the Strzelecki Desert sub- to be completed if this option is chosen Desert sub-region. region. for installation. Very Unlikely - gibber tableland (Merninie land system) within the Licence Area is considered to comprise a small Unlikely – The location of Very Unlikely – The location of portion of overall habitat within the wider Pseudomys Transmission Line Option 1 spans Transmission Line Option 1 spans sand Plains Rat region (10 %) and only a fraction of this australis floodplain country which is not dune country which is not preferred would be impacted. The gibber habitat preferred habitat of the Plains Rat. habitat of the Plains Rat. available on site is not considered ‘optimal’ Plains Rat habitat and is marginal. Unlikely –sand dune country (Tingana land system) within the Licence Area is considered to comprise a small portion of Unlikely – - The location of overall habitat within the wider region Transmission Line Option 1 spans Likely – The location of Transmission (1.2%) and only a fraction of this would floodplain country within the Coongie Line Option 2 spans some sand dune Aspidites Woma be impacted. Habitat clearance may have sub-region, which most supports country within the Strzelecki Desert sub- ramsayi an impact, but it will most likely not be a floodplain habitat (Cooper land region, which supports the preferred ‘significant impact’ due to available system) which is not the preferred habitat of the Woma habitat existing within the wider region, habitat of the Woma primarily within the Strzelecki Desert sub- region. Very Unlikely – main water channels Very Unlikely - habitat clearance of Very Unlikely – main water channels Emydura Macquarie and waterholes will not be affected by rivers and main water channels within the and waterholes will not be affected by the macquarii Tortoise the installation of the Transmission Licence Area is not part of clearance. installation of the Transmission Line Line
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 20
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
KEY
Highly Likely – Where there is a good possibility that geothermal operations will result in an impact Likely – Where there is a possibility that geothermal operations will result in an impact Unlikely – Where there is a limited possibility that geothermal operations will result in an impact Very Unlikely – Where there is an extremely low possibility that geothermal operations will result in an impact
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 21
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
2.3 Birds
Five bird species of national conservation significance (Vulnerable and/or Migratory or Marine), were identified using the EPBC protected matters search (Table 2.1). During the March 2009 survey the nationally Vulnerable Plains Wanderer (Pedionomus torquatus) was also identified on site (EBS 2009). An additional twenty-seven bird species with a state conservation rating under the NPW Act were identified by the BDBSA and have previously been detected, or are likely to occur within the project area.
Table 2.4 details the habitat preferences of all threatened bird species, and outlines the likelihood of their occurrence on site. The likelihood of each species occurring on-site depends upon the availability of suitable foraging, breeding or roosting habitat. Birds considered to fly over the site are also included.
The potential impacts most likely to affect these bird species include; habitat clearance associated with the installation of all infrastructure; bird collisions with transmission lines (low and high); and, the potential for the creation of artificial waterbodies attracting birds from Coongie Lakes and Cooper Creek. The removal of habitat under the proposed construction has the potential to impact a number of threatened bird species, however this is highly unlikely to present a significant impact under the Significant Impact Guidelines (2006). The species effected by habitat removal and the extent of impact will vary depending upon the type of habitat that is removed. Four broad habitat types are considered to occur across the site, which are largely influenced by the landforms. These include; dunes, floodplains, gibber and woodland. The potential need to construct holding ponds to accommodate water pumped from underground has a range of implications on the resident and migratory bird community at the site. Estimating the likely impacts of these holding ponds is not possible within this risk assessment due to the uncertainty surrounding the size and number of ponds, their longevity and the quality of the water in the ponds.
Table 2.5 and 2.6 provides an assessment of the likelihood of each of these sources of impact affecting each bird species, and estimates the extent of these impacts on the state and national populations.
The following sections provide a description of each species potential occurrence within the study site, and the likelihood they will be impacted by the proposed developments. Due to the large
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 22
Environmental and Biodiversity Services numbers of threatened birds likely to occur within the site, they have been grouped by habitat preferences (i.e. waterbird/shorebirds, woodland birds, gibber/sandplain birds).
2.3.1 EPBC Act listed Species
2.3.1.1 EPBC listed shorebirds and waterbirds
While the Transmission Line route from Innamincka to Moomba, and between the power plants (i.e. Jolokia to Savinia), may present a collision risk to the EPBC listed Great Egret or Australian Painted Snipe, it is unlikely to impact an ecologically significant proportion of the population of these species (Table 2.5). This is based on a number of species-specific factors that are outlined below.
Great Egrets are common along rivers, wetlands and floodplains throughout Australia, with many records from the Cooper Creek and Coongie Lakes region (Barrett et al. 2003). The numbers of Great Egret inhabiting the study site is likely to be highly variable depending upon the suitability of habitat across the area. These Egrets forage in both shallow water and mudflat habitat of saltwater and freshwater wetlands. During dry times numbers will be low across the site, as Great Egrets will be confined to the Cooper Creek. In contrast, when the Cooper Creek is in flood, and the floodplain is inundated numbers will likely increase, however, the site is unlikely to support an important population, as defined under the Significant Impact Guidelines (2006). Therefore it is highly unlikely that mortality arising from collisions with either the high or low Transmission Lines from Innamincka to Moomba, or low Transmission Line between the power plants, will present a significant impact to Great Egrets.
The proposed Transmission Lines are unlikely to impact the Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis) as there are no known records of this species from the area (Barrett et al. 2003). This does not mean that they are entirely absent from the Cooper Creek and Coongie Lakes region, as their distribution within South Australia is limited according to available records. In general, the distribution of the Painted Snipe across South Australia is patchy, and its presence in any particular area is usually unpredictable, hence they are recorded irregularly (Garnett and Crowley 2000). Painted Snipe have been recorded in a wide range of locations, from freshwater or brackish wetlands, which are either permanently or temporarily filled, to wet vegetation in swamps, along drainage lines or within tall grasslands. The Murray–Darling drainage system appears to be a key area for this species, with regular records from the South Australian Riverland (Rogers 2005), and the south east of the state. Their occurrence at any site is often dependent upon the suitability of the site for foraging and breeding. While some individuals are believed to be resident in areas where suitable habitat exists, Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 23
Environmental and Biodiversity Services most individuals are nomadic in the non-breeding season, and are believed to travel widely across the landscape in search of suitable foraging areas. Despite the absence of any records from the study site, a small number of birds may occur on site irregularly, when the floodplains are inundated. The Transmission Line would not reduce the area of occupancy, or disrupt the breeding cycle of any important population of the Painted Snipe, as defined under the Significant Impact Guidelines (DEH 2006).
Collision risks with transmission lines are undoubtedly higher for some species due to their body size, flight behavior, and use of on-site habitat. Of the low and high Transmission Lines proposed, the high option, using 40 – 50 m steel towers is considered to increase bird impacts compared to the low option using 10 – 20 m stobie poles. This is because the high collision risk birds using the site are considered to fly at greater heights. High collision risk birds include waterbirds and shorebirds. These bird groups are of most concern as they are among the larger bodied faster-flying birds in the local community, and they also often travel in large flocks. In general, larger-bodied species such as Ibis and Egrets are deemed more likely to collide with power lines. This is because they are less agile in the air, and therefore less able to rapidly adjust their flight path at the last second when power lines come into view. Fast flying species such waterbirds and shorebirds are also at higher risk of collision, as they are less able to quickly adjust their flight paths compared to slower flying birds.
The size and number of holding ponds directly influences the number and range of bird species that will be attracted to the site. Considering that ponds and dams as small as 10 x 10 m attract a range of waterbirds within the semi-arid and arid regions of SA, larger ponds have the potential to attract a great number of waterbirds. Artificial ponds located anywhere within the site are considered highly likely to attract a range of waterbird species due to the close proximity of the Cooper Creek. Threatened waterbird species that currently inhabit the Cooper Creek, and are therefore highly likely to be attracted to small to moderate sized ponds include the Great Egret, Intermediate Egret, and Little Egret (Table 2.6). Other waterbirds that may use Cooper Creek, but definitely over-fly the study site on their way to Coongie Lakes (60 km north) include the Freckled Duck, Blue-billed Duck, and Australasian Shoveler (Table 2.6). Shallow ponds (<50 cm), or drying ponds with areas of mudflat are also likely to attract a shorebirds. Threatened shorebird species that are known to overfly the site on their way to Coongie Lakes include the Common sandpiper, and Banded Stilt (Table 2.6).
The impacts associated with the diversion of birds from their natural movement paths and foraging areas within the arid zone are unclear. Possible impacts include: the starvation of migratory birds with low energy reserves who visit the ponds expecting a feed (although this is mitigated for much of the Licence Area by the presence of permanent waterholes on the nearby Cooper Creek); increased Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 24
Environmental and Biodiversity Services predation of waterbirds and shorebirds along the banks of ponds by predators attracted to artificial water bodies; collision with infrastructure around ponds; and/or, the uptake of toxins from the water. Chemical analysis results from initial samples of the water that may be held in ponds indicates that it contains high levels of a number of heavy metals and other potential poisons such as arsenic. The toxicity of this water to waterbirds and shorebirds is currently unclear, and requires an extensive review of current literature and reports from other parts of Australia, and the International community. Also, the extent of exposure of these toxins to birds is unclear due to the uncertainties regarding the size and number of ponds that may be used and the length of time that ponds may hold water. This topic warrants further review when development details become available.
Other artificial water bodies proposed for the site include a small sewerage treatment facility. Sewerage ponds located at other remote camps in arid areas of SA are well known to attract a small number of waterbirds. Where sewerage ponds do not contain any vegetation (sedges, reeds, rushes), they are unlikely to attract any of threatened species identified in Table 2.6, and are therefore unlikely to pose any threat to these species.
Based on the current expectation of non-toxic water being held in 1 to 2 ponds of a maximum 2 ha, and a small sewerage treatment pond, impacts on all threatened birds are considered to be highly unlikely (Table 2.6).
2.3.1.2 EPBC listed woodland birds
\
Rainbow Bee-eaters are unlikely to collide with transmission lines, as they are highly agile species that fly fairly slowly. This flight behaviour means that they will be more able to see, and avoid, powerlines.
2.3.1.3 EPBC listed grassland/gibber birds
The Plains Wanderer is considered unlikely to collide with powerlines as they would rarely fly at the heights required to collide with the cables. The largest issue regarding this species concerns the removal and disturbance of gibber habitat. More specifically, areas of gibber containing grassland and mixed shrublands are of importance to the EPBC listed Plains Wanderer (Table 2.6). Habitat removal would only influence a small number of birds, and not constitute a significant impact under the Significant Impact Guidelines (2006). However, habitat removal is likely to influence a significant proportion of the regional population of this species (i.e. >10 %). This is due to the expectation that Plains Wanderers occur across the region at very low densities. Therefore, the pair that were recorded on-site (EBS 2009) likely represent a large proportion of the regional population. Impacts on
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 25
Environmental and Biodiversity Services the Plains Wanderer can be reduced or avoided by limiting the removal of Mitchell-grass grassland and shrubland. These habitats occur patchily across the site, in areas of gibber. Future surveys targeting Plains Wanderers would be useful in identifying the size of the local population, and in identifying their preferred habitat.
2.3.2 NPW Act listed Species
2.3.2.1 NPW listed shorebirds and waterbirds
Collisions by shorebirds and some waterbirds using the site are deemed highly unlikely as they are only considered to overfly the site when transiting to the Coongie Lakes 60 km north. This includes species such as the Common Sandpiper, Banded Stilt, Blue-billed Duck, and Freckled Duck (Table 2.5). Waterbirds that visit the Cooper Creek during their movement north to Coongie Lakes are at increased risk of impact as they will likely be flying at lower heights upon their approach to the river.
Areas of increased collision risk along the direct Transmission Line route from Innamincka to Moomba are likely to occur within floodplain habitats, especially in areas of Coolibah woodlands that occur in close proximity to Cooper Creek (i.e. north eastern end). The proposed Transmission Line connecting the Jalokia and Savina power stations is considered to pose larger threats to birds through collision risk, due to its close proximity with Cooper Creek. Option 2, involving the use of high stobie poles will increase the likelihood of collision risk compared to the lower transmission line of Option 1 (Table 2.5). However, none of the transmission lines are deemed to present a significant impact as they are unlikely to impact a significant proportion of the regional population of each species (Table 2.5).
The possibility of bird collisions with the Transmission Line route from Innamincka to Moomba, and the Transmission Line connecting the Jalokia and Savina power stations is likely to be highest when the Cooper Creek is in flood, and the floodplain is inundated. This is because bird numbers will be elevated at this time, as inundated floodplains in the arid lands provide substantial foraging habitat for a wide range of waterbirds and shorebirds. The increased number of birds using the site during floods has been considered in the assessment of the likelihood of impact on each species, as shown in Table 2.5. The likelihood of significant impact was deemed unlikely for each species, as collisions are unlikely to influence more than 10 % of the regional population of any species.
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 26
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
2.3.2.2 NPW listed woodland birds
The Transmission Line routes from Innamincka to Moomba, and between the power plants (i.e. Jolokia to Savinia) may cross habitat that supports a large proportion of the regional population of some NPW listed species (Table 2.5). However, not all of these birds will be impacted through collision with the power line. Therefore, impacts are unlikely to impact a significant proportion of the regional populations of these species. For example, on-site habitat may be a part of the home range of a number of breeding pairs of Grey or Peregrine Falcons. These raptor species occur at low densities in semi-arid and arid habitats, so the site may support a large proportion of the total regional population. However, the likelihood of resident falcons colliding with the power lines would be low, due to the low probability of collisions, as well as their avoidance behavior. This would reduce the incidence of mortality to a low level, meaning that collisions are unlikely to significantly impact these state threatened species.
A number of woodland birds such as Red-winged Parrots and Flock Bronzewing are also fast-flying, and therefore may be at higher risk of collision than slower flying NPW listed woodland birds (e.g. Restless Flycatchers, Rainbow Bee-eaters Table 2.5). The low option for the Transmission Line from Innamincka to Moomba is considered to have a larger impact on these species compared to the high option, as woodland birds more commonly fly at heights of 10 – 20 m. The likelihood of any transmission line having a significant impact on any NPW listed woodland birds was deemed unlikely, as shown in Table 2.6. This assessment was based on the expectation that collisions are unlikely to influence more than 10 % of the regional population of any species.
Habitat removal in dunes is unlikely to impact any threatened birds, as most birds using the dunes also frequent other habitat types (Table 2.5). Developments within the floodplain are unlikely to impact on any woodland species, as the removal of Coolabah Trees will be minimised. Of the few Coolabahs that are removed, those containing hollows may be used as breeding habitat by Red- winged Parrots or Barking Owls. Trees that contain nest sites should be inspected to identify the species inhabiting the nests. If nests belong to any of the threatened birds of prey species (Table 2.5), then their removal should be avoided. It is recommended that disturbance to the breeding pair be further reduced by respecting a buffer distance, and avoiding that area all together. Buffer distances of 300m have been used for other birds of prey species at wind farms. Removal of chenopod habitat on floodplains may influence the NPW listed subspecies of the Grey Grasswren Amytornis barbatus diamantine, but impacts are not deemed significant (Table 2.5). The EPBC listed Bulloo subspecies Amytornis barbatus barbatus was not considered in the impact assessment, as it occurs outside the Licence Area. Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 27
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 2.4. Potential for occurrence of threatened or migratory species on-site, ordered in terms of their habitat preferences.
Species Name Common Name Primary habitat Habitat Preferences Likelihood of Occurrence On-site Status EPBC- NPW-
AUS SA Will use on-site floodplains when inundated, but High likelihood of fly-over to use nearby Floodplains, Rivers, Ardea alba Great Egret Migratory prefers wetlands and waterways such as nearby Cooper Creek, and High likelihood of on-site Wetlands Cooper Creek, and Coongie Lakes 60km NE visit when floodplain is inundated Ardea intermedia Intermediate Egret R same as above same as above same as above Egretta garzetta Little Egret R same as above same as above same as above Ardea ibis Cattle Egret R same as above same as above same as above Anhinga novaehollandiae Australasian Darter R same as above same as above same as above Will use on-site floodplains when inundated, but High likelihood of seasonal fly-over to Floodplains, Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis R prefers wetlands especially Coongie Lakes 60km Coongie Lakes, and High likelihood of on- Wetlands NE site visit when floodplain is inundated Podiceps cristatus Great Crested Grebe R same as above same as above same as above Biziura lobata Musk Duck R same as above same as above same as above Oxyura australis Blue-billed Duck R same as above same as above same as above Stictonetta naevosa Freckled Duck V same as above same as above same as above Anas rhynchotis Australasian Shoveler R same as above same as above same as above Grus rubicunda Brolga V same as above same as above No-Uncommon in area Australian Painted Rostratula australis VU V same as above same as above No-Uncommon in area Snipe Prefers wetlands and waterways with mudflats, High likelihood of seasonal fly-over to Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper R Wetlands, Mudflats especially Coongie Lakes 60km NE Coongie Lakes Cladorhynchus leucocephalus Banded Stilt V same as above same as above same as above Myiagra inquieta Restless Flycatcher R Woodlands Prefers scrubland and lightly timbered arid lands Low Woodlands, Prefers arid grassland and shrublands with Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater Migratory High Wetlands scattered trees Woodlands, Occurs in open forests and woodlands of mulga, Aprosmictus erythropterus Red-winged Parrot R High Shrublands brigalow, callitris and casuarina
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 28
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 2.4. Continued
Species Name Common Name Primary habitat Habitat Preferences Likelihood of Occurrence On-site Status EPBC- NPW- AUS SA Woodlands, Ardeotis australis Australian Bustard V Shrublands, Prefers arid scrub and grasslands No-Uncommon in area Grasslands, Dunes High-as preferred habitat of tree-lined Hunts over grassland and arid scrub and breeds Elanus scriptus Letter-winged Kite R same as above creeks and coolabahs over grasslands along tree-lined creeks occur on-site, but thinly distributed Prefers lightly timbered inland plains, gibber High-as preferred habitat occurs on site, Falco hypoleucos Grey Falcon R same as above plains, arid scrubland and tree-lined but thinly distributed watercourses Occurs in open woodland, grassland with Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon R same as above scattered trees, tree-lined watercourses, same as above wetlands, and open plains
Black-breasted Occurs in grassland, sand hills, gibber plains, Hamirostra melanosternon R same as above same as above Buzzard tree-lined watercourses Open country with stands of trees, and tree-lined Ninox connivens connivens Barking Owl R same as above same as above watercourses Prefers arid grassland and shrublands with open Phaps histrionica Flock Bronzewing R same as above High- as preferred habitat occurs on site spaces, and dry tree-lined riverbeds Woodlands, Shrublands, Migratory visitor to Australia, and entirely aerial, Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift Migratory High-fly-over only, as totally aerial Grasslands, Dunes, rarely perching on trees Wetlands Prefers periodically flooded overflow swamps, Grey Grasswren Wetlands, Amytornis barbatus barbatus VU R dense clumps of lignum/cane No-Outside their current range (Bulloo) Shrublands, Dunes grass/sedges/rushes and saltbush
Prefers periodically flooded overflow swamps, Amytornis barbatus Wetlands, No-Uncommon in area, and little suitable Grey Grasswren R dense clumps of lignum/cane diamantina Shrublands, Dunes habitat grass/sedges/rushes and saltbush
High- as preferred habitat of native Pedionomus torquatus Plains Wanderer VU E Gibber, Grasslands Prefers sparse lowland native grasslands grassland on gibber occurs on-site
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 29
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 2.5. Potential for significant impact of Transmission lines on EPBC listed birds under the Significant Impact Guidelines, and potential for impacts on NPW listed birds (highly likely, likely, unlikely, very unlikely), that are likely to occur within project area (species outside their current range have been excluded-see Table 2.4). Assessments relate to the varied likelihood of collision risk with transmission lines due to their proposed height and location. Species are ordered according to habitat preferences (see Table 2.4).
Transmission Line to Moomba- Transmission Line to Moomba- Transmission Line- between power Transmission Line- between power Common Name floodplain route-Option 1-Low floodplain route-Option 2-High plants (Jolokia-Savina)-Option 1-Low plants (Jolokia-Savina)-Option 2-High Great Egret Intermediate Egret Unlikely-While collision risk is likely, due Unlikely-While collision risk is likely, due Unlikely-While collision risk is likely, Little Egret to proximity with floodplains, it is unlikely to proximity to Cooper Ck. and and is higher than the Low to impact a sig proportion of population floodplains, it is unlikely to impact a sig. CattleEgret Transmission Line, it is not likely to due to the infrequency of flooding, and proportion of population. Higher likelihood impact a sig proportion of the Australiasian Darter irregularity of visits by only a low number of impacts compared to both Low and Unlikely-While collision risk is more likely population. of birds. high Transmission Line to Moomba than Option 1, due to increased height, it Glossy Ibis is unlikely to impact a sig. proportion of Great Crested Grebe population. Highest likelihood of impacts of all transmission line proposals. Musk Duck Unlikely-While collision risk is likely, Unlikely-While collision risk is likely, due Unlikely-While collision risk is likely, due and is higher than the Low to proximity with floodplains, it is unlikely to proximity to the Cooper Ck. and Blue-billed Duck Transmission Line, it is not likely to to impact a sig proportion of population, floodplains, it is unlikely to impact a sig. impact a sig proportion of the as visits to site will be irregular proportion of population Freckled Duck population
Australian Painted Snipe Unlikely-Collision risk of birds flying Unlikely-Collision risk of birds flying Unlikely-Collision risk of birds flying Unlikely-Collision risk of birds flying overheard to Coongie Lakes is overheard to Coongie Lakes is unlikely, overheard to Coongie Lakes is unlikely, overheard to Coongie Lakes is unlikely, Common Sandpiper unlikely, but is higher than impacts but is higher than impacts from Low due to low height of Transmission Line due to low height of Transmission Line from Low Transmission Line Transmission Line
Banded Stilt
KEY
Highly Likely – Where there is a good possibility that geothermal operations will result in an impact Likely – Where there is a possibility that geothermal operations will result in an impact Unlikely – Where there is a limited possibility that geothermal operations will result in an impact Very Unlikely – Where there is an extremely low possibility that geothermal operations will result in an impact
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 30
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 2.5. Continued Transmission Line to Moomba- Transmission Line to Moomba- Transmission Line- between power Transmission Line- between power Common Name floodplain route-Option 1-Low floodplain route-Option 2-High plants (Jolokia-Savina)-Low plants (Jolokia-Savina)-Option 2-High
No-Unlikely to collide as very agile in No-Unlikely to collide as very agile in No-Unlikely to collide as very agile in No-Unlikely to collide as very agile in flight, and will only impact low numbers, flight, and will only impact low numbers, Restless Flycatcher flight, and too high, and will only flight, and too high, and will only impact but higher likelihood of collision compared but higher likelihood of collision compared impact low numbers low numbers to high Transmission Line to high Transmission Line
Unlikely-While collision risk is likely, Unlikely-While collision risk is likely, due Rainbow Bee-eater Unlikely-While collision risk is likely, due due to proximity with woodland Unlikely-While collision risk is likely, due to proximity with woodland habitats, it is to proximity with woodland habitats, it is habitats, it is unlikely to impact a sig to proximity with woodland habitats, it is unlikely to impact a sig proportion of unlikely to impact a sig proportion of proportion of population, but is likely unlikely to impact a sig proportion of population, but is likely to have reduced population to have reduced impact compared to population Red-winged Parrot impact compared to Option 1, as too high Option 1, as too high
Unlikely-While collision risk is likely, Unlikely-While collision risk is likely, due Unlikely-While collision risk is likely, due Unlikely-While collision risk is likely, due due to proximity with woodland to proximity with woodland habitats, it is to proximity with woodland habitats, it is to proximity with woodland habitats, it is Australian Bustard habitats, it is unlikely to impact a sig unlikely to impact a sig proportion of unlikely to impact a sig proportion of unlikely to impact a sig proportion of proportion of population, due to low population due to low density across site population, due to low density across site population, due to low density across site density across site
Letter-winged Kite Unlikely-While collision risk is likely, due Unlikely-While collision risk is likely, Unlikely-While collision risk is likely, due Unlikely-While collision risk is likely, due Grey Falcon to proximity with preferred habitats, it is due to proximity with preferred to proximity with preferred habitats, it is to proximity with preferred habitats, it is Peregrine Falcon unlikely to impact a sig proportion of habitats, it is unlikely to impact a sig unlikely to impact a sig proportion of unlikely to impact a sig proportion of Black-breasted population proportion of population population population Buzzard
Unlikely-While collision risk is likely, due Unlikely-While collision risk is likely, due to proximity with woodland habitats, it is Unlikely-Lower level of impact to proximity with woodland habitats, it is Unlikely-Lower level of impact compared Barking Owl unlikely to impact a sig proportion of compared to Option 1, as too high unlikely to impact a sig proportion of to Option 1, as too high population population
Flock Bronzewing No-Possibility of collision, especially in No-Possibility of collision, especially No-Possibility of collision, especially in No-Possibility of collision, especially in Fork-tailed Swift woodland areas, but agile in flight. in woodland areas, but agile in flight. woodland areas, but agile in flight. woodland areas, but agile in flight. No-Unlikely to collide, as Grey Grasswren No-Unlikely to collide, as Transmission No-Unlikely to collide, as Transmission No-Unlikely to collide, as Transmission Transmission Line is above bird flight Line is above bird flight height Line is above bird flight height Line is above bird flight height Plains Wanderer height
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 31
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 2.6. Potential for significant impact of habitat loss and disrupted movements on EPBC listed birds under the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines and potential for impacts on NPW listed birds (highly likely, likely, unlikely, very unlikely) that are likely to occur within project area (species outside their current range have been excluded-see Table 2.4).
Please note: Assessments relate to the varied impacts of habitat loss based on estimates of proposed habitat clearance, and the disruption of bird movements due to the creation of artificial water bodies. Species are ordered according to habitat preferences (see Table 2.4).
Common Name Habitat Clearance (all infrastructure and construction) Artificial ponds Great Egret Unlikely-Birds may be attracted to ponds, but it is unlikely to impact a Intermediate Egret sig. proportion of the population Little Egret Cattle Egret Australasian Darter No-As no loss of Rivers or wetlands No Glossy Ibis Great Crested Grebe Musk Duck Unlikely-While it is highly likely a large number of birds may be attracted Blue-billed Duck to ponds, diverting their movement to Coongie Lakes, impacts are Freckled Duck considered to be low Australian Painted Snipe Unlikely-While it is highly likely a large number of birds may be attracted Common Sandpiper No-No loss of wetland or mudflat habitat to ponds, diverting their movement to Coongie Lakes, impacts are Banded Stilt considered to be low Restless Flycatcher Rainbow Bee-eater No-No loss of woodland habitat Red-winged Parrot Australian Bustard Letter-winged Kite Grey Falcon Peregrine Falcon No-No loss of critical habitat Black-breasted Buzzard No Barking Owl Flock Bronzewing Fork-tailed Swift No- While chenopod habitat will be cleared, unlikely to impact on many individuals Unlikely-While suitable foraging habitat may be cleared, this is unlikely to impact a Grey Grasswren sig. proportion of the national population, but may impact a sig. proportion of the regional population Likely-While low numbers may be impacted by grassland removal, this may impact Plains Wanderer a large proportion of the regional population
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 32
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
3 THREATENED FLORA SPECIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT
3.1 Overview
Overall, 12 flora species of state conservation significance and 3 ecological communities considered to be of state significance were reviewed within the impact assessment. No flora species or ecological communities of national conservation significance have been recorded within the area or considered to possibly occur within the project area. Table 3.1 details the threatened flora species assessed and the source they were identified from (i.e. EBS March 2009 survey or database searches). The assessment reviews state flora species and state threatened vegetation communities separately.
Table 3.1. Threatened flora species that occur or may occur within the Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area Status Family Species name Common name AUS SA CALLITRICHACEAE Callitriche sonderi Matted Water Starwort n/a R Osteocarpum acropterum var. n/a R CHENOPODIACEAE deminutum Wingless Bonefruit CHENOPODIACEAE Osteocarpum pentapterum Five-wing Bonefruit n/a E CRUCIFERAE Phlegmatospermum eremaeum Spreading Cress n/a R ELATINACEAE Bergia occultipetala n/a V FRANKENIACEAE Frankenia cupularis n/a R LEGUMINOSAE Acacia tenuissima Slender Wattle n/a R LEGUMINOSAE Swainsona oligophylla n/a R MYOPORACEAE Eremophila polyclada Twiggy Emubush n/a R STERCULIACEAE Gilesia biniflora Western Tar-vine n/a R THYMELAEACEAE Pimelea penicillaris Sandhill Riceflower n/a R ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Zygophyllum humillimum Small-fruit Twinleaf n/a R
KEY
Regions: AUS: Australia (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999) SA: South Australia (National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1972)
Conservation Codes: V: Vulnerable R: Rare E: Endangered
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 33
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
3.2 Flora species
3.2.1 EPBC Act Listed Species
No flora species of national conservation significance were detected within the project area during the survey nor are any highlighted on the BDBSA or the EPBC protected matters database search.
3.2.2 NPW Act Listed Species
No state conservation rated flora species were detected within the project area during the March 2009 survey. However, the BSBSA search highlights 12 state rated flora species as being previously detected within, or near the project area (Table 3.1). These species include 10 species with a Rare rating, one with a Vulnerable rating and one with an Endangered rating. Table 3.2 details the habitat preferences of flora species assessed within this report and the likelihood of their occurrence on site.
The potential impacts that are most likely to affect flora species present within the area are habitat clearance associated with the installation of infrastructure. Table 3.3 details the potential impacts on flora species and the extent of the impact.
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 34
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 3.2. Potential for occurrence of state threatened flora species occurring on-site considering habitat preferences
STATUS IDENTIFIED LAND SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME PRIMARY HABITAT LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE ON SITE AUS SA SYSTEM HABITAT A rarely collected Unlikely – This species was not detected during species, it has been the March survey and the single record on the Callitriche sonderi Matted Water Starwort n/a R generally recorded in Cooper (Floodplain) BDBSA is adjacent to the main channel of the inundation areas such Cooper Creek which will not be impacted upon as creek banks by geothermal operations Wingless Bonefruit are found in a variety of Unlikely – not recorded during the March habitats, often found in Osteocarpum acropterum survey, one record on the BDBSA Wingless Bonefruit n/a R Bladder Saltbush and Cooper (Floodplain) var. deminutum approximately 30km north of Moomba well Bluebush communities outside the likely impact area on scalds or slightly saline locations Unlikely – not recorded during March survey, Similar to the Wingless however, two records on the BDBSA, one Bonefruit, with regional Merninie (Gibber several km south-west of Innamincka and one Osteocarpum pentapterum Five-wing Bonefruit n/a E records in close Tableland); Cooper approximately 15km north east of the town, both proximity to major (Floodplain) records adjacent to the Cooper Creek or major creeks or tributaries tributaries Generally occurs on heavier soils Likely – not recorded during the March survey, associated with Phlegmatospermum however, one record on the BDBSA on the Spreading Cress n/a R floodplain areas, Cooper (Floodplain) eremaeum Strzelecki Track between Transmission Line however, has also Options 1 and 2 been recorded chenopod shrublands Limited information on Cooper (Floodplain); Unlikely, but possible – not recorded during Bergia occultipetala n/a V the species, appears to Tingana (Sand the March survey, one record on the BDBSA prefer wetter areas Dunes) approximately 15 km east of Innamincka. Unlikely – based on the previous record (one) Limited information on of the species on the BDBSA, approximately the species, Cooper (Floodplain) – 30km north west of Innamincka. It was not Frankenia cupularis n/a R Frankenia’s in general based on previous recorded during the March survey. Little is can occupy a range of record known about the preferred habitat of the habitat types species. Unlikely, but possible – not recorded in the Only one record of the Cooper (Floodplain); March survey, but one recorded in close Acacia tenuissima Slender Wattle n/a R species in SA, several Tingana (Sand proximity to the geothermal project area (only km’s south west of Dunes) Innamincka, common known record for SA). Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 35
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
STATUS IDENTIFIED LAND SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME PRIMARY HABITAT LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE ON SITE AUS SA SYSTEM HABITAT in northern states. Found on red sandy plains. Occurs on sandy soils Cooper (Floodplain); Likely – a total of 10 BDBSA records within or Swainsona oligophylla n/a R of sand dunes and Tingana (Sand adjacent to project area, likely to be present swales Dunes) when rainfall stimulates germination Unlikely, but possible – total of three BDBSA Found on clay and records, all of which occur adjacent to the Eremophila polyclada Twiggy Emubush n/a R duplex soils of Cooper (Floodplain) Cooper Creek or a major tributary, potential floodplain areas habitat across the lower lying floodplain areas Has been recorded on Tingana (Sand Unlikely – two BDBSA records for the region, saline stony soils, Dunes); Gilesia biniflora Western Tar-vine n/a R both approximately 25km east of Dillons possibly restricted to Merninie (Gibber Highway saltbush communities Tableland) Tingana (Sand Unlikely, but possible – previously recorded Occurs on sand dunes Pimelea penicillaris Sandhill Riceflower n/a R Dunes); close to Innamincka (two records), extensive with deep sandy soils Cooper (Floodplain) available habitat within project area Tingana (Sand Recorded growing on Dunes); Unlikely, but possible – a total of seven red-brown cracking Zygophyllum humillimum Small-fruit Twinleaf n/a R Merninie (Gibber records in close proximity to project site, all clay and sandy loam Tableland); outside the potential infrastructure areas with gypsum Cooper (Floodplain)
KEY
Regions: AUS: Australia (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999) SA: South Australia (National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1972)
Conservation Codes: V: Vulnerable R: Rare E: Endangered
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 36
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 3.3. Potential for significant impacts on NPW Act listed flora species (highly likely, likely, unlikely, very unlikely). Assessments relate to the varied impacts of each proposed development, such as habitat loss (clearance), and installation of the Transmission Line assessed within March 2009 survey POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACT SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME Transmission Line Option 1 – Transmission Line Option 2 – Overall Habitat Loss Habitat Loss Habitat Loss Unlikely – the species appears to be confined to areas which are regularly Unlikely – Option 1 does not impact Unlikely – Option 2 does not impact Matted Water Callitriche sonderi inundated, such as creek banks, on any areas of major or minor on any areas of major or minor Starwort therefore unlikely to be significantly creekline habitat creekline habitat impacted upon Unlikely –several short sections of Unlikely – limited chenopod Osteocarpum chenopod shrubland within Option 1 Unlikely – no chenopod shrubland shrubland will be impacted upon by acropterum var. Wingless Bonefruit alignment, areas are small, no areas will be impacted upon by the project, therefore unlikely to deminutum records of species and therefore Option 2. significantly impact this species unlikely to be a significant impact Unlikely – the records for this species, within the region, appear to Unlikely – Option 1 does not impact Unlikely – Option 2 does not impact Osteocarpum be confined to areas which are Five-wing Bonefruit on any areas of major or minor on any areas of major or minor pentapterum regularly inundated, such as creek creekline habitat creekline habitat banks, therefore unlikely to be significantly impacted upon Unlikely but possible – species is likely to occur within the Floodplain Unlikely but possible – species is Unlikely – species is unlikely to Phlegmatospermum area, but small area of this land likely to occur within the Floodplain occur within the Option 2 area as the Spreading Cress eremaeum system to be impacted upon and no area, more suitable habitat than majority of the area is sand dune records closer than 10km to Option 2 for the species and the species prefers heavier soils transmission lines Unlikely – the species appears to Unlikely – Option 1 does not impact Unlikely – Option 2 does not impact prefer wetter areas, such as creek Bergia occultipetala on any areas of major or minor on any areas of major or minor banks, therefore unlikely to be creekline habitat creekline habitat significantly impacted upon Unlikely – closest record is over Unlikely – species is unlikely to Unlikely – species is likely to occur 30km from project area, if present, occur within the Option 2 area as the within the Floodplain area, more Frankenia cupularis would occur within Floodplain area majority of the area is sand dune suitable habitat than Option 2 for the which provides a significant amount and the species possibly prefers species of habitat in the area heavier soils Unlikely – Species appears to prefer Unlikely – Based on the only record Unlikely, but possible – Preferred Acacia tenuissima Slender Wattle red sandy plains which are not a in the region, it is considered that habitat is sandy plains, with dominant habitat type in the area, Transmission Line Option 1 is extensive areas of sand dunes and Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 37
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACT SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME Transmission Line Option 1 – Transmission Line Option 2 – Overall Habitat Loss Habitat Loss Habitat Loss possible habitat occurs within the unlikely to have a significant impact sandy swales present within sand dune and swale areas. on the species. This is due to the Transmission Line Option 2. Unlikely amount of similar available habitat to have a significant impact on the for the species present in the region species due to the amount of similar and the lack of records of the available habitat for the species species in the area. present in the region, the lack of records of the species in the area and the low amount of vegetation clearance within this corridor. Likely – Transmission Line Option 2 Unlikely, but possible – A number spans some of the sand dune area of records in the area, generally and the alignment is very close to Unlikely – Transmission Line Option prefers sand dunes and swales and known records of the species. 1 does not span any sand dune Swainsona therefore preferred habitat is However, only a small proportion of country and therefore, it is unlikely to oligophylla present. Total area of sand dune available habitat would be affected impact on any Swainsona habitat within the Tingana is Due to the broad nature of this oligophylla. extensive, with a small proportion assessment, further impact occurring within the project area assessment would need to be completed if this option was selected Unlikely – Based on the records in Unlikely – Based on the records in the region all occurring within very the region all occurring within very Unlikely – appears that the species close proximity to the Cooper Creek close proximity to the Cooper Creek occurs in close proximity to major and one of its main tributaries, it is and one of its main tributaries, it is Eremophila polyclada Twiggy Emubush watercourses and tributaries which considered that Transmission Line considered that Transmission Line will not be impact upon. Option 1 is unlikely to have a Option 1 is unlikely to have a significant impact on the habitat of significant impact on the habitat of the species. the species. Unlikely – limited saline habitat Unlikely – limited saline habitat present within the project area, present within the project area, Unlikely – Option 2 is predominantly isolated lower lying areas present isolated lower lying areas present sand dune and Coolibah Open within the Merninie and Cooper Land Gilesia biniflora Western Tar-vine within the Cooper Land Systems. woodland, therefore considered Systems. Impact to these areas is Impact to these areas is likely to low, unlikely that suitable habitat is likely to low, therefore unlikely to therefore unlikely to have significant present. have significant impact on the impact on the species species. Unlikely, but possible – majority of Unlikely – Transmission Line Option Likely – Transmission Line Option 2 1 does not span any sand dune Pimelea penicillaris Sandhill Riceflower project area does not provide is spans some of the sand dune area suitable habitat, except for within country and therefore, it is unlikely to and therefore is likely to impact on sand dune and swale areas. Likely impact on any Pimelea penicillaris. suitable habitat for this species. Due Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 38
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACT SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME Transmission Line Option 1 – Transmission Line Option 2 – Overall Habitat Loss Habitat Loss Habitat Loss to be present but the extensive area to the broad nature of this of suitable habitat in the region along assessment, further impact with a small proportion occurring assessment would need to be within the project area, suggest the completed if this option was selected impact is unlikely to be significant Unlikely – based on previous records, this species could be widespread and scattered across the Unlikely, but possible – habitat is Unlikely, but possible – habitat is region and project area (although no present within the area, but as the present within the area, but as the Zygophyllum records occur within project area). species appears to occur within a species appears to occur within a Small-fruit Twinleaf humillimum Therefore, the amount of available range of habitats, any impact is range of habitats, any impact is habitat for the species and the unlikely to be significant. No records unlikely to be significant. No records scattered nature of the records, it occur within the project area. occur within the project area. suggests that any impacts would not be significant
KEY
Highly Likely – Where there is a good possibility that geothermal operations will result in an impact Likely – Where there is a possibility that geothermal operations will result in an impact Unlikely – Where there is a limited possibility that geothermal operations will result in an impact Very Unlikely – Where there is an extremely low possibility that geothermal operations will result in an impact
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 39
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
3.3 Threatened Ecological Communities
3.3.1 EPBC Act Listed Threatened Ecological Communities
No nationally conservation rated flora species were detected within the project area during the survey nor are any highlighted on the EPBC protected matters database.
3.3.2 NPW Act Listed Threatened Ecological Communities
Within the project area three vegetation communities listed as ‘of concern’ in lists of threatened ecosystems of the Non-Agricultural Region in South Australia occur (Neagle 2003; DEH Provisional list 2005). These three threatened ecosystems exist within the Channel Country bioregion, and include:1) Eucalyptus coolabah ssp. arida (Coolibah) Woodland on levees and channel banks of regularly inundated floodplains; 2) Atriplex nummularia (Old-man Saltbush) Open Shrubland with occasional emergent Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) or E. coolabah ssp. arida (Coolibah) on low sandy rise of floodplains; and 3) Chenopodium auricomum (Golden Goosefoot) Shrubland on cracking clay depressions subject to periodic water-logging (Table 3.4). All of these communities are listed as ‘of concern’ as they are generally at threat due to grazing of introduced herbivores resulting in removal of vegetation and changes in species composition. For more details of these communities and their locations within Transmission Line Option 1 and 2, please refer to the March Report (EBS 2009).
Table 3.5 details the general habitat preferences of these threatened ecological communities assessed within this report and the likelihood of their occurrence on site. The potential impacts that are most likely to affect threatened ecological communities present within the area are habitat clearance associated with the installation of all infrastructure. Table 3.6 details the potential impacts on threatened ecological communities and the extent of the impact.
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 40
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 3.4. Threatened ecological communities that occur within the Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area Conservation Status Threatened Ecological Community Source SA Eucalyptus coolabah ssp. arida (Coolibah) Woodland on levees EBS and channel banks of regularly inundated floodplains Of concern Neagle (2003) DEH (2005) Atriplex nummularia (Old-man Saltbush) Open Shrubland with occasional emergent Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Neagle (2003) Of concern or E. coolabah ssp. arida (Coolibah) on low sandy rise of DEH (2005) floodplains Chenopodium auricomum (Golden Goosefoot) Shrubland on EBS cracking clay depressions subject to periodic waterlogging Of concern Neagle (2003) DEH (2005)
KEY EBS – Threatened species observed or captured within the EBS March 2009 survey Neagle (2003) – An inventory of the Biological Resources of the Rangelands of South Australia DEH (2005) - Provisional List of Threatened Ecosystems of South Australia (unpublished and provisional)
3.3.2.1 Eucalyptus coolabah ssp. arida (Coolibah) Woodland
Eucalyptus coolabah ssp. arida (Coolibah) Woodland on levees and channel banks occurs within regularly inundated floodplains and is listed by Neagle (2003) as one of the most characteristic ecological communities of the riverine and floodplain land systems of the rangelands of South Australia. Its distribution across the state is said to occur extensively in association with major river channels in the north (Brandle & Hudspith 1998; Neagle 2003). This ecological community occurs extensively near major river channels within the Channel Country Bioregion, which includes the Coongie and Sturt Stony Desert sub-regions, found within the Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area. It is less common within the Simpson-Strzelecki Dunefields Bioregion, which includes the Strzelecki Desert sub-region, whereby occurrences of the community are found along major watercourses.
This Woodland is considered widespread, but is poorly conserved. It is conserved within the Stony Plains Bioregion within Witjira National Park and within Innamincka Regional Reserve; however, it is still subject to heavy grazing pressure from cattle. The Woodland is better conserved within the Channel Country Bioregion within Queensland (Neagle 2003).
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 41
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
3.3.2.2 Atriplex nummularia (Old-man Saltbush) Open Shrubland with occasional emergent Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) or E. coolabah ssp. arida (Coolibah)
Atriplex nummularia (Old-man Saltbush) Open Shrubland with occasional emergent Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) or E. coolabah ssp. arida (Coolibah) is generally found on low sandy rises of floodplains, floodouts and swamps. It is widely scattered throughout arid river floodplains, but frequently occurs in areas that are only occasionally inundated. In general, it is known to occur throughout the northern rangelands of South Australia in the above environments. This ecological community is widespread within the Channel Country Bioregion, which includes the Coongie and Sturt Stony Desert sub-regions, found within the Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area. It is less common within the Simpson-Strzelecki Dunefields Bioregion, which includes the Strzelecki Desert sub-region, whereby occurrences of the community are found along a few of the major watercourses that pass through this bioregion.
This shrubland is conserved within the Stony Plains Bioregion within Witjira National Park and within Innamincka Regional Reserve; however, it is still subject to heavy grazing pressure from cattle (Neagle 2003).
3.3.2.3 Chenopodium auricomum (Golden Goosefoot) Shrubland
Chenopodium auricomum (Golden Goosefoot) Shrubland is generally found on cracking clay depressions subject to periodic waterlogging (DEH 2005). The shrubland occurs in association with river floodplains and larger watercourses in the far north and particularly north-east of South Australia. Neagle (2003) details this community as occurring extensively within the Channel Country Bioregion, which includes the Coongie and Sturt Stony Desert sub-regions found within the Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area. Specifically, the shrubland is found in the less frequently flooded areas of the Warburton/Diamantina and Cooper Creek floodplains. The Shrubland is less common within the Simpson-Strzelecki Dunefields Bioregion, which includes the Strzelecki Desert sub-region, where it is found along the Macumba River, Warburton, and Cooper Creeks.
Innamincka Regional Reserve is the only reserve this shrubland is currently conserved within.
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 42
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 3.5. Potential for occurrence of state threatened ecological communities occurring on-site considering habitat preferences
STATUS THREATENED ECOLGOICAL IDENTIFIED LAND LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE PRIMARY HABITAT COMMUNITY SYSTEM HABITAT ON SITE AUS SA
Levee and channel banks of regularly inundated floodplains Eucalyptus coolabah ssp. arida (DEH 2005). This community can (Coolibah) Woodland on levees and Of occur in areas that retain water for High – found on site during the n/a channel banks of regularly inundated Concern sustained periods of time between Cooper (floodplain) March 2009 survey floodplains floods, waterholes, or near subsurface water in sandy channel beds Atriplex nummularia (Old-man Saltbush) Open Shrubland with occasional Of Low sandy rises of floodplains and emergent Eucalyptus camaldulensis High – Known to occur throughout n/a Concern in areas that are only occasionally Cooper (floodplain) (River Red Gum) or E. coolabah ssp. the Channel Country Bioregion inundated. arida (Coolibah) on low sandy rise of floodplains Cracking clay depressions subject Chenopodium auricomum (Golden Of to periodic waterlogging (swamps) Goosefoot) Shrubland on cracking clay High – found on site during the n/a Concern found on low lying fringes of Cooper (floodplain) depressions subject to periodic March 2009 survey floodplains or fringing Cane-grass waterlogging Grasslands in swamps.
KEY
Regions: AUS: Australia (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999) SA: South Australia (National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1972)
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 43
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 3.6. Potential for impacts (highly likely, likely, unlikely, very unlikely) on State listed threatened ecological communities. Assessments relate to the varied impacts of each proposed development, such as habitat loss (clearance), and installation of the Transmission Line assessed within March 2009 survey
POTENTIALFOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACT STATUS THREATENED ECOLGOICAL COMMUNITY Transmission Line Option 1 – Transmission Line Option 2 – Overall Habitat Loss AUS SA Habitat Loss Habitat Loss Likely – The location of Likely – The western section of Unlikely – General habitat Transmission Line Option 1 Transmission Line Option 2 spans clearance within the project mostly spans floodplain country floodplain country within the area could result in loss of this within the Coongie sub-region, Coongie sub-region, which is community; however this which is known to support this known to support this community. Eucalyptus coolabah ssp. arida (Coolibah) community occurs extensively community. Within the March Within the March 2009, 257 ha Of Woodland on levees and channel banks of n/a near major river channels within 2009, 304 ha was recorded along was recorded along the Concern regularly inundated floodplains the Channel Country Bioregion. the transmission line and it is transmission line and it is On a regional scale small therefore likely there will be some therefore likely there will be some clearance of this woodland impact. However, on a regional impact. However, on a regional would not result in a substantial scale small clearance of this scale small clearance of this impact woodland would not result in a woodland would not result in a substantial impact substantial impact Atriplex nummularia (Old-man Saltbush) Unlikely – In general, it is Open Shrubland with occasional emergent known to occur throughout the Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) northern rangelands of South or E. coolabah ssp. arida (Coolibah) on low Australia in the above Unlikely – It is widely scattered Unlikely - It is widely scattered sandy rise of floodplains environments. This ecological Of throughout arid river floodplains, throughout arid river floodplains, n/a community is widespread within Concern and was not recorded within the and was not recorded within the the Channel Country Bioregion. March 2009 survey March 2009 survey On a regional scale small clearance of this shrubland would not result in a substantial impact Unlikely – It is widely scattered Likely – The location of Likely – The western section of throughout arid river floodplains, Transmission Line Option 1 Transmission Line Option 2 and is known to occur mostly spans floodplain country mostly spans floodplain country Chenopodium auricomum (Golden throughout the northern within the Coongie sub-region, within the Coongie sub-region, Of Goosefoot) Shrubland on cracking clay n/a rangelands of South Australia. which is known to support this which is known to support this Concern depressions subject to periodic waterlogging This ecological community is community. Within the March community. Within the March widespread within the Channel 2009, 114 ha of a similar 2009, 151 ha of a similar Country Bioregion. On a vegetation association was vegetation association was regional scale small clearance recorded along the transmission recorded along the transmission of this shrubland would not line and it is therefore likely there line and it is therefore likely there Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 44
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
POTENTIALFOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACT STATUS THREATENED ECOLGOICAL COMMUNITY Transmission Line Option 1 – Transmission Line Option 2 – Overall Habitat Loss AUS SA Habitat Loss Habitat Loss result in a substantial impact will be some impact. However, on will be some impact. However, on a regional scale small clearance a regional scale small clearance of this shrubland would not result of this shrubland would not result in a substantial impact in a substantial impact
KEY
Highly Likely – Where there is a good possibility that geothermal operations will result in an impact Likely – Where there is a possibility that geothermal operations will result in an impact Unlikely – Where there is a limited possibility that geothermal operations will result in an impact Very Unlikely – Where there is an extremely low possibility that geothermal operations will result in an impact
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 45
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
4 REGIONAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Within the wider region (IBRA sub-regions) the three identified land systems habitats of Cooper (floodplain), Merninie (gibber tableland), and Tingana (sand dunes) that fall within the Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area are well represented outside of the Licence Area. As the Licence Area lies predominantly within the Cooper land system, habitats within this land system will likely be subject to the greatest disturbance. This land system is well represented within the wider region, with the majority falling within the Coongie sub-region (Figure 1.1).
The exact size and locations of each component of the infrastructure and its operations could not be specified, so the exact quantities and proportions of each available habitat type could not be calculated. Instead, the estimates provided within this report provide only a crude estimate, and their application is limited. The Licence Area represents 11.3%, 10.0%, and 1.2% of the Cooper, Merninie, and Tingana land systems within the IBRA sub-region boundaries, respectively (Table 1.1). It is important to note that the total calculations for both Merninie and Tingana land systems are incomplete and underrepresented as IBRA sub-region data was only available for South Australia and not Queensland or New South Wales. Therefore, the percentage of these land systems within the Licence Area compared to ‘actual’ available habitat is likely to be lower than presented.
To provide an indication of potential clearance or disturbance to available habitat in the Licence Area a crude estimate of a clearance footprint of 250 ha has been used to estimate possible disturbances to each land system habitat. This estimate is based on the current ‘worst case’ estimates of the possible project footprint that will result from all potential infrastructure and associated activities (excluding the Transmission Lines to Moomba) and is likely to exceed actual disturbance. If all infrastructure and associated clearance were distributed evenly in the Cooper, Merninie and Tingana land systems and impacted a total footprint of 250 ha, this would represent less than 0.05%, 0.5%, and 0.6% of each land system within the Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area, respectively. If infrastructure and associated clearance was located predominantly in any one of the Cooper, Merninie or Tingana land systems, a total of 250 ha would represent clearance of 0.15% or 1.3% or 1.7% of the land system within the Licence Area, respectively.
In relation to the total land system area within the IBRA sub-region boundary, a clearance of 250 ha in any one of the land systems would represent a very small proportion of the land system area (0.02% for Cooper and Tingana and 0.1% for Merninie).
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 46
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
5 SEB DISCUSSION
During the March 2009 survey, the condition of all vegetation associations within the project area ranged between moderate and good quality. It is mostly likely the SEB ratios of the vegetation (as observed during the field survey) would range between 4:1 to 8:1 (see Table 5.1 for the definitions of SEB ratios). Overall, the dune fields support vegetation associations of higher diversity compared to gibber tableland and floodplain land systems. Consequently, the vegetation condition increased in the eastern section of the Geodynamic Geothermal Licence Area where the primary dunes are located.
The current low rainfall in the area has influenced the vegetation condition, and few herbs or ephemeral species were observed during the March 2009 survey. It is likely that after a significant rainfall event, flora species diversity and abundance will increase significantly. Generally, the vegetation over the entire project area was considered to be showing some signs of drought stress; with many chenopod shrubs and Eucalypt species being either dead, dormant, or showing signs of foliage dieback. Few weed species were observed across the project area at the time of the survey, with three being observed overall. It is suspected more weed species exist within the area.
Grazing of shrubs and grasses by rabbits and/or cattle was evident as blunt end tips to branches and/or grass tussocks were noticed. Signs of rabbit grazing was more evident within the dunes, but was also evident throughout the project area.
Grazing pressure and soil disturbance from cattle is also affecting the condition of vegetation within the project area, particularly in close proximity to artificial water points. Grazing pressure and soil disturbance is increased in these areas through high stock volumes and therefore, very little recruitment of native plants was seen to be occurring. As expected, the condition of vegetation increases away from disturbance areas, such as artificial watering points, tracks, and existing infrastructure.
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 47
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 5.1. SEB ratios and associated vegetation condition Vegetation Condition SEB ratio
Clearance consists of lopping of limbs, not affecting the health of the tree/shrub 0
Weed-dominated with only scattered areas or patches of native vegetation
Indicated by: Vegetation structure no longer intact (eg. Removal of one or more vegetation strata) Scope for regeneration , but not to a state approaching good condition without intensive management 2:1 (area) Dominated by very aggressive weeds Partial or extensive clearing (> 50% of area) Evidence of heavy grazing (tracks, browse limes, species changes, no evidence of soil surface crust)
Native vegetation with considerable disturbance
Indicated by: Vegetation structure substantially altered (e.g. One or more vegetation strata depleted) Retains basic vegetation structure or the ability to regenerate it 4:1 (area) Very obvious signs of long-term or severe disturbance Weed dominated with some very aggressive weeds Partial clearing (10 – 50% of area) Evidence of moderate grazing (tracks, browse lines, soil surface crust extensively broken)
Native vegetation with some disturbance
Indicated by: Vegetation structure altered (e.g. One or more vegetation strata depleted) Most seed sources available to regenerate original structure 6:1 (area) Obvious signs of disturbance (e.g. tracks, bare ground) Minor clearing (<10% of area) Considerable weed infestation with some aggressive weeds Evidence of some grazing (tracks, soil surface crust patchy)
Native vegetation with little disturbance
Indicated by: Vegetation structure intact (e.g. all strata intact) Disturbance minor, only affecting individual species 8:1 (area) Only non-aggressive weeds present Some litter build-up
Intact vegetation
Indicated by: All strata intact and botanical composition close to original Little or no signs of disturbance 10:1 (area) Little or no weed infestation Soil surface crust intact Substantial litter cover
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 48
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
6 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations have been made as a result of preparing this impact assessment report:
Conduct further detailed assessment of EPBC Act listed species if infrastructure is to be located in areas where this report highlights further assessment as necessary (e.g. transmission line Option 2).
Locate the alignment of transmission lines, access tracks, and other infrastructure to follow a path that minimises disturbance to prominent stands of large trees, and avoids the removal of trees as far as possible, especially Eucalyptus coolabah (Coolibah) Woodland;
A lower transmission line is expected to reduce the collision risk to over-flying waterbirds and shorebirds travelling from and to the Coongie Lakes;
Limiting the size and availability of freestanding waterbodies will reduce the likelihood of attracting large numbers of shorebirds and waterbirds;
Minimising the removal of grassland and shrubland habitat on gibber plains and in dune swales will limit the impact of habitat clearance on the Nationally Vulnerable Plains Wanderer;
Further surveys for Plains Wanderer should be conducted where clearance of suitable habitat is required;
Use existing access tracks where possible, such as 15 mile track to minimise vegetation clearance; and
Conduct site-specific ecological assessments for infrastructure sites located in areas not covered by previous assessments;
Once the final infrastructure siting has been determined, EBS can provide further comment on general recommendations for the construction phase of the alignment, to achieve minimal disturbance and attain best practice outcomes.
Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 49
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
7 REFERENCES
Australian Government (2006). EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1 – Significant Impact Guidelines. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia.
Barker, WR., Barker, RM., Jessop, JP., and Vonow, HP (eds) (2005). Census of South Australian vascular plants, Edition 5. Journal of Botanic Gardens, suppl. 1, Adelaide, South Australia. Barrett, G,. Silcocks, A., Barry., S Cunningham, R. and Poulter, R. (2003) New Atlas of Australian
Birds. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union.
Bennett, S. (1983) A review of the distribution, status and biology of the Plains-wanderer Pedionomus torquatus Gould Emu: 1-11.
Brandle, R. (1998). A Biological Survey of the Stony Deserts South Australia, 1994-1997. Heritage and Biodiversity Section, Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs, South Australia.
Brandle, R., and Hudspith, T. (1998). Vegetation Mapping. In ‘A Biological Survey of the Stony Deserts, South Australia, 1994-1997.’ (Ed. Brandle, R.). pp. 142-145, Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs, South Australia.
Brandle, R. and Moseby, K. E. (1999). Comparative ecology of two populations of Pseudomys australis in northern South Australia. Wildlife Research 26: 541-564.
Cogger, H. (2000). Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. Reed Books, Australia.
DEH (2005). Provisional List of Threatened Ecosystems of South Australia (unpublished and provisional).
DEH (2005) Draft Biodiversity Strategy for the Stony Plains Bioregion, South Australian Arid Lands, Department for Environment and Heritage, SA.
EBS (2009). Innamincka – Moomba Biological Survey (March 2009). Unpublished report prepared for Geodynamics. Environmental and Biodiversity Services.
Ehmann, H. (2005). South Australian Rangelands and Aboriginal Lands Wildlife Management Manual pp.120-121. Department for Water, Land, and Biodiversity Conservation, Adelaide.
Garnett, R., and Crowley, M. (2000). The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000. Stephen Environment Australia. [Online, accessed 21st June 2007]. URL:http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/action/birds2000/pub s/slb-thornbill-w.pdf
Menkhorst, P. and Knight, F. (2004). A Field Guide to Mammals of Australia. 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press, Victoria. Impact Assessment within Geodynamics Geothermal Licence Area 50
Appendix J – EIR - Summary of Comments and Responses
Page 65 of 66
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) – Agency Consultation Comments and Responses:
DMITRE assessed the activities covered by this EIR and SEO as low impact. This EIR and draft SEO were subject to a process of internal government consultation prior to approval.
The results of consultation with government agencies specific to the EIR are included in the following table:
EIR Stakeholder Issues Raised or Comments Made Issues Raised or Comments Made Section / Table 1 DMITRE It is noted that this EIR only relates to the existing 1MW plant and all SEO amended to cover only maintenance & repair of existing Power Plant. activities will be within the existing footprint. There is a discrepancy regarding the scope of the EIR and the scope of the SEO which incorporates commercial power generation and future power plants. This EIR covers maintenance and repair of existing, commissioned power plant, therefore future power plants and commercial generation will be subject to further assessment and possibly a new EIR/SEO. Geodynamics need to decide whether future operations including new plant construction and commissioning are to be covered within this EIR, and if they are provide the appropriate environmental risk assessments for each individual activity.
3 DMITRE Please provide further clarification regarding the Habanero-2 and 3 well sites These sites are scheduled to be plugged and abandoned and the surface are and any future plug and abandonment plans, including site rehabilitation. remediated during the period April - September 2014 in accordance with the Drilling & Well Operations SEO (Santos) & subject to those requirements. EIR updated to state this.
3.1a DMITRE The need for a partially open loop system rather than entirely closed loop is EIR amended to clarify GDY’s future intentions namely that future power plant understood by DMITRE, however due to this, documents availability to trials/tests could be closed/open. Management of stored geofluid is mentioned below stakeholders and the public it is recommended that Geodynamics provide in comments 4.4 and 6.5. further clarification regarding the long term plan for the excess geofluids and whether there is a future intention to once again close the loop?
3.1b DMITRE Also, if there is an intention to expand the scope of this EIR to cover new No. SEO amended to cover only maintenance & repair of existing Power Plant power plants, will the design basis be for closed loop systems?
4.2 DMITRE Commercial production of power is not covered within the scope of this EIR. Agreed – EIR amended Evaluation of commercial feasibility is covered within the scope of this EIR.
4.4a DMITRE Does GDY have any future intention to drill a new well to enable complete Noted – Not yet decided, any new well would be subject to Drilling & Well closed loop production as intended? Operations SEO (Santos)
4.4b DMITRE DMITRE was of the understanding that Habanero 4 is not designed for Noted – H1 is likely to be used for reinjection but GDY would like to have flexibility to injection. Also the inclusion of this activity needs to be appropriately use H4. managed through environmental objectives in the SEO. SEO objective 10 assessment criteria needs to incorporate ‘No crossflow Design & construction of the wells including cross flow protection is already covered behind casing between aquifers.’ Comments added to SEO also. under Drilling & Well Operations SEO (Santos).
4.4c DMITRE Will evaporation levels keep up with production of excess Geofluid? Please Agreed – EIR amended to state that production of geofluid will cease if available EIR Stakeholder Issues Raised or Comments Made Issues Raised or Comments Made Section / Table clarify the management of geofluid within the lined ponds further, in particular storage capacity of 40ML is reached. any water balance modelling/calculations that have been carried out.
4.4d DMITRE Are there any concerns regarding allowing the excess stored geofluid to The levels of antimony & arsenic are too low to pose any dust borne threat. evaporate in the dam and have the precipitate (including antimony and arsenic compounds) open to the air – hazardous dust issue.
4.7 DMITRE Wastewater treatment and disposal will be disposed of in accordance with Agreed – EIR amended. the South Australian Public Health (Wastewater) Regulations 2013 and the
SA Health On-site Wastewater Systems Code April 2013 and; As this facility is will be classed as semi-permanent, the wastewater The septic system has been designed, operated and maintained with SA Health’s management system needs to be approved by the Dept. Of Health. On-Site Wastewater Systems Code (April 2013). The system has been approved by SA Health. EIR amended to reflect this.
4.10 DMITRE Reviewer believes that water supply risk management plan needs to also be Under the new Safe Drinking Water Act water supply risk management plans require submitted to DMITRE. approval by SA Health and GDY understands the legislation does not require other agencies to be involved in review or approval of such plans. The Habanero camp Drinking Water Monitoring Plan and Drinking Water Operations Plan have been submitted to SA Health.
4.11 DMITRE Please provide further clarification regarding the ‘chemical dam.’ Is this an This is Dam 3 and is one of the ‘thermal’ ponds near the Power Station. It is lined. open dam or an enclosed tank? How are these flushings managed and Flushings are managed by GDY’s Caustic Cleaning Brine Heat Exchangers disposed of? The SEO outlines these flushing are also conveyed to the Operating Procedure. EIR amended to reflect this. waste tank. Please clarify this process further.
4.13 DMITRE Is the gibber soil from the site stockpiled for later spreading during No – The area the Power Plant is constructed on was cleared a decade ago for the rehabilitation? drilling of Habanero 1. Progressive rehabilitation of areas not required for operational uses is currently occurring. However:
The Power Plant & associated facilities will still be in place in 5 years. Any There needs to be reference to final site rehabilitation plans within this decommissioning activity would be subject to next 5 year review. section, including the removal of surface structures, re contouring, well decommissioning and compliance with GAS criteria. There should also be reference to borrow pit rehabilitation. There also needs to be a section regarding well decommissioning, including the isolation of aquifers to prevent cross-flow and contamination. This document should outline the geological formations that will require isolation during future well decommissioning.
5.0 DMITRE DMITRE will be providing the reviewed EIR and SEO to other government On 12 August 2013 local community members visited the current Power Plant in agencies for consultation. Has Geodynamics consulted with other operation as part of a tour of the site which included DMITRE and members of stakeholders during this review process particularly landowners parliament etc. Specific and targeted consultation has not occurred as part of this (Kidmans/native title) and Innamincka residents? DMITRE will consult with review process. DEWNR. Consultation on the construction and operating of the Power Plant was originally undertaken as part of the original 2008 EIR. This included consultation with all relevant government agencies, landholders, native title claimants and the local
community at Innamincka. Since 2008 a number of Notices of Entry have also been provided to the relevant stakeholders in relation to activities carried out at the Power EIR Stakeholder Issues Raised or Comments Made Issues Raised or Comments Made Section / Table Plant including, but not limited to, the construction of the Warehouse/Laydown Yard and the drilling and stimulation / evaluation of Habanero 4. Has there been any stakeholder concerns? GDY is not aware of any complaints or concerns regarding the operation of the Power Plant since it was first constructed in 2008/2009. EIR amended to reflect.
6.3 DMITRE May be worth adding the footprint of the plant area (13ha) here if in fact the Agreed – EIR amended intention is to remain within the existing footprint.
6.5a DMITRE Suggest the removal of ‘wherever possible’ soil contamination should always Agreed – EIR amended be prevented.
6.5b DMITRE It is suggested that the below table incorporate comparisons with guidelines Table 3 and discussion under 6.5 amended to include NEPC groundwater and or exposure limits (Hab 4 geofluid chemistry) investigation levels.
6.5c DMITRE Please provide timeframe for development (of Geofluid Mgt Strategy). Also SEO and EIR updated to reflect that final removal/disposal of geofluid brine/salt needs to be incorporated into SEO objective as a requirement for completion following evaporation will be managed in accordance with an Activity Notification under assessment criteria. I have suggested the addition to Objective 4. prepared for DMITRE approval and in accordance with EPA Guidelines. The operator will confirm removal method with the regulator/s and obtain any necessary approvals prior to commencement as part of the Activity Notification process.
6.6 DMITRE DMITRE request EBS 2009 ecological assessment for whole of lease area Agreed – Added as an appendix. be provided as Appendix
6.7 DMITRE Please provide recorded temperatures to back up this statement (in relation Geofluid enters pond at below 100°C. Cooling time to ambient depends on size of to geofluid temp entering ponds) and no of bird deaths (we used term ‘few’ in receiving pond. We are not aware of any bird deaths as a result of open flow EIR) discharges to the ponds – which are infrequent and of limited duration in any case. EIR amended to include this information and ‘few’ amended to ‘no’ bird deaths.
6.9 DMITRE Possibly incorporate some information regarding increased noise levels Agreed – EIR amended to include noise level measurements of open flow and during activities such as open flow. It is also suggested that turbine noise turbine hall in EIR and extrapolation of these levels to Innamincka levels at the site and at certain distances from the site be quantified. I have suggested this within the SEO Objectives also.
6.10 DMITRE Couch grass cultivated as a dust suppressant in the past around the camp has been removed and will be monitored and controlled in the future. Noted
Please provide further clarification regarding house mouse control. How are EIR amended to show that an ecologist will be consulted on appropriate strategies in the risks that baiting poses to native rodents managed? the event of any future infestations to avoid unintended impacts on native fauna.
7.2.8 DMITRE Wastewater treatment and disposal will be disposed of in accordance with Agreed – EIR amended. the South Australian Public Health (Wastewater) Regulations 2013 and the SA Health On-site Wastewater Systems Code April 2013
7.2.9 DMITRE There needs to be reference to final site rehabilitation plans within this It is intended that the Power Plant & associated facilities will still be in place in 5 section, including the removal of surface structures, re contouring, well years. Rehabilitation of surrounding areas that are surplus to operational EIR Stakeholder Issues Raised or Comments Made Issues Raised or Comments Made Section / Table decommissioning and compliance with GAS criteria. requirements will continue. Any decommissioning of the Power Plant would be subject to next 5 year review. The GAS criteria is to be used as a guide for the ongoing rehabilitation of the site.
App B DMITRE Has this EWB report been finalised? (relates to soil monitoring) and has this Yes to both items – EIR amended to include results. s3.4 sampling been completed and is a report available? (relates to unflashed
brine)
6.5 EPA If Geodynamics have supplied groundwater monitoring results to DMITRE Yes – submitted to DMITRE 13 July 2012 – copy forwarded to DMITRE to forward to (per their groundwater monitoring plan ) and forward these to EPA for EPA. Review
Figures EPA Higher resolution images of Figures 2 and 3 in the October 2013 EIR – Yes – Higher res images supplied to DMITRE on 10 February 2014 for forwarding to 2 and 3 zooming in on the currently supplied figures does not make the image or text EPA. any clearer
4.3a EPA Please confirm if there is any chemical treatment/additions to the No chemical treatment or additions are planned to be added to the geofluid prior to geofluid occur prior to re-injection. re-injection.
4.3b EPA Geothermal Power Generation Process Noted – An EPA Licence is not currently required as there are no planned chemical treatments or additions to the geofluid prior to re-injection. GDY understands that an Geodynamics has confirmed (19 February 2014) that there are no planned EPA Licence may need to be applied for if the activity changes. The wording (left) will chemical treatments or additions to the geofluid prior to re-injection. If any be incorporated into the SEO Table Objective 7. antibiotic or chemical treatments are added, and the total volume of re-injection is in excess of 50 kilolitres per day, Schedule 1 Activity 8(7) Discharges to Marine or Inland Waters of the Environment Protection Act 1993 is considered to apply. This activity requires an EPA Licence.
4.4a EPA It is understood that the ponds adjacent to the Power Plant are HDPE lined – Yes – the ponds referred to are Dams 1 – 2 as indicated on Figure 2. Liner please confirm that this means Dams 1 – 2 (per Figure 2) and detail the information is as per below: specifications of the lining. (e.g. UV stabilised, lining thickness, clay capping Dam 1 (Flex Polypropylene 1.5mm DDT Liner) Refer on top of the lining). Dam 2 (LLDPE 1.5mm DDT Liner) Dam 3 (1mm HDPE) Attachments ‘DDT Liner Info and Specs’ and ‘Waterlogic Dam Liner Weld Test Results – Dam 3)’ provided for specification information.
4.4b EPA ‘Dam 4’ at Habanero 2 – please confirm that this ‘lined pond’ is HDPE lined, Dam 4 (LLDPE 1.5mm DDT Liner) and detail the specifications of the lining. Attachment ‘DDT Liner Info and Specs’ provided. LLDPE was selected as superior to HDPE for this application.
4.4c EPA Geofluid Management – Dams at the Habanero Site Dams at Habanero site: Below, the EPA has accepted our use of the 1.5mm LLDPE liner and we will incorporate points a) and b) (underlined) into our SEO Table Dam 4 at Habanero 2 did not form part of the previously assessed plant in Objective 4 as per the wording (underlined left). 2008. From the information in the current EIR, and the further information EIR Stakeholder Issues Raised or Comments Made Issues Raised or Comments Made Section / Table supplied on 19 February 2014, it is understood that this pond is lined with a a) and b) are applicable to Dam 4 (Hab 2) as it is the only Dam with fluid. This would 1.5mm LLDPE (Linear Low Density Polyethylene) liner. The EPA currently be applicable to Dams 1-3 if they were in use however they have been cleaned and advises proponents to line ponds containing highly saline water with 2mm drained i.e. no brine. Any liquid that forms in these Dams currently will be rainwater HOPE liner. The proponent has advised that the 1.5mm LLDPE liner was and will evaporate. selected on the basis that it was superior to HOPE for this type of application. The EPA accepts the use of this type of liner, but advises that the following should be conducted at regular intervals to ensure the likelihood of seepage is reduced: a) Leak detection testing and/or regular water balance calculations and visual inspections to ensure any loss of significant water volumes from the recovered fluid ponds is detected. b) Liner integrity surveys This applies not only to Dam 4, but also to Dams 1- 3, which are also used to hold highly saline water.
4.4d EPA Geofluid Management – Radiation The Plant has been decommissioned and preserved for storage. All pipework has been drained and sealed inhibiting the possibility of scale build-up. Should the The EIR outlines that testing of the geofluid has determined that it does not decision be made in the future to recommission or scrap the plant GDY would at that pose any radiation risk. point get in touch with the Radiation Branch of the EPA as mentioned above. GDY (Then refers to Appendix 81 for details). Appendix 81 details that the primary will incorporate into the SEO Table Objective 10. purpose of the report was to determine the occupational exposure hazards
(including radiological), posed by open flowing of the geothermal well. This report then refers to another report, which is not included in the submission. However, it is understood that the results indicated that the production water itself (including steam and gases) was determined to pose no risk to personnel from an increase in radon or thoron levels. The EPA comments that scale inside the pipe work was not sampled and analysed, “due to the low flow times and low probability of significant or representative samples being able to be obtained”. Scale build-up may occur over time, and it is the EPA’s opinion that this scale may in time pose a radiation risk. The EPA suggests that scale in the pipe- work and heat exchangers should be periodically checked for the presence of radioactive material. This also applies to sludge or solid buildup in the lined ponds. In line with the EPA’s comments dated 21 August 2008 relating to this plant, Geodynamics should be prepared to manage low-level waste and contamination of equipment following maintenance and during decommissioning and rehabilitation of the plant. It is important that this material is disposed of appropriately. Geodynamics should contact the Radiation branch of the EPA on (08) 8463 7826 or [email protected] concerning this matter.”.
4.10a EPA It is noted that make-up water may be used for the Power Plant. If you could The Power Plant is mothballed now in which case no makeup water is being used. EIR Stakeholder Issues Raised or Comments Made Issues Raised or Comments Made Section / Table please estimate how much makeup water is required for the power plant, and if this water is treated prior to use.
4.10b EPA Make up Water Noted – GDY understands that as the plant is currently mothballed and no make up water is in use no action is required. GDY understands that if the activity changed an The EIR outlines that the site requires water for potable and domestic use, EPA Licence may be required. GDY will incorporate into the SEO Table Objective 4. and “minor make up of working fluid in the Power Plant and heat exchangers”. The EPA requested information as to how much ‘make up’ water was required, and if it would be chemically treated prior to use. On 19 February 2014, the response was received that the Plant is currently mothballed, “in which case no make up water is being used”. If this is planned to change, Schedule 1 Activity 8(7) Discharges to Marine or Inland Waters of the Environment Protection Act 1993 may apply, which requires an EPA Licence.
7.2.10 EPA “Other Aspects” refers to Section “4.6” relating to operational controls and GDY’s Cooper Basin Emergency Response Plan provided for information. The well safeguards so “Power Plant and production/injection wells (Habanero and plant emergency shutdown valves can close in less than 60 seconds, these are 4&1) can be safely shut down if required” in the case of a failure. Please regularly function tested as part of routine operations. detail the contingency plan in place in the case of well or pipeline failure (if
this is contained within the GDY Cooper Basin Emergency response plan, if this could be provided), and the estimated timeframe to shut down a well if failure occurs.
N/A DEWNR DMITRE received confirmation from DEWNR on 12 March 2014 (file ref Noted 18/14/0078) confirming that the EIR, SEO and DMITRE’s Environmental Significance Assessment had been reviewed and that DEWNR endorses the proposed activities as outlined in GDY’s SEO and EIR. DEWNR also confirmed agreement with the proposed low impact classification assigned by DMITRE.
Appendix K – SEO - Summary of Comments and Responses
Page 66 of 66
Statement of Environmental Objectives (SEO) 1MW Geothermal Power Plant – Agency Consultation Comments and Responses:
DMITRE assessed the activities covered by this EIR and SEO as low impact. The EIR and draft SEO were subject to a process of internal government consultation prior to approval.
The results of consultation with government agencies specific to the SEO are included in the following table.
SEO Section Stakeholder Issues Raised or Comments Made Issues Raised or Comments Made / Table 3.2 EPA Other Reporting Requirements Noted – SEO Section 3.2 updated. Environmental incidents that cause or threaten serious or material environmental harm must be reported to the Environment Protection Authority, upon becoming aware of the incident. This is in line with Section 83 of the Environment Protection Act 1993. The EPA emergency phone number is 1800 100 833. The secondary number (if the first emergency number is not available) is 8204 2004. These details should be incorporated into this document. Appendix A DMITRE Environmental Objectives and Assessment Criteria Agreed – SEO Table Objectives updated. Items discussed for inclusion in the assessment criteria: SEO Objective 5 addition to assessment criteria: Clearance to native vegetation is avoided as far as reasonably practicable Facility, pits/cellars and water storages appropriately fenced/covered to minimise access to native fauna SEO Objective 7 addition to assessment criteria: Fuels and chemicals stored in accordance with EPA requirements SEO Objective 8 addition to assessment criteria: All wastes to be disposed of at an EPA licensed facility Wastewater must be treated and disposed of in accordance with the SA Public Health (Wastewater) Regulations 2013 and the SA Health On Site wastewater Systems Code, April 2013. SEO Objective 3 addition to assessment criteria: No reasonable stakeholder complaints left unresolved No adverse impacts on livestock Facility, pits/cellars and water storages appropriately fenced/covered to minimise access to livestock No significant impact to Innamincka Regional Reserve Appendix A EPA Environmental Objectives and Assessment Criteria Appendix A - GDY added statement reflecting the re-iterated statement (left) The recommendations the EPA has made in relation to the EIR should into the SEO Table Objective 4. This will be considered as part of our also be incorporated into the corresponding sections Appendix A of the rehabilitation post-plug and abandonment. SEO: Per the EPA's response to this project dated 21 August 2008 relating to minimising impacts to surface water, it is re-iterated that: "The installation of appropriately positioned silt retention devises (sic) SEO Section Stakeholder Issues Raised or Comments Made Issues Raised or Comments Made / Table to minimise off site discharge of suspended solids (particularly into local tributaries within the project area) should also be included as a guide to achieving [this] objective" Noted – GDY incorporated information from the EPA Comments/Conditions Additional EPA Environmental Significance Assessment (ESA): 'Geodynamics - 1 for Low Environmental Impact Activities into the SEO (various objectives) as Item MW Power Plant (Assessor: DMITRE) The Authority agrees with DMITRE's current classification of the applicable. activity as being of Low Impact. As such, the 'EPA Comments/Conditions for Low Environmental Impact Activities' are also enclosed as part of this response. Items from EIR Comments that resulted in an update to the SEO Table Objectives.
EIR Section Stakeholder Issues Raised or Comments Made Issues Raised or Comments Made
1 DMITRE Refer to EPA Comments (1) and GDY Response in EIR Summary Table SEO amended to cover only maintenance & repair of existing Power Plant.
3.1 DMITRE Refer to EPA Comments (3.1b) and GDY Response in EIR Summary Table SEO amended to cover only maintenance & repair of existing Power Plant
4.3 EPA Refer to EPA Comments (4.3b) and GDY Response in EIR Summary Table SEO Table Objective 7 updated.
4.4 EPA Refer to EPA Comments (4.4c) and GDY Response in EIR Summary Table SEO Table Objective 4 updated.
4.4d EPA Refer to EPA Comments (4.4d) and GDY Response in EIR Summary Table SEO Table Objective 10 updated.
4.10 EPA Refer to EPA Comments (4.10b) and GDY Response in EIR Summary Table SEO Table Objective 4 updated.
6.5 DMITRE Refer EIR Comments (6.5c) and GDY Response in EIR Summary Table SEO Table Objective 4 updated.