Appendix 7: Spring Gully Environmental Constraints ... and social...1. Introduction 1.1. Project background Origin Energy, on behalf of Australia Pacific LNG Pty Limited (Australia

Spring Gully North-West and North-East Project – Preliminary Documentation REPORT

Appendix 7: Spring Gully Environmental Constraints Planning and Field Development Protocol (Q-8200-15-MP-1157)

Spring Gully Environmental Constraints Planning and Field Development Protocol

Doc Ref: Q-8200-15-MP-1157 Revision: 1 Page 2 of 47

Communities and Access, Australia Pacific LNG Project

Uncontrolled when printed unless issued and stamped Controlled Copy.

Release Notice This document is available through the Australia Pacific LNG Project controlled document system TeamBinder™. The responsibility for ensuring that printed copies remain valid rests with the user. Once printed, this is an uncontrolled document unless issued and stamped Controlled Copy.

Third-party issue can be requested via the Australia Pacific LNG Project Document Control Group.

Document Conventions The following terms in this document apply:

Will, shall or must indicate a mandatory course of action

Should indicates a recommended course of action

May or can indicate a possible course of action.

Document Custodian The custodian of this document is the Australia Pacific LNG Project – Field Access Manager – Communities & Access. The custodian is responsible for maintaining and controlling changes (additions and modifications) to this document and ensuring the stakeholders validate any changes made to this document.

Deviations from Document Any deviation from this document must be approved by the Australia Pacific LNG Project – Field Access Manager – Communities & Access.





Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 6

1.1. Project background ..................................................................................... 6

1.2. Summary of proposed activities ....................................................................... 6

1.3. Legislative context ...................................................................................... 7

1.3.1. Federal ...................................................................................................... 7

1.3.2. State (Queensland) ........................................................................................ 7

1.4. Scope and objectives ................................................................................... 9

1.5. Definitions & abbreviations ............................................................................ 9

1.5.1. Definitions .................................................................................................. 9

1.5.2. Abbreviations .............................................................................................. 10

1.6. Roles and responsibilities ............................................................................. 11

1.7. Protocol review ......................................................................................... 12

1.8. Relationship with other plans ........................................................................ 12

2. Environmental Context ............................................................................... 13

2.1. Bioregion and subregions .............................................................................. 13

2.2. Soils and topography ................................................................................... 13

2.3. Land use .................................................................................................. 15

2.4. Vegetation ............................................................................................... 15

2.5. Environmentally Sensitive Areas ..................................................................... 16

2.6. Threatened Ecological Communities ................................................................ 16

2.6.1. Brigalow TEC ............................................................................................... 16

2.6.2. SEVT TEC ................................................................................................... 16

2.6.3. Coolibah TEC .............................................................................................. 17

2.6.4. Weeping Myall Woodlands TEC.......................................................................... 17

2.6.5. The community of native species dependent on natural discharge of groundwater from the Great Artesian Basin ...................................................................................... 17

2.7. Threatened Species .................................................................................... 18

2.7.1. Commonwealth listed species .......................................................................... 18

2.7.2. State listed species ....................................................................................... 18

2.8. Wetlands ................................................................................................. 19

2.9. Watercourses and Waterways ........................................................................ 19

2.10. State Forests and Conservation Areas ............................................................... 19

3. Ecology Surveys ........................................................................................ 20

3.1. Desktop assessments ................................................................................... 20

3.1.1. Database searches ........................................................................................ 20

3.1.2. Review of previous studies .............................................................................. 21

3.1.3. Literature review ......................................................................................... 21





3.1.4. Likelihood of occurrence assessments ................................................................. 21

3.1.5. Preliminary vegetation and habitat mapping ......................................................... 22

3.1.6. Site selection and survey design considerations ..................................................... 23

3.2. Field assessments ....................................................................................... 23

3.2.1. RE survey methodology .................................................................................. 24

3.2.2. Targeted habitat assessments .......................................................................... 24

3.2.3. TEC assessments .......................................................................................... 24

3.2.4. Flora survey methodology ............................................................................... 25

3.2.5. Fauna survey methodology .............................................................................. 25

3.3. Data reconciliation ..................................................................................... 30

4. Constraints mapping .................................................................................. 31

4.1. Methodology ............................................................................................. 31

4.1.1. Threatened ecological community status and dominance ......................................... 33

4.1.2. Vegetation community value for threatened flora and fauna ..................................... 33

4.1.3. Vegetation community bioregional extent and condition .......................................... 33

4.1.4. Vegetation community tract size ....................................................................... 34

4.2. Heat map and constraint factors ..................................................................... 34

5. Infrastructure Planning ............................................................................... 37

5.1. Field planning overview ............................................................................... 37

5.2. Application of environmental constraints to infrastructure planning .......................... 37

5.2.1. Siting per infrastructure type ........................................................................... 38

6. Calculating and Tracking Disturbance ............................................................. 40

6.1. Planned disturbance ................................................................................... 40

6.2. Actual disturbance ..................................................................................... 40

7. Data Collection and Maintenance .................................................................. 42

8. Responsibilities, Compliance and Corrective Actions ........................................... 43

References ................................................................................................... 44

Appendix A – Spring Gully Project area .................................................................. 46

Appendix B – Relevant published survey guidelines ................................................... 47

List of Tables Table 1: Additional Information Request ............................................................................ 7

Table 2: Spring Gully EA Conditions .................................................................................. 7

Table 3: Definitions ..................................................................................................... 9

Table 4: Abbreviations ................................................................................................. 10

Table 5: Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................. 11

Table 6: Known REs in Project Area ................................................................................. 15

Table 7: EPBC listed threatened species ........................................................................... 18





Table 8: NC Act listed threatened species ......................................................................... 18

Table 9: Fauna Species Preferred Methods ......................................................................... 26

Table 10: Heat Score and Constraint Score ........................................................................ 34

Table 11: Constraint Factors ......................................................................................... 34

Table 12: Category Constraints ...................................................................................... 35

Table 13: Process for Recording Disturbance ...................................................................... 40

List of Figures Figure 1: 3D LiDAR representation of a portion of NWDA ........................................................ 14

Figure 2: 3D LiDAR representation of a portion of NEDA ......................................................... 14

Figure 3: Gated Process ............................................................................................... 20

Figure 4: Flowchart for developing preliminary and final mapping ............................................ 22

Figure 5 Constraints Mapping Process ............................................................................... 32




Uncontrolled when printed unless issued and stamped Controlled Copy

1. Introduction

1.1. Project background

Origin Energy, on behalf of Australia Pacific LNG Pty Limited (Australia Pacific LNG) proposes to develop coal seam gas (CSG) resources located on petroleum lease (PL) 414, 415, 416 and part of 418, known as Spring Gully North-West Development Area (NWDA) and PL 417, known as the North-East Development Area (NEDA) (collectively referred to as ‘the Project’). The Project is located approximately 30km to the east of Injune and 70km north-east of Roma in Surat Basin (Appendix A).

The Project was referred (referral EPBC 2017/7881) to the delegate of the Minister for the Department of the Environment and Energy (DoEE) and was determined to likely have a significant impact on the following controlling provisions that are protected under Part 3 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act):

Sections 18 and 18A: Listed threatened species and communities;

Sections 24D and 24E: A water resource, in relation to CSG development and large coal mining development.

The assessment pathway of the Project will be via preliminary documentation. This Spring Gully Environmental Constraints Planning and Field Development Protocol (the Protocol) provides the framework for the assessment of environmental values and how infrastructure planning will be, or has been, sited in order to avoid environmental values, where possible.

1.2. Summary of proposed activities

The Project area is approximately 39,424ha, with the development footprint encompassing approximately 601ha of the total Project area. As the Project progresses through design, construction and operation, the development footprint may change.

As stated in the referral (EPBC 2017/7881), the Project will involve the progressive development of CSG infrastructure within the NWDA (PLs 414, 415, 416 and 418 (part)) and NEDA (PL417) and will include the following activities:

The drilling, installation, operation and maintenance of CSG production wells. The Project is expected to involve approximately 114 production wells. This includes eight (8) wells and associated infrastructure for which some preparatory works have been undertaken to date (e.g. clearing of lease area, access tracks etc.).

Installation, operation and maintenance of gas and water gathering flowlines

Installation, operation and maintenance of associated supporting infrastructure (e.g. access roads, power and communication systems, temporary accommodation camps, laydowns, stockpiles etc.)

Decommissioning and rehabilitation of infrastructure and disturbed areas

Management of CSG water produced by the Project.

The Project will not require development of gas processing facilities or water management and treatment infrastructure as gas and CSG water will be directed to existing infrastructure located on PLs 195 and 204 and operated pursuant to approvals for the existing Spring Gully CSG Project (outside the scope of this Protocol). The use of existing gas processing and water treatment infrastructure will minimise land disturbance and associated environmental impacts in the Project area.





1.3. Legislative context

1.3.1. Federal

On 6th April 2017 the Minister decided the Project to be a controlled action and that it will be assessed by preliminary documentation. Table 1 describes the aspects of the information required (dated 13th April 2017) that this Protocol provides a response to.

Table 1: Additional Information Request

Specific Content of the Additional Information

The methodology used to identify habitat for species (Elseya albagula (White-throated Snapping Turtle), Phascolarctos cinereus (Koala), Petauroides volans (Greater Glider), Geophaps scripta scripta (Squatter Pigeon), Dasyurus hallucatus (Northern Quoll), Chalinolobus dwyeri (Large-eared Pied Bat), Egernia rugosa (Yakka Skink), Furina dunmalli (Dunmall’s Snake), Nyctophilus corbeni (South-eastern Long-eared Bat), Delma torquata (Collared Delma), Bertya opponens (a shrub)) and ecological community, when planning and determining the likely placement of all infrastructure associated with the project;

The methodology used to determine the area (in hectares) likely to be impacted by vegetation clearance for the above species and ecological community;

1.3.2. State (Queensland)

The Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act) aims to promote ecologically sustainable development in Queensland in order to protect Queensland's environment. This Act is the principal environmental legislation in Queensland and governs the environmental regulation of petroleum activities, including the issue of environmental authorities (EAs) for a petroleum activity.

The Spring Gully EA (EPPG00885313) has been granted and authorises up to 600 wells and associated infrastructure in the following PLs:

PL195

PL200

PL203/PL268

PL204

PL414 to PL419.

Relevant conditions of the EA related to the siting of infrastructure are provided in Table 2.

Table 2: Spring Gully EA Conditions

EA Condition Description

B1 Contaminants must not be directly or indirectly released to any waters except as permitted under this environmental authority as specified in Schedule B.

D13 The holder of this authority must:

(a) Minimise disturbance to land in order to prevent land degradation;

(b) Manage topsoil in a manner that will preserve its biological and chemical properties; and

(c) Utilise stockpiled soils for rehabilitation purposes.

E1 Notwithstanding any other condition of this authority, the holder of this authority must ensure that petroleum activities:

(a) Are not conducted within a category A or category B Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA); and





EA Condition Description

(b) Do not cause a significant disturbance within 1km of a category A ESA or within 500m of a category B ESA; and

(c) Are not conducted in a category C ESA unless there is a written agreement to enter the area for those activities from the relevant administering authority.

E2 Prior to carrying out field based activities, the holder of the environmental authority should make all relevant staff, contractors or agents carrying out those activities, aware of the location of any category A, category B or category C Environmentally Sensitive Areas within area of the proposed activity.

E3 Despite condition (E1), where no reasonable alternative exists, petroleum activities may be undertaken within an endangered regional ecosystem or the 500m buffer zone of an endangered regional ecosystem, provided that those activities are located according to the following order of preference:

(a) Pre-existing areas of significant disturbance within the buffer zone;

(b) Undisturbed areas more than 100m from the ESA;

(c) Undisturbed areas less than 100m from the ESA;

(d) Pre-existing areas of significant disturbance within the ESA;

(e) Areas within the ESA of lower environmental value (e.g. not of concern remnant vegetation or of concern remnant vegetation in a polygon mapped as containing endangered regional ecosystem and other ecosystems); and

(f) Areas where clearing of an endangered regional ecosystem is unavoidable provided the clearing does not exceed 10% of a polygon mapped as an endangered regional ecosystem and all reasonable effort is made to minimise the area cleared and to avoid clearing mature trees.

E4 Condition (E3) does not authorise clearing that is:

(a) More than 10% of a polygon mapped as an endangered regional ecosystem;

(b) More than 3600m2 for the operational area for any drill site within an endangered regional ecosystem;

(c) Within an endangered regional ecosystem for construction of a sump larger than 30m2;

(d) Greater than 6 metres in width for tracks that are necessary within an endangered regional ecosystem for production and exploration purposes; and

(e) Greater than 12 metres in width for pipeline construction purposes that is necessary within an endangered regional ecosystem.

The Project may require additional approvals under other State legislation including but not limited to:

Fisheries Act 1994 (Fisheries Act)

Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act)

Regional Planning Interests Act 2014 (RPI Act)

Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SP Act)

Water Act 2000 (Water Act)

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (ACH Act).

Should these approvals be required during the planning of CSG infrastructure, the Project will obtain the required approval prior to significant disturbance and comply with the conditions of approval. Further, the conditions of the Spring Gully EA may change over time, as such, siting of infrastructure will be in accordance with current EA conditions.





1.4. Scope and objectives

The scope of this Protocol is specific to the Project area as defined in Section 1.1.

The Protocol has been developed to ensure a robust strategy is implemented for the identification of environmental values (as defined under the EPBC Act and EP Act) and measures to avoid and minimise potential adverse impacts to these values.

The objective of this Protocol is to provide a framework for the following:

The methodologies that are to be implemented in conducting desktop assessments and field ecological assessments to determine the likelihood of occurrence and presence of Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) and Matters of State Environmental Significance (MSES);

The decision making process for siting gas infrastructure within the Project area in compliance with Federal and State environmental approvals;

The roles and responsibilities in infrastructure planning, from ecological assessment to post construction reporting;

The process for calculating and tracking adverse environmental impacts to MNES;

Data collection and maintenance processes;

Compliance and corrective actions; and

Protocol review requirements.

This Protocol is relevant to all phases of Project where significant disturbance to land is proposed or is likely to occur on a terrestrial basis.

1.5. Definitions & abbreviations

1.5.1. Definitions

Table 3: Definitions

Term Definition

Suitably qualified person/ecologist

Means a person who has professional qualifications, training, skills or experience relevant to the nominated subject matter and can give authoritative assessment, advice and analysis to performance relative to the subject matter using the relevant protocols, standards, methods or literature.

Significantly disturbed land

Environmental Protection Regulation 2008 definition:

(1) Land is significantly disturbed if –

a. It is contaminated land; or

b. It has been disturbed and human intervention is needed to rehabilitate it –

i. To a condition required under the relevant environmental authority; or

ii. If the environmental authority does not require the land to be rehabilitated to a particular condition – to the condition it was in immediately before disturbance.

Examples of a disturbance to land –

The covering, compaction, exposure, removal or stockpiling of soil or other material

The destruction or removal of vegetation

The carrying out of a mining activity in a watercourse or wetland





Term Definition

The submergence of an area with a hazardous contaminant, tailings, or water

(2) Without limiting subsection (1)(b), land requires human intervention to rehabilitate it if –

a. The disturbance has made the land more susceptible to erosion; or

b. The land use capability or suitability of the land is diminished; or

c. The quality of water in a watercourse downstream of the land has been significantly reduced.

(3) If land is significantly disturbed land because it is contaminated land, it ceases to be significantly disturbed land if a suitability statement is issued for the land.

(4) If land is significantly disturbed land under subsection (1)(b), it ceases to be significantly disturbed land if the administering authority is satisfied the land has been rehabilitated –

a. To the condition it was in immediately before the disturbance; or

b. To another condition decided by the administering authority.

Project The proposed development of coal seam gas resources located on petroleum lease (PL) 414, 415, 416 and part of 418, known as Spring Gully North-West Development Area and PL 417, known as the North-East Development Area

1.5.2. Abbreviations

Table 4: Abbreviations

Term Definition

ACH Act Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003

ALA Atlas of Living Australia

ARI Average Recurrence Interval

BAAM Biodiversity Assessment and Management

CIMG CSQ Industry Monitoring Group

CSG Coal Seam Gas

E Endangered

EA Environmental Approvals

EHP Environment and Heritage Protection

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EP Act Environmental Protection Act 1994

EPBC Act Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area(s)

EVNT Endangered, vulnerable, and near threatened

Fisheries Act Fisheries Act 1994

GPF Gas Processing Facilities





Term Definition

HERBRECs Queensland Herbarium Specimen Data

IRE Integrated Regional Ecosystems

MNES Matters of National Environmental Significance

NC Act Nature Conservation Act 1992

NEDA North-East Development Area

NT Near threatened

NWDA North-West Development Area

PL Petroleum Lease

PMST Protected Matters Search Tool

RE Regional Ecosystem

RPI Act Regional Planning Interests Act 2014

SAT Spot Assessment Technique

SP Act Sustainable Planning Act 2009

SPRAT Species Profile and Threats Database

TEC Threatened ecological community(ies)

V Vulnerable

VM Act Vegetation Management Act 1999

Water Act Water Act 2000

WTF Water Treatment Facility

1.6. Roles and responsibilities

Table 5: Roles and Responsibilities

Role Responsibilities

Contractor

(Construction) Carrying out of construction activities.

Environmental Manager (Approvals)

Review of environmental values in relation to proposed infrastructure design, with the intent to liaise with project designers to locate infrastructure away from environmental values, where possible.

Identification of environmental approvals.

Environmental Manager (Field Delivery)

Insurance over the contractor implementing the works.

Relay of ‘as built’ infrastructure and disturbance footprints into the Corporate GIS system.

Environmental Manager (Offsets)

Implementation and delivery of offsets for significant residual impacts to Matters of National Environmental Significance and Matters of State Environmental Significance (as required by the Spring Gully EA).

Field Environmental Manager

Ground-truthing of environmental values. Calculating of disturbances.

A suitably qualified person.





Role Responsibilities

GIS Manager Incorporation of the supplied GIS data into the Corporate GIS system.

Project Designer Layout and design of proposed infrastructure.

1.7. Protocol review

The Protocol is proposed to be reviewed every 5 years, post approval of this current revision. The review will assess the effectiveness of this Protocol in avoiding, minimising and mitigating adverse impacts to the environment, in particular MNES and will take into account relevant studies, policies, standards, guidelines and advice relating to CSG activities.

1.8. Relationship with other plans

This Protocol is one of a suite of documents developed to satisfy the Projects approval requirements and to ensure compliance is achieved. Other plans include, but may not be limited to the following:

Spring Gully Threatened Species and Communities Management Plan (Q-8200-15-MP-1158)

Groundwater Monitoring Plan (Q-LNG01-10-MP-0005)

Biosecurity Management Plan (Q-1000-15-MP-107)

Remediation, Rehabilitation, Recovery and Monitoring Plan (RRRMP) (Q-LNG01-15-MP-0107)





2. Environmental Context The Project area has several environmental values which will be considered during infrastructure planning. The following sections provides an overview of the environmental context of the Project area.

2.1. Bioregion and subregions

The Project area is located in the Brigalow Belt (South) bioregion and straddles three subregions, Carnarvon Ranges, Southern Downs and Taroom Downs. Sattler and Williams (1999) describes the subregions as:

Carnarvon Ranges

The Carnarvon Ranges is an extensive belt of predominantly course sandstones that form the north-eastern margin of the Great Artesian Basin. Landforms include deep valleys, gorges and undulating to hilly surfaces. Soils are predominantly coarse, with deep sands or with deep sandy-surfaced texture contrast soils on less steep areas. Dominant vegetation consist of mixed eucalypt woodland or forest, usually with a shrubby understory. Dominant tree species include Eucalyptus crebra (narrow-leaved ironbark), Corymbia citriodora (spotted gum) and other bloodwoods (Corymbia spp.). Callitris glaucophylla (cypress pine) is common on deeper soils of undulating areas whilst Angophora leiocarpa (rusty gum) is common in valleys.

Taroom Downs

Taroom Downs is dominated by Acacia harpophylla (brigalow), with areas of vine thicket and Dichanthium sericeum (bluegrass) downs. The province is undulating formed on the argillaceous sediments of the Injune Downs Group of the Great Artesian Basin.

Southern Downs

Southern Downs is based on the Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments that outcrop around the rim of the Great Artesian Basin. Fined grained sediments, forming a low, hilly landscape dominant the province, including the watershed formed by the Great Dividing Range. Dominant vegetation communities include Casuarina cristata (belah), brigalow, Eucalyptus populnea (poplar box) and narrow-leaved ironbark, with less extensive areas of spotted gum, E. fibrosa subsp. nubila (dusky leaved ironbark), semi evergreen vine thicket, Astrebla and Acacia communities.

2.2. Soils and topography

The topography of the Project area ranges from undulating to hilly, with areas of deep valleys and gorges (major contours with elevation of 520m). Approximately half of NWDA occurs within steep sandstone hills which support extensive areas of open forest, with the remaining half being cleared, undulating agricultural land (Figure 1). The landscape within the northern section of NEDA comprises of open forest on sandstone hills, whilst the southern section is a predominantly agricultural landscape (Figure 2).





Figure 1: 3D LiDAR representation of a portion of NWDA

Figure 2: 3D LiDAR representation of a portion of NEDA

Queensland land zones 3, 9 and 10 occur within the Project area, within 10 being prominent in the landscape causing a constraint in construction designs due to steep topography. Land zone 10 is described as medium to coarse grained sedimentary rocks (sandstones, arenites, and conglomerates) with little or no deformation. These areas are comprise predominantly of resistant quartz which form undulating to steep rises and hills, plateaus, precipitous cliffs and scarps (Queensland Herbarium 2012). Soils of this land zone are generally shallow to moderately deep sandy soils formed in-situ (Queensland Herbarium 2012).





The remaining areas consist of land zones 3 and 9. Land zone 3 includes recent Quaternary alluvial systems, which is the sediment mass deposited from channelled stream flow or over-bank stream flow (Queensland 2012). These areas include lowest river terraces, second river terraces and high level alluvium. Soils on alluvial sediments are very diverse, usually related to the parent material in the upper catchment (Queensland Herbarium 2012). Land zone 9 consists of fine grained sedimentary rocks, generally with little or no deformation and usually forming undulating landscapes. Typical rock types of this land zone include siltstones, mudstones, shales, calcareous sediments and labile sandstones (Queensland Herbarium 2012).

2.3. Land use

The western part of the NWDA and the southern part of the NEDA have been historically cleared of vegetation and is characterised by grassland with small patches of remnant vegetation. These areas have historically been used for agricultural purposes including cattle grazing. The eastern section of the NWDA and the northern section of the NEDA are heavily wooded on steep sedimentary hills. Hallett State Forest is located in the NWDA with some logging and clearing for firebreaks evident.

2.4. Vegetation

The Project area supports approximately 19,059ha of remnant and regrowth vegetation. The various regional ecosystems (REs) known for the Project area are listed in the Table 6 below. The remaining 20,365 ha of the Project area is characterised by cleared grazing land. The progressive ground-truthing of areas of vegetation where infrastructure is proposed will be undertaken prior to significant disturbance, and may expand on the list of REs in Table 6.

Table 6: Known REs in Project Area

Regional Ecosystem

Biodiversity Status1

Short Description

11.3.2 Of concern Eucalyptus populnea woodland on alluvial plains

11.3.3 Of concern Eucalyptus coolabah woodland on alluvial plains

11.3.18 No concern at present

Eucalyptus populnea, Callitris glaucophylla, Allocasuarina luehmannii shrubby woodland on alluvium

11.3.25 Of concern Eucalyptus tereticornis or E. camaldulensis woodland fringing drainage lines


Eucalyptus melanophloia +/- E. chloroclada open woodland on undulating plains and valleys with sandy soils


Eucalyptus melanophloia +/- E. orgadophila woodland on fine-grained sedimentary rocks

11.9.4 Endangered Semi-evergreen vine thicket or Acacia harpophylla with a semi-evergreen vine thicket understorey on fine-grained sedimentary rocks

11.9.5 Endangered Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata open forest on fine-grained sedimentary rocks

11.9.7 Of concern Eucalyptus populnea, Eremophila mitchellii shrubby woodland on fine-grained sedimentary rocks

11.9.10 Endangered Eucalyptus populnea open forest with a secondary tree layer of Acacia harpophylla and sometimes Casuarina cristata on fine-grained sedimentary rocks

11.9.13 Of concern Eucalyptus moluccana or E. microcarpa open forest on fine grained sedimentary rocks

1 As detailed in the QLD VM Act





Regional Ecosystem

Biodiversity Status1

Short Description


Corymbia citriodora woodland on coarse-grained sedimentary rocks


Callitris glaucophylla woodland on coarse-grained sedimentary rocks


Eucalyptus crebra woodland on coarse-grained sedimentary rocks


Eucalyptus populnea, E. melanophloia +/- Callitris glaucophylla woodland on coarse-grained sedimentary rocks

11.10.14 Endangered Springs associated with sandstone

2.5. Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Environmentally sensitive areas (ESA) are defined under the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008 and within the Spring Gully EA.

There are currently no Category A ESAs within the Project area, however, Category B ESAs and Category C ESAs are present.

2.6. Threatened Ecological Communities

The following five (5) TECs are known or have potential to occur in the Project area:

Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant)

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

Coolibah – Black Box Woodlands of the Darling Riverine Plains and the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion

Weeping Myall Woodlands; and

The community of native species dependent on natural discharge of groundwater from the Great Artesian Basin

All potential TECs will be ground-truthed by suitable qualified ecologists prior to infrastructure planning and be assessed against the listed TECs conservation advice.

2.6.1. Brigalow TEC

Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant) TEC is known to occur in the Project area. The TEC has been identified analogous to RE 11.9.5 which has been either ground-truthed during ecological surveys or identified by state mapping of RE 11.9.5 at a scale of 1:100,000. This confirmed or potential TEC covers 734ha of the Project are and occurs in isolated patches across both NEDA and NWDA with a number of patches occurring in proximity to Eurombah Creek.

2.6.2. SEVT TEC

SEVT TEC is known to occur within the Project area and covers approximately 73ha which has been confirmed by ecological surveys and potentially a further 77ha identified by state mapping RE 11.9.4. It occurs in isolated patches within both the NEDA and NWDA.





2.6.3. Coolibah TEC

Coolibah – Black Box Woodlands TEC is associated with RE 11.3.3, 11.3.15, 11.3.16, 11.3.28 and 11.3.37. Within the Project area, only RE 11.3.3 has been identified based on state mapping and covers approximately 8ha along Eurombah Creek.

2.6.4. Weeping Myall Woodlands TEC

Weeping Myall Woodlands TEC occurs in small patches within remnant vegetation RE 11.3.2 and 11.3.28 and likely to comprise up to 5% of the total extent of such mapped vegetation units. Only 11.3.2 has been identified based on ground-truthed and state mapping and covers approximately 913ha of the Project area.

2.6.5. The community of native species dependent on natural discharge of groundwater from the Great Artesian Basin

Springs, including those which are classified as the TEC ‘The community of native species dependent on natural discharge of groundwater from the Great Artesian Basin' (EPBC groundwater community) are known to occur in the Project area and surrounds. One watercourse spring (W59) and the Scott Creek spring complex occurs within the Project area

The Scott Creek spring complex is located along the eastern boundary of the NEDA and supports populations of the EPBC listed (endangered) salt pipewort Eriocaulon carsonii. The Scott Creek spring complex comprises five individual wetlands as shown in Plate 1:

Two (189, 191) large mounded and vegetated wetlands with circular shape and very narrow discharge tail

Three (190, 192, 192.1) smaller less vegetated wetlands that have minor mounding, and are generally elongated in shape.

The source aquifer for Scott Creek complex is the Hutton Sandstone. The presence of the Evergreen Formation aquitard between the Hutton Sandstone and the Precipice Sandstone will limit the potential for impacts as a result of CSG water extraction.





Plate 1: Scott Creek spring complex (source: OGIA 2015a)

2.7. Threatened Species

2.7.1. Commonwealth listed species

Table 7 details the EPBC listed threatened species known, likely or potentially occurring in the Project area. A Threatened Species and Ecological Community Management Plan (Q-8200-15-MP-1158) has been prepared which provides further details on the threatened species and the management measures which will be implemented during Project planning, construction and decommissioning.

Table 7: EPBC listed threatened species

Scientific name Common name EPBC Status Likelihood of Occurrence

Bertya opponens - Vulnerable Potential

Cadellia pentastylis ooline Vulnerable Potential

Chalinolobus dwyeri large-eared pied bat Vulnerable Known

Dasyurus hallucatus northern quoll Endangered Likely

Delma torquata collared delma Vulnerable Potential

Egernia rugosa yakka skink Vulnerable Potential

Elseya albagula white throated snapping turtle Critically endangered

Likely

Eriocaulon carsonii salt pipewort Endangered Known

Furina dunmalli Dunmall's snake Vulnerable Potential

Geophaps scripta scripta squatter pigeon Vulnerable Known

Nyctophilus corbeni (south-eastern form)

south-eastern long-eared bat Vulnerable Potential

Petauroides volans greater glider Vulnerable Known

Phascolarctos cinereus koala Vulnerable Known

2.7.2. State listed species

Table 8 details the species listed as endangered, vulnerable or near threatened (EVNT) under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act) known, likely or potentially occurring within the Project area.

Table 8: NC Act listed threatened species

Scientific name Common name NC Act Status Likelihood of Occurrence

Cadellia pentastylis ooline Vulnerable Potential

Calyptorhynchus lathami glossy-black cockatoo Vulnerable Known

Chalinolobus dwyeri large-eared pied bat Vulnerable Known

Delma torquata collared delma Vulnerable Potential

Egernia rugosa yakka skink Vulnerable Potential

Elseya albagula white throated snapping turtle Endangered Likely

Eriocaulon carsonii salt pipewort Endangered Known

Eriocaulon carsonii subsp. orientale salt pipewort Endangered Known

Furina dunmalli Dunmall's snake Vulnerable Potential





Scientific name Common name NC Act Status Likelihood of Occurrence

Geophaps scripta scripta squatter pigeon Vulnerable Known

Hemiaspis damelii grey snake Endangered Known

Nyctophilus corbeni south-eastern long-eared bat Vulnerable Potential

Petauroides volans greater glider Vulnerable Known

Phascolarctos cinereus koala Vulnerable Known

Strophurus taenicauda golden-tailed gecko Near threatened Potential

2.8. Wetlands

No high ecological significance wetlands on the Map of Referable Wetlands or high ecological value wetlands have been identified in the Project area, nor are Strategic Environmental Areas present. However, some wetlands are present within the Project area. For further information, refer to Section 2.6.5.

2.9. Watercourses and Waterways

The Project is located within the Fitzroy catchment. There a number of non-perennial minor and major watercourses occurring within the Project area. These include the following named watercourses:

Barton creek

Box creek

Eurombah creek

Expedition creek

Commissioner creek

Duck creek

Scott creek

Slatehill creek

Some watercourses and associated vegetation intersected by the watercourses occurring within the Project area are considered MSES.

All four risk categories of waterways are present within the Project area. These include:

Waterway zoning colour – green (low risk)

Waterway zoning colour – amber (moderate risk)

Waterway zoning colour – red (high risk)

Waterway zoning colour – purple (major risk)

No high ecological value waterways, listed as a MSES occur within the Project area.

2.10. State Forests and Conservation Areas

One Queensland State Forest, Hallett State Forest, listed under the Forest Act 1959 occurs within the NWDA of the Project area on Lot Plan 55FTY1153.

One Protected Area, Moorabinda Nature Refuge, listed under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 occurs within the NEDA component of the Project area. Moorabinda Nature Refuge is located on the part of Lot Plan 8 AB227 situated in the County of Aberdeen.





3. Ecology Surveys Ecology surveys will be undertaken prior to construction to identify environmental values on site and comprises of a desktop assessment and field verification.

The Project will obtain and consider desktop and field verified information relating to environmental values when siting infrastructure.

3.1. Desktop assessments

A comprehensive desktop assessment provides a basis of understanding of likely environmental values so that appropriate survey methodologies can be selected and implemented during the field assessment. Front loading of assessments by increasing effort in desktop assessments can improve field survey effectiveness, allow for efficiencies and enable a robust evaluation of environmental values that will be considered during infrastructure planning.

Desktop assessments will be undertaken by a suitably qualified person, which may include both Field Environmental Advisors and Environmental Advisors (Approvals). The desktop assessments will be undertaken for each disturbance approval (DA) or development package (DP) during the internal disturbance approval process. All DAs go through a gated process, as described in Figure 3 and Section 5.1 and allows for thorough assessment of stakeholder considerations (environmental, landholder, engineering).

The desktop assessment will provide a preliminary understanding of the key ecological values in the area, potentially highly constrained areas and offset liabilities that will require field verification within the Project area. The spatial extent of the desktop assessment will be sufficient to detect all potentially occurring significant ecological values within the study area (DA or DP) and in the surrounding area, where indirect impacts may occur.

Figure 3: Gated Process

3.1.1. Database searches

Comprehensive database searches will be conducted to determine known, likely or potential environmental values. The following database searches should be used, where relevant:

Atlas of Living Australia (ALA)

Wildlife Online

HERBRECs

Queensland Museum records

Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST)

State Regional Ecosystem (RE) mapping

Environmental Sensitive Areas (ESA) mapping

Essential Habitat mapping





Species Profile and Threats Database (SPRAT)

EHP’s profile search (WildNet Database)

Protected Plants Flora Survey Trigger Map

Queensland geological digital data

Land systems mapping

Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VM Act) watercourse data

VM Act wetland data

Referrable Wetland mapping

Regulated Vegetation mapping

Matters of State Environmental Significance (MSES) mapping

Origin Energy’s Corporate GIS databases of species records, watercourses and integrated regional ecosystems (IRE)

3.1.2. Review of previous studies

The review of previous studies is an important component of assessing the likelihood of occurrence of environmental values and contributes to survey design and planning. When conducting the review of previous studies, the collection of data and the use of survey methodologies should be investigated as they provide insight on survey effort conducted for previous studies conducted adjacent to the proposed disturbance (where available). Date of survey and survey limitations should also be considered. Specific results to be obtained from these previous studies should include:

Spatial results and extents of occurrence of TECs, threatened and migratory species and associated species habitat (where available)

Known or likely occurrence of MSES, including REs and endangered, vulnerable and near threatened (EVNT) species records

Current threats

Current and historical land use

3.1.3. Literature review

Database searches and previous studies will inform an assessment of known, likely and potential environment values. Of these values determined, the assessor should be familiar with the following literature:

Relevant previous studies (Section 3.1.2).

SPRAT, to determine the distribution, habitat requirements, population statistics and ecology of each threatened species or community identified

Relevant published guidelines (Appendix C)

Species National Recovery Plans

Species approved Conservation Advice

Threatened species management plans, where developed and relevant

3.1.4. Likelihood of occurrence assessments

Database searches and data obtained during previous studies and literature review will be used to inform the likelihood of occurrence for TECs and threatened and migratory species listed under the EPBC Act and NC Act. Likelihood of occurrence assessments are used to determine survey effort required for environmental values and use a combination of known species distribution, populations, records and potential occurrence of suitable habitat which is to be field verified.





Criteria for likelihood of occurrence assessments include:

Known: the species, population or ecological community has been observed on the site (e.g. the DA or DP).

Likely: suitable high quality habitat for a species, population or ecological community occurs on the site, as described in the Spring Gully Threatened Species and Ecological Communities Management Plan or the advice of the suitably qualified person conducting the assessment or where nearby species records are present.

Potential: suitable habitat (general habitat) for a species, population or ecological community occurs on the site, but there is insufficient information to categorise the species as likely, or unlikely to occur.

Unlikely: a low to very low probability that a species, population or ecological community uses/occurs on the site due to the lack of suitable habitat and absence of records or the site is outside the species known range.

No: the species will not occur on site e.g. marine species in a terrestrial study site.

Note: high quality habitat and general habitat is defined, per species, within the Spring Gully Threatened Species and Ecological Communities Management Plan.

3.1.5. Preliminary vegetation and habitat mapping

Aerial photographic interpretation will be undertaken to accurately map vegetation patterns across the Project area. This data will be used in combination with RE, geology and land system mapping to identify, map and categorise vegetation communities and habitat types across the study area. This preliminary vegetation and habitat mapping will be used along with the results of the desktop assessment to determine likely species and communities to target during the field survey.

The preliminary mapping will also be utilised to delineate the study area into appropriate assessment units and stratify suitably representative survey sites. This will ensure that field data collection is spatially comprehensive, efficient and effective, and that survey effort is sufficiently allocated across the area.

Preliminary vegetation communities should be used to inform habitat mapping for species assessed as ‘known’, ‘likely’, or ‘potential’ during the likelihood of occurrence assessments. This process will enable potential habitat to be identified during desktop analysis and enable survey effort to be focussed on where species are more likely to occur.

The field verification assessments will refine preliminary mapping with the collection of quaternary level data and by incorporating presence/absence of microhabitat features and threats which influence the species likelihood of utilising an area as habitat. Preliminary mapping will be refined post field assessment to provide an accurate account of REs, TECs and species habitat based on the collection of species specific microhabitat features and threats. Field collection datasets have been created which enable standardised capture of quaternary data and species specific microhabitat features for each EPBC listed threatened and migratory species to assist in determining species habitat during field assessments (refer to Section 3.2.2).

Figure 4 provides an overview of how this process will be undertaken.

Figure 4: Flowchart for developing preliminary and final mapping

Preliminary mapping

Collect species specific field data for species 'known', 'likely'

or 'potentially' occur on site

ANDRE data

Refine mapping using field data





3.1.6. Site selection and survey design considerations

Preliminary survey site locations will be selected using information obtained during the desktop review and preliminary mapping prior to undertaking the field assessments. Site locations will be selected with the aim of surveying all areas identified as ecological constraints from the desktop assessment, as well as representative sites across the range of environmental values traversed by the proposed disturbance (if the proposed disturbance is known). Survey sites may be changed when conducting the field survey, as determined by the suitably qualified person, however, are to adequately sample the sites values. A suitably qualified person should determine the survey site locations and appropriate survey method design, with consideration to the proposed timing of the activity.

Field survey design should aim to follow the following six (6) steps (DSEWPaC 2011a), where possible:

Step 1: Identify taxa and vegetation communities that may occur within the study area by:

- Characterising the study area (produce a defined study area and associated map) - Establishing the regional context of the study area (assessment of habitat frequency and

function) - Assess the likelihood of occurrence of environmental values, by using databases and

literature - Preparing a list of environmental values potentially present (target values)

Step 2: Determine the optimal timing for surveys for ‘target values’. This step may not always be practical given Project construction timeframes.

Step 3: Determine optimal location of surveys within the study area. Considerations will need to include the size of the study area and the effectiveness of the following:

- Habitat stratification; or - Targeted searches for species.

Step 4: Establish sampling design and survey effort (whether replicates of sampling is required over space and time for fauna). Sampling methods may include:

- Spatial sampling (when all locations or selected strata have an equal chance of being sampled)

- Systematic sampling (when units are spaced evenly throughout the study area or selected strata)

- Temporal sampling (sampling when mobile taxa is most likely to occur within the study area)

Step 5: Selection of appropriate personnel to conduct surveys. All survey participants should either be a suitably qualified person or led by a suitably qualified person.

Step 6: Document survey methods and results. A report and/or spatial data should be produced following the survey so a record is maintained of the methods conducted, the results of the survey and survey limitations.

3.2. Field assessments

Field ecological assessments are required to help determine the likelihood of a species’ or ecological community’s presence or absence and extent of occurrence within the area of proposed disturbance and study area. Field assessments will be conducted by suitably qualified ecologists prior to infrastructure planning (refer to Section 5).

Habitat, including macrohabitat (regional ecosystems or broad habitat types) and microhabitat features (such as rocks, leaf litter etc.) relevant for each threatened flora and fauna species is described in the Spring Gully Threatened Species and Community Management Plan

Prior to conducting the field assessments, the suitably qualified person should be familiar with the macro-habitat and microhabitat identified in the above mentioned plans, species specific threats and the methodologies detailed within this Protocol.





All data captured during field assessments will be recorded on a differential GPS system to provide accurate location data.

3.2.1. RE survey methodology

Baseline botanical surveys will be undertaken to describe dominant flora and vegetation community structure throughout the survey area. Botanical surveys will be consistent with the quaternary level of data collection as described in Neldner et al. (2012). These sites are to be used to confirm the identification and mapping of REs and TECs and allow for additional data to be collected on the occurrence of weed species and the structure and composition of vegetation communities. Information collected at each survey point should include:

dominant and common native species for the upper, mid and ground layer

structure (cover and height) of the upper, mid and ground layer

land form and zone

RE/TEC classification

brief condition assessment (remnant or regrowth status, weed species and cover)

GPS location.

Vegetation community surveys are to be undertaken within 50m x 10m plots (where possible) for the purpose of typifying the vegetation community under assessment. Vegetation community data is to be entered into field data collection dictionaries and captured spatially.

Vegetation community polygons will be verified in accordance with Queensland regional ecosystem (biodiversity status) and EPBC TEC criteria. Data on ground-truthed regional ecosystem (GTRE), will be made available to Project Designer to be considered in infrastructure planning.

Relative abundance data is to be collected for each stratum within the community as per the Origin Energy data collection sheets for GTRE.

Post survey completion, the data will be reviewed for accuracy and then processed by the GIS analyst for incorporation into the IRE layer which is available throughout the business.

3.2.2. Targeted habitat assessments

Habitat assessment should be species specific, with the aim of collecting data relevant to the species in order to further assess the species likelihood of utilising the area of proposed disturbance and the study area as habitat. Where species are determined to be ‘known’, ‘likely’ or ‘potential’ during the desktop assessment, survey effort is required to further assess the extent and condition of suitable species habitat. Species specific field data collection schemas have been developed for each MNES to assist in capturing data which incorporates microhabitat features and threats specific to the species. These schemas have been developed by suitably qualified ecologists, with reference to habitat preferences cited on SPRATs, conservation advice, recovery plans or EHP species profiles.

This species specific data is to be utilised to refined and/or update the habitat layer produced in Section 3.1.5. The updated habitat layer must be made available during infrastructure planning in order to avoid, minimise and measure potential adverse impacts (see Section 6).

3.2.3. TEC assessments

Field assessments will be conducted by a suitably qualified person to determine the presence of TECs listed under the EPBC Act. Data on the following will be recorded:

The TEC

The patch size (in hectares)

Equivalent RE (if relevant)

Determination of whether the patch meets the listing criteria of the TEC





Evidence state as age, native ground cover, dominant species, weed cover in determining how the patch meets the TEC.

The suitably qualified person should be familiar with the diagnostic characteristics and condition thresholds of each known, likely or potential TEC which may occur within the study area prior to commencing the field assessments.

The precautionary principle should be applied if certain diagnostic or condition thresholds of the TEC cannot be determined at the time of the field assessment due to seasonality.

The IRE layer must be updated to incorporate the findings of the TEC assessments (refer to Section 3.2.1).

Field collection data dictionaries have been developed which include the diagnostic characteristics / condition thresholds of TEC which may potentially occur within the study area.

3.2.4. Flora survey methodology

Flora surveys will be undertaken to identify threatened species listed under the NC Act and EPBC Act. Flora surveys will target threatened species identified within the desktop assessments. Searches will be conducted to identify high quality habitat for the species and individuals or population findings of the species. The location of any threatened species will be captured spatially.

Seasonal timing of surveys should be considered in the planning and implementation of surveys.

Should the survey area be mapped as ‘high risk’ under the NC Act Plant Flora Survey Guidelines (guidelines), or versions superseding these guidelines, the methodology detailed in the guidelines will supersede the flora survey methodology within this Protocol.

Any flora specimens deemed as potential threatened species and not conclusively identified by the suitably qualified person will be forwarded to the Queensland Herbarium for verification.

3.2.5. Fauna survey methodology

Survey techniques should aim to collect data in a consistent, transparent and repeatable manner. Active searches and habitat assessments will likely be the primary survey methodology for determining absence / presence of species and suitable habitat (known as the ‘base case’ methodology) for reasons of efficiency, cost or validity. Species specific data capture schemas have been developed to ensure habitat assessment consistency and allow for the collection of data specific to the microhabitat requirements and threats that influence the species likelihood of utilising an area as habitat (refer to Section 3.2.2). Where ‘base case’ methodologies (habitat assessment and active searches only) are deployed, evidence-based rational is required for the lack of incorporating additional techniques into the survey design, or alternatively, the precautionary principle is to be applied in determining habitat. Where a claim of absence is made or in the instance of only deploying the base case methodology, a robust evaluation of a species absence (or absence of suitable habitat) is to be provided within the likelihood of occurrence assessment (refer to Section 3.1.4).

Alternative methods to the base case methodology may be required or necessary in order to avoid false absences of species due to lack of survey effort and to provide a more accurate result (refer to Table 9). Survey techniques for fauna should be determined on a case-by-case basis and with the advice of a suitably qualified person whom is familiar with the results of the desktop assessments. As such, suitably qualified persons are to decide whether additional survey effort is required in addition to base case methods (habitat assessments / active searches) and determine the duration of required survey effort and appropriate survey time. Table 9 provides indicative survey effort / recommended survey timing, however, actually survey effort and appropriate timing will be determined by a suitably qualified person for each study area based on suitable habitat, likelihood of occurrence, size of the study area and Project timelines.

Ethical, seasonal considerations and analysis of the likelihood of increasing species detectability should be considered when determining whether to implement a certain survey technique.





Table 9: Fauna Species Preferred Methods

Scientific Common Survey Techniques Survey Effort Recommended Timing

Delma torquata

Collared Delma

Habitat assessment

Active searches (incl. hand searches (raking through leaf litter / turning rocks)

Pitfall trapping

Funnel traps

Dependent on size of study area and presence of suitable habitat.

A series of pitfall trap lines, comprising six 4-10 litre buckets and funnel traps spread along a 15 m fence (DEWHA 2011).

At least one replicate survey if species is not detected.

Early morning (within four hours of dawn) and during the evening on warm nights. Ideally within late spring to early summer.

Furina dunmalli

Dunmall’s Snake

Habitat assessment

Active searches

Spotlighting

Pitfall trapping

Funnel traps

Opportunistic surveys of roads

Note: no known survey method to reliably detect the species (DEWHA 2011).


Ideally early morning – 2 hrs either side of dawn or during the evening on warm nights.

Road driving at night after wet weather.

Peak season likely to be summer, however, presumably active late spring, summer to early autumn.

Note: most survey methods are likely to yield low returns (DEWHA 2011).

Petauroides volans

Greater Glider

Habitat assessment

Active searches

Spotlighting transect


5 nights, 40 min / 2ha

1km transect, 50m wide

Post dusk. Year round.

Phascolarctos cinereus

Koala Habitat assessment

Active searches

Spot Assessment Technique (SAT)

Spotlighting

Call playback

Remote cameras


Spatial or temporal replications required to infer true absence

Centred on riparian areas, upper/mid-slope or other dry-period refugia (DoE, 2014).

Chalinolobus dwyeri

Large-eared Pied Bat

Habitat assessment

Active searches

Acoustic detection (Anabat system recording to Compact Flash card) including attended and


For a <50ha project area:

Unattended bat detectors – total effort 16 detector nights with minimum 4 nights.

October to March for passive acoustic detection. Dusk for active acoustic detection.





Scientific Common Survey Techniques Survey Effort Recommended Timing

unattended techniques

Attended bat detectors – total effort 6 detector hours with minimum 4 nights.

Dasyurus hallucatus

Northern Quoll

Habitat assessment

Active searches

Hair tubes

Remote cameras

Trapping (wire cage traps or large Elliott traps)#


Traps (cage or Elliott) should be set for a minimum of three nights with the aim of sampling as many sites possible over the three nights

May to August to avoid disturbance during reproductive period (when trapping).

Dusk or daylight hours during winter.

Nyctophilus corbeni

South-eastern Long-eared Bat

Habitat assessment

Active searches


Warmer nights from October to April.

Geophaps scripta scripta

Squatter Pigeon

Habitat assessment

Active searches

15 hours over 3 days Optimal times are in first half hour after sunrise and last half hour before sunset.

Most commonly detected between sunrise and 9 am and between 3:30 pm and sunset

Elseya albagula

White-throated Snapping Turtle

Habitat assessment

Active searches

Waterhole watches

1 – 3hrs per suitable waterhole.

Warmer weather.

Egernia rugosa

Yakka Skink Habitat assessment

Active searches

3 survey days and nights

At least one replicate survey if species is not detected

Early morning (two hours either side of dawn) and during the evening on warm nights

3.2.5.1. Description of survey techniques

The following survey techniques that are likely to be implemented during Project assessment are described below:

Active searches / targeted surveys

Remote cameras

Spotlighting

Hair tubes

Waterhole watches

Spot Assessment Technique (SAT)

Acoustic detection





Funnel traps

Pitfall traps

Refer to Section 3.2.2 for description on habitat assessments.

It should be noted that several of the above techniques require the proponent conducting the survey to hold an approved Animal Ethics permit issued by the Animal Ethics Committee prior to conducting the assessments. The permit holder must conduct works in accordance with requirements of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 and the Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes and all other relevant Commonwealth and State legislation.

Active searches:

Diurnal targeted surveys will be undertaken to confirm presence (direct observation or signs of presence) / absence of the species and should be undertaken in a manner which maximises the chance of detecting the species. This will involve walking through areas identified during the ‘desktop assessment’ as providing potentially suitable habitat and/or known species records. The surveys are to be conducted with the aim of directly observing (seeing) or hearing or indirectly observing the species through signs/evidence of the species occurrence. Signs will differ dependent on the species targeted, however, may include evidence such as scats / latrine sites, signs of foraging / diggings, tracks, hair or feathers.

Targeted searches are an extension of focusing search effort on preferred habitat strata for target values. This includes confining survey effort to a particular resource or habitat features that the target values are likely to utilise.

Potential habitat resources may vary between species, but may include (DSEWPaC 2011):

Shelter sites – such as tree-hollows, burrows, nests, roosts, hollow logs, boulders or rocks, caves and crevices; or

Food sources – such as plant species, prey and water.

The habitat assessment field data collection schemas should be used during active searches as they provide a framework for data collection specific to threatened species known, likely or potentially occurring with the Project area.

Remote cameras:

Motion sensor remote cameras are a universal way to confirm presence of a variety of species. They should be installed with the camera facing towards or within areas of potential habitat (as identified during active searches). A remote camera should be used that has a fast trigger speed, long battery life and that operates both during the day and night. The target species will determine the duration the camera traps should be deployed and the frequency of sites monitored. The use of bait and appropriate camouflage should be considered when implementing this survey technique. These factors are to be determined by a suitably qualified person during the design of the survey.

Spotlighting:

Spotlighting is a survey method used at night to detect nocturnal species while they are active (DSEWPaC 2011). The method should be conducted in transects by foot or from a vehicle with the aid of a spotlight to detect the creature’s eye-shine in the dark. Call playback of the target species (if responsive to call playback) should be used in conjunction with active spotlight searches.

Transects placed 100m apart are optimal for arboreal mammal spotlight surveys, however, considerations in regards to vegetation density need to be assessed as the density of vegetation will impact the penetration of light and decrease species detectability.

Hair tubes:

Hair tube sampling devices are used as a survey technique to detect mammal species of all size classes by identifying species from a sample of hair (DSEWPaC 2011). The diameter of the opening of the hair tube must be selected depending on the species targeted (as determined by a suitably qualified ecologist). The hair tubes should be baited with universal mixture bait with sardines or chicken wings. Double sided tape





is to be placed on the openings of each hair tube. Hair samples are to be analysed by a person with experience (recognised expert) in the identification of species from hair samples.

Waterhole watches:

Waterhole watches are to be conducted for species that inhabit water or those that reliably intake water daily. Waterhole watches limit the area required to be searched in order to identify the species by targeting the resource in which the species would be utilising, should it be present within the landscape.

Dependent on the species, the duration time for conducting waterhole watches may vary, however, should generally commence at dawn and be conducted for approximately 3 hrs post dawn, and then recommence 3 hrs prior to dusk to ensure surveys are conducted during a period where the species has a higher probability of utilising the water source.

Spot Assessment Technique:

The spot assessment technique (SAT) is a tool for determining localised levels of habitat use by Koalas. The technique is a point-based, tree sampling methodology that utilises the presence/absence of Koala faecal pellets (or scats) within a prescribed search area around the base of trees to derive a measure of Koala activity (Australian Koala Foundation 1995). The SAT involves an assessment of Koala activity within the immediate area surrounding a tree of any species known to have been utilised by a Koala (for example a food tree).

In order of decreasing priority, selection of the centre tree for a SAT site should be based on one or more of the following criteria (Australian Koala Foundation 1995):

A tree of any species beneath in which one or more faecal pellets have been observed; and/or

A tree in which a Koala has been observed; and/or

Any other tree known or considered to be potentially important for Koalas, or for other assessment purposes.

A minimum of 30 site trees must be inspected for the presence of Koala in order to establish a meaningful confidence interval. Twenty-nine trees around the centre tree should be sampled for evidence of Koalas presence. The SAT approach should be utilised where Koala habitat is likely to occur within the area of proposed disturbance. If the SAT is not used, the precautionary approach to determining the species habitat should be applied.

Acoustic detection:

Passive detection aims to identify bat species via call identification. This method involves positioning an ultrasonic recording device within an area of target species habitat with the intention of recording the species presence via call. Bat activity is to be calculated using calls assessed as a “definite” identified and “probable” confidence level.

Not all bats can be identified to species level via call identified.

Funnel traps

Funnel traps are particularly useful for catching reptiles. Funnel traps are mesh made devices which are to be covered with shade cloth to avoid solar radiation to animals caught. Funnel traps are to be installed along flywire or shade cloth drift fences, often in conjunction with pit-traps that are dug into the ground.

Pitfall traps

Pitfall traps consist of either a glass, plastic or metal container, sunk into the soil so that mouth is level with the soil surface. The intent is for ground dwelling animals present to fall into the trap and be unable to escape. Pitfall traps are especially used to target reptiles or frogs. To increase effectiveness, they should be placed along known or suspected target species ‘runs’ and within suitable habitat. They should be used in conjunction with drift fences for enhanced effectiveness as a ‘drift fence’ barrier can be used to direct foraging animals towards the trap.

Pitfall traps are a "passive" form of sampling which relies on the animal rather than the observer making the action that leads to capture and enumeration.





3.3. Data reconciliation

The following Origin Energy GIS corporate layers are to be updated, post collection of field verified data:

Integrated Regional Ecosystem (IRE) using data collected during the RE survey and TEC assessments. This layer includes the RE classification as per the Biodiversity Status and whether the RE meets the condition and diagnostic criteria of a TEC under the EPBC Act.

Habitat layer using habitat assessment data in conjunction with RE survey data. This habitat layer is for MNES species only and is attributed to specific threatened flora and/or fauna species. The layer is polygon so that the area of suitable habitat can be intersected with proposed disturbance layers to calculate impact in hectares.

Fauna species layer, using data collected during the fauna survey methodology. This layer includes species listed as threatened, migratory or marine under the EPBC Act, species listed as least concern, special least concern, endangered, vulnerable or near threatened under the NC Act and species listed as Restricted Matter under the Biosecurity Act 2014. The layer includes attributes such as the species name, number of individuals encountered and observation method (i.e. seen, evidence, heard etc.).

Flora species layer, using data collected during the flora survey methodology. This layer includes species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act, species listed as least concern, special least concern, endangered, vulnerable or near threatened under the NC Act, Weeds of National Significance (WoNS) and species listed as Restricted Matter under the Biosecurity Act 2014.

Constraints mapping will be updated to include the ground-truthed values. This includes the constraints mapping described in Section 4.

These data must be available to the Project Designer and are to be considered in the placement in infrastructure, with the hierarchical approach of avoid, minimise, mitigate. Section 5 describes the process of infrastructure planning for the Project.





4. Constraints mapping

4.1. Methodology

Constraints mapping has been developed by Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd (BAAM) Ecological Consultants to categorise environmental sensitivity in the Project area. It incorporates a scoring system based on a set of four core ecological values:

Threatened ecological community status and dominance

Vegetation community value for threatened flora and fauna

Vegetation community bioregional extent and condition

Vegetation community tract size.

A single score was applied for each core ecological value and the scores were summed to generate the heat map. This was further classified and simplified into the constraint categories. Details of each core ecological value is detailed below and the process is presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Constraints Mapping Process





4.1.1. Threatened ecological community status and dominance

The following TECs have been identified as occurring or have the potential to occur within the Project area:

Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant)

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

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

Weeping Myall Woodlands

The community of native species dependent on natural discharge of groundwater from the Great Artesian Basin.

A score of 20 was applied to these communities based on state or ground-truthed regional ecosystem mapping.

4.1.2. Vegetation community value for threatened flora and fauna

Vegetation communities vary to the degree in which they support threatened flora and fauna. In order to derive a single score for each vegetation community the following were taken into account:

Status of the threatened flora and fauna under the EPBC Act

Importance of the Project area to the threatened flora and fauna – this is based on the proportion of the species geographical distribution that is represented by the Project area, the proportion of the Project area in which in the species is known or expected to occur and how much of the known/expected range can be considered high quality habitat:

- Negligible importance

- Low importance

- Moderate importance

- High importance

- Very important

Suitability of the vegetation community in supporting the threatened flora and fauna (as defined by Boobook 2017):

- High quality habitat for threatened flora and fauna

- General habitat for threatened flora and fauna

- Low quality habitat for threatened flora and fauna

A score between 0 and 20 was applied to each vegetation community based on state or ground-truthed regional ecosystem mapping.

4.1.3. Vegetation community bioregional extent and condition

To measure the significance of the vegetation community within the Brigalow Belt Bioregion, REs are assigned a Biodiversity status based on the condition of the vegetation and the extent of the RE remaining compared to its pre-clearing extent. The categories are:

Endangered

Of Concern

No Concern At Present

A score between 1 and 10 has been assigned with 10 assigned to remnant endangered dominant REs and 1 assigned to regrowth No Concern At Present REs.





4.1.4. Vegetation community tract size

Tract size is an indicator of the ecological significance of a vegetation community, with larger tracts less susceptible to edge effects and are likely to sustain viable populations of flora and fauna. The following scores were applied where recognised broad tracks of vegetation intersect with state or ground-truthed REs:

Low and medium tract size – 0

High and very high tract size - 5

4.2. Heat map and constraint factors

The scores from the core values listed above were combined to generate a heat score for each vegetation community. These were then classified into constraint score by applying the natural breaks algorithm (Jenks and Caspall 1971) in GIS. Constraint scores were ranked from 1 to 6 with 1 being the highest possible constraint and 6 being cleared land (refer to Table 10).

Table 10: Heat Score and Constraint Score

Heat Score Constraint Score Sensitivity

29–35 (polygon >5ha) 1 Extremely sensitive

29–35 (polygon <5ha), or 23–28 2 Highly sensitive

14–22 3 Sensitive

10–13 4 Neutral

1–9 5 Robust

0 6 Cleared areas

Table 11 details each of the categories and the sensitivity of those values to clearing and fragmentation and Table 12 details the constraints that will be applied to each category. The percentages in Table 11 have been derived from the ecology data captured to date and state data to assist in describing the categories. These percentages may change in future as further ecology surveys are conducted.

Table 11: Constraint Factors

Category Constraint Factors

1 98% of the habitat patches within this category possess biodiversity characteristics that are unique and threatened at a National level (i.e. they either represent or may support threatened ecological communities) and all are threatened (i.e. have a biodiversity status of ‘endangered’ or ‘of concern’) at the bioregional level. 46% of these patches contain very high habitat values for EPBC Act listed threatened flora and fauna (achieving a score of 18-20 out of a possible 20). All patches in this category are over 5ha in area, with 80% having very high values for tract size, and are likely to be in good condition due to minimal intrusion of edge effects.

The habitat model indicates that the biodiversity values of these patches are likely to be extremely sensitive to the impacts of clearing and fragmentation, subject to confirmation through ground-truthing.

2 58% of habitat patches within this category possess biodiversity characteristics that are unique and threatened at a National level (i.e. they either represent or may support threatened ecological communities) and 62% are threatened (i.e. have a biodiversity status of ‘endangered’ or ‘of concern’) at the bioregional level. 54% of these patches contain very high (score of 18-20) or high (score of 15-17) habitat values for EPBC Act listed threatened flora and fauna and 64% have very high or high values for tract size.





Category Constraint Factors

The habitat model indicates that the biodiversity values of these patches are likely to be highly sensitive to the impacts of clearing and fragmentation, subject to confirmation through ground-truthing.

3 None of the patches within this category represent or may support threatened ecological communities and 17% are threatened (i.e. have a biodiversity status of ‘endangered’ or ‘of concern’) at the bioregional level. 83% of these patches are not threatened at the bioregional level (i.e. have a ‘not of concern’ biodiversity status) and 47% have very high (score of 18- 20) or high (score of 15-17) habitat values for EPBC Act listed threatened flora and fauna.

37% have very high or high values for tract size, therefore the majority of patches (63%) are likely to be smaller in size, with some level of intrusion by edge effects.

Biodiversity characteristics of these habitat patches are mostly well-represented within the bioregion and are mostly unique at a sub-regional level.

The habitat model indicates that the biodiversity values of these patches are likely to be sensitive to the impacts of clearing and fragmentation, subject to confirmation through ground-truthing.

4 None of the patches within this category represent or may support threatened ecological communities or have high (score of 18-20) or very high (score of 15-17) habitat values for EPBC Act listed flora and fauna. The majority of these patches are regrowth vegetation of types that are threatened in the bioregion.

29% have very high or high values for tract size, therefore the majority of patches (71%) are likely to be smaller in size, with some level of intrusion by edge effects.

The habitat model indicates that the biodiversity values of these patches are less likely to be sensitive to the impacts of clearing and fragmentation due to their regrowth status and condition, subject to confirmation through ground-truthing.

5 None of the patches within this category represent or may support threatened ecological communities or have high (score of 18-20) or very high (score of 15-17) habitat values for EPBC Act listed flora and fauna.

Biodiversity values within this category are generally common within the bioregion. Patches are isolated from other remnant vegetation or likely to be in poor condition due to edge effects.

Most species within these patches are either increaser species that proliferate in agroecosystems or unable to persist in the long-term as resources in the patch degrade.

The habitat model indicates that the biodiversity values of these patches are not sensitive to the impacts of clearing and fragmentation.

6 Cleared areas

Table 12: Category Constraints

Category Category Constraint

1 Siting of infrastructure within Category 1 will be avoided where practical.

Where wells and linear infrastructure cannot avoid Category 1 as a result of other constraints, the siting of infrastructure will take into account the written advice of a suitably qualified ecologist.

All other infrastructure will be sited to avoid Category 1.


Where the location cannot be avoided as a result of other constraints, infrastructure will be sited near cleared areas or areas of lower ecological condition.

Where this cannot be achieved, the siting of infrastructure will take into account the written advice of a suitably qualified ecologist.






Category Category Constraint






5 Infrastructure will be preferentially sited in this Category

6 Infrastructure will be preferentially sited in this Category





5. Infrastructure Planning

5.1. Field planning overview

The final location of wells, flowlines, access tracks and ancillary infrastructure gives consideration to a range of matters including ESAs, TECs, significant vegetation, and habitat for listed species, topography, and cultural heritage, impact on landholders, engineering constraints and construction costs. Wherever practicable, previously disturbed areas are utilised and gathering network and access tracks are co-located. Selected locations are progressively refined in consultation with landholders and other stakeholders to minimise adverse environmental and landholder impacts whilst balancing cost and constructability. A robust internal disturbance approval process ensures the Project execution aligns with conditions of approval and management commitments, particularly avoidance of key environmental impacts where there are reasonable and practicable design alternatives.

The DA process occurs over a number of stages (FEL – front end loading):

FEL 0: Preliminary concept developed (well spacing, number, type) based on reservoir modelling

FEL 1: Conceptual layout of infrastructure developed giving consideration to the results of an ecology assessment, landholder and engineering constraints

FEL 2: Environmental specialists, construction personnel, engineers and landholders undertake site assessment to assess the proposed infrastructure locations and the layout is finalised

FEL 3: Required approvals are obtained

Execute: Detailed design is completed and construction commences.

The environmental constraints assessment is based on the following principles:

Minimising adverse environmental impacts and enhancing environmental benefits associated with Project activities, products or services; conserving and protecting the biodiversity values and water resources in its operational areas

Avoiding direct and indirect adverse impacts on environmental values including MNES where practicable

Mitigating and managing direct and indirect adverse impacts to minimise cumulative adverse impacts on environmental values including MNES

Active site remediation and rehabilitation of impacted areas to promote and maintain long term recovery of affected environments including MNES.

During construction of the Project, it is estimated that approximately 601ha of land (approximately 1.5% of the Project area) will be disturbed for wells, flowlines and associated infrastructure. The majority of this disturbance will take place on previously cleared land generally used for cattle grazing with approximately 271ha of remnant/regrowth vegetation to be impacted on the balance area. Additional disturbance areas may be required for associated infrastructure (e.g. laydowns, drill camps, office etc.) where detailed design is yet to be completed. These will be sited to avoid TEC and listed species habitat where practicable and be sited in accordance with the above principles.

Prior to significant land disturbance, the FEL process will be completed to ensure environmental, landholder and engineering constraints are thoroughly considered.

5.2. Application of environmental constraints to infrastructure planning

The findings of the desktop assessment and field ecology survey will inform infrastructure planning and decision making. The constraints assessment and infrastructure planning decision will be documented (squad check notes) to demonstrate conformance with this Protocol. Infrastructure will be sited in accordance with conditions of the Spring Gully EA and in accordance with the Sensitivity Mapping developed and amended from time to time.





5.2.1. Siting per infrastructure type

Infrastructure proposed for the Project can be categorised as the following three types of infrastructure:

Wells

Gas and water gathering flowlines

Supporting infrastructure

Siting of infrastructure in regards to environmental constraints is dependent on the infrastructure type. The following sections describe how each infrastructure type will be sited.

5.2.1.1. Wells

For the Project, horizontal intercept (including multilateral)/vertical well pairs are the base case concept. However non-intercept horizontal and standard vertical wells could potentially be used in the future.

The siting of wells will be in accordance with:

Conditions D13, E1, E3 and E4 of the Spring Gully Environmental Authority (EPPG00885313).

Placement of wells within Category 1 (Constraint Factors) will be avoided where practical. Where wells cannot avoid Category 1 as a result of other constraints, the siting of infrastructure will take into account the written advice of a suitably qualified ecologist.

5.2.1.2. Gas and water gathering flowlines

After separation occurs at the wellhead, the low pressure CSG flows into a network of buried pipelines constructed from high density polyethylene pipe. These interconnect all wells operating in a specific area to form the gas gathering network.

The gas flows through several subsystems which direct the gas to the GPF. CSG that is produced within the Project will be processed at one of the existing Spring Gully GPFs on PLs 195 and 204.

After separation at the wellhead, the CSG water flows into a similarly buried high density polyethylene pipeline network. This forms the water gathering network which channels the water to the Spring Gully WTF on PL195.

The siting of gas and water gathering flowlines will be in accordance with:

Conditions D13, E1, E3 and E4 of the Spring Gully Environmental Authority (EPPG00885313). This includes the RoW width, dependent on several factors including the number of pipes.

Placement of linear infrastructure within Category 1 (Constraint Factors) will be avoided where practical. Where linear infrastructure cannot avoid Category 1 as a result of other constraints, the siting of infrastructure will take into account the written advice of a suitably qualified ecologist.

5.2.1.3. Supporting infrastructure

The construction workforce will be accommodated in workers accommodation camps close to work sites whilst the operations workforce will be housed in existing permanent accommodation facilities and/or within local housing in nearby regional townships.

Access to wells and associated above-ground facilities will require construction of unsealed access roads, though grading and sealing of some roads may be necessary. Access tracks will predominantly be co-located with the gathering RoW. For standalone access, utilisation and minor upgrades of existing access tracks is preferred.

Laydowns, stockpiles, temporary drilling camps, extra work spaces, mobile offices, substation kiosks and telecommunication towers are some of the additional supporting infrastructure that may be required.

The siting of supporting infrastructure will be in accordance with:





Conditions D13, E1, E3 and E4 of the Spring Gully Environmental Authority (EPPG00885313).

Supporting infrastructure will not be placed within Category 1 (Constraint Factors).





6. Calculating and Tracking Disturbance While the previous sections in this Protocol details the process for identifying and siting infrastructure to avoid environmental values (inclusive of REs, TECs, watercourses, wetlands, lakes, springs, threatened fauna and flora and migratory species), this Section (the calculation and tracking disturbance) is specific only to MNES, being threatened ecological communities, threatened fauna, flora and migratory species habitat.

The following sections outline the process to be implemented when adverse impacts to MNES have the potential to occur.

6.1. Planned disturbance

Where MNES cannot be avoided through Project infrastructure planning, planned disturbance is to be calculated by an Environmental Advisor (Approvals). This will include intersecting the proposed disturbance infrastructure footprint (at Issued for Disturbance Approval (IFDA)) with the MNES using ArcGIS for each DA and/or DP (wherever is applicable).

Planned disturbance will be recorded for the following:

EPBC listed TECs (by community in hectares)

EPBC threatened flora species (by species)

EPBC threatened fauna species habitat (by habitat per species hectares)

EPBC migratory species habitat (by habitat per species (or species groupings) in hectares

The suitably qualified person will provide justification as to how infrastructure planning attempted to avoid and minimise impacts to the MNES. This will be recorded in the environmental constraints assessment, or equivalent.

This aspect is required to authorise the location of disturbance, as the intent of this Protocol is to ensure that environmental values are considered during infrastructure planning and that the requirement to place infrastructure within these areas, where there is no practical alternative, is justifiable and consistent with the intention of this Protocol.

6.2. Actual disturbance

Project infrastructure planning consists of conceptual design, where areas of disturbance are proposed, and detailed design, where areas of proposed disturbance is refined to the absolute area of disturbance required to undertake the activity. Planned and actual disturbance can differ in extent, with the intent of reducing areas of actual disturbance, come detailed design.

The disturbance areas are surveyed by the construction contractor and are made available to Origin GIS. If an impact occurs (which may include a presumed impact where species is presumed to be present) to MNES during the undertaking of the Project (field development, operation or decommissioning) the process described in Table 13 will be undertaken.

Table 13: Process for Recording Disturbance

Stage of Project Responsibility Description

Infrastructure planning

Field Access Manger (Communities & Access)

and

Environmental Manager (Approvals)

The Field Environmental Advisor (Communities & Access) will or with the assistance of Corporate GIS, intersect the proposed disturbance area (infrastructure layer or detailed design infrastructure layer, if available) with the following applicable ground-truthed layers to calculate the proposed disturbance:

TECs

MNES layer of threatened and migratory species

This proposed disturbance will be considered during infrastructure planning and avoided, where possible. However,





Stage of Project Responsibility Description

should disturbance continue to be proposed, reasoning for placement will be recorded by the Environmental Advisor (Approvals) and/or suitably qualified person within Squad Check notes (or superseding process).

Proposed disturbances will be recorded spatially (GIS) within the Environmental Approvals workspace.

Prior to and post disturbance

Environmental Manager (Field Delivery)

Prior to conducting significant disturbance (construction phase), but when detailed design for a DA/DP is being developed, the Environmental Advisor (Field Delivery) will liaise with the Contractor (Construction) to ensure the principles of this Protocol are implemented in further reducing adverse impacts to environmental values, where possible.

Post disturbance a ‘disturbance layer’, which is part of the Project ‘As Built data layer’ (a GIS layer of disturbance and infrastructure) will be provided to Corporate GIS.

This layer, via Corporate GIS will be made available for the business for their individual data analysis requirements.

Post disturbance Environmental Manager (Communities & Access)

On a 6 monthly basis, Spotter Catcher Records will be reviewed to assess whether any EVNT or MNES species were recorded during construction. This data will be compared to the MNES layer of threatened and migratory species. The MNES layer will be re-assessed should any EVNT and/or MNES





7. Data Collection and Maintenance The data is to be captured in compliance with Origin Energy’s Corporate Field Data Collection Schemas. The following primary environmental datasets are to be integrated and/or updated with field verified data as soon as practical, but prior to disturbance:

Integrated Regional Ecosystem (IRE) layer which provides a consolidated dataset of ground-truthed REs and ground-truthed TECs

MNES habitat layer which provides a consolidated dataset of ground-truthed of likely MNES habitat for threatened and migratory species

Flora species dataset, with priority to integrate threatened flora species records

Fauna species dataset, with priority to integrate threatened fauna species records

Supporting data collected during field assessments is to be stored within the GIS corporate system, however, the importance on integrating this data is secondary as it is used to support the assessment (i.e. quaternary site data is used to determine REs).





8. Responsibilities, Compliance and Corrective Actions A holistic approach to avoid, minimise and mitigate impacts to environmental values will be undertaken by those associated with the Project in regards to the assessment of environmental values, planning of infrastructure and actual impacts to environmental values. However, key positions have been allocated to allow ownership and accountability to ensure compliance with this Protocol. These include:

The responsibility of the Field Environmental Advisor and/or suitably qualified person in undertaking desktop and field assessments to provide a robust evaluation of environmental values occurring with the area proposed to be disturbed;

The responsibility of the Environmental Advisor (Approvals), to consider all environmental values identified by the Field Environmental Advisors and/or suitably qualified person in legislative context of the placement of proposed CSG infrastructure and the principles outlined within this Protocol. This includes calculating disturbance of MNES values, using the data layers derived by the Field Environmental Advisors (i.e. IRE layer of GTRE and TECs, habitat layer, threatened flora records);

The responsibility of the Project Designer who will seek data regarding environmental values and consider these values in the planning and placement of proposed infrastructure. The Project Designer must aim to avoid environmental values identified by the Environmental Advisor (Approvals) and provide justification if the placement of CSG infrastructure within these value is unavoidable due to landholder, constructability and/or economic reasoning.

The responsibility of the Environmental Field Advisor (Communities & Access) in calculating and recording actual and/or presumed disturbance to MNES for TECs, migratory and threatened species habitat. This calculation of disturbance will be conducted post construction, using actual disturbance areas (e.g. detailed design). These calculations of disturbance will be made available to the business.

The GIS analyst and Environmental Advisors (Field, Approvals and Field Delivery) have a role in ensuring that environmental data is captured and maintained that allows for analysis used in infrastructure planning and the calculation and tracking of disturbances.

The Atlas compliance system will track conditions of EPBC approval, EA approval and measures to avoid environmental values, as described in Section 4.2 as well as the details above to assign responsibility and track conformance with this Protocol.

The Compliance Team will be accountable for ensuring responsible personnel in undertaking compliance with this Protocol are assigned relevant actions in Atlas.

Should any aspect of this Protocol not be complied with, the Compliance Team will seek reasoning for non-conformance and implement corrective actions within 5 business days of becoming aware of the non-conformance, unless conditions of the Spring Gully EA supersedes.





References

Australian Koala Foundation (1995). The Spot Assessment Technique: determining the importance of habitat utilisation by Koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus).

Boobook (2017). Refinement of Spring Gully North-West and North-East Development Areas MNES Habitat Mapping.

Brigalow Belt Reptiles Workshop (2010). Proceedings from the workshop for the nine listed reptiles of the Brigalow Belt bioregions. 18-19 August. Brisbane: Queensland Herbarium.

Department of the Environment (2014). EPBC Act Referral Guidelines for the vulnerable koala (combined populations of Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory), Commonwealth of Australia.

Department of the Environment (2017). Chalinolobus dwyeri in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Tue, 11 Apr 2017

Department of the Environment (2017). Dasyurus hallucatus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from:http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Fri, 21 Apr 2017

Department of the Environment (2017). Delma torquata in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Tue, 11 Apr 2017

Department of the Environment (2017). Egernia rugosa in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Fri, 21 Apr 2017

Department of the Environment (2017). Furina dunmalli in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Tue, 11 Apr 2017

Department of the Environment (2017). Geophaps scripta scripta in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Fri, 21 Apr 2017

Department of the Environment (2017). Phascolarctos cinereus (combined populations of Qld, NSW and the ACT) in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Tue, 11 Apr 2017

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2016). Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants. Nature Conservation Act 1992. Available from https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/licences-permits/plants-animals/documents/gl-wl-pp-flora-survey.pdf State of Queensland.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010). Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Bats. EPBC Act survey guidelines 6.1. Canberra: DEWHA. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/threatened-bats.html.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010). Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Birds. EPBC Act survey guidelines 6.1. Canberra: DEWHA. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/107052eb-2041-45b9-9296-b5f514493ae0/files/survey-guidelines-birds-april-2017.pdf.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2011). Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Reptiles. EPBC Act survey guidelines 6.1. Canberra: DEWHA. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/eba674a5-b220-4ef1-9f3a-b9ff3f08a959/files/survey-guidelines-reptiles.pdf.





Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (2014). Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Survey Guidelines for Queensland. Brisbane, Queensland. Available from: https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/assets/documents/plants-animals/biodiversity/fauna-survey-guidelines.pdf

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2011). Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Mammals. Canberra, Australia. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/b1c6b237-12d9-4071-a26e-ee816caa2b39/files/survey-guidelines-mammals.pdf

Department of Sustainability and Environment (2011). Approved Survey Standards: Greater Glider Petauroides Volans. Victoria, Australia.

Queensland Herbarium (2012). http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/assets/documents/plants-animals/ecosystems/land-zones-queensland.pdf. Brisbane, Queensland.

Richardson, R. (2006). Draft Queensland Brigalow Belt Reptile Recovery Plan 2008 - 2012. Report to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Brisbane, Queensland: WWF-Australia.

Sattler and Williams (1999). The conservation status of Queensland’s bioregional ecosystems. Queensland Government Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane, Queensland.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) (2008a). Commonwealth Listing Advice on Weeping Myall Woodlands. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/98-listing-advice.pdf. In effect under the EPBC Act from 07-Jan-2009.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) (2008b). Commonwealth Listing Advice on Natural Grasslands of the Queensland Central Highlands and the northern Fitzroy Basin. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/99-listing-advice.pdf. In effect under the EPBC Act from 07-Jan-2009.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) (2011). Commonwealth Listing Advice on Coolibah - Black Box Woodlands of the Darling Riverine Plains and the Brigalow Belt South Bioregions. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Canberra, ACT: Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/66-listing-advice.pdf. In effect under the EPBC Act from 01-Mar-2011.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) (2013). Commonwealth Conservation Advice for Brigalow Ecological Community. Canberra: Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/028-conservation-advice.pdf. In effect under the EPBC Act from 17-Dec-2013.





Appendix A – Spring Gully Project area





Appendix B – Relevant published survey guidelines Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) (2016). Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants. Brisbane, Queensland.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2011). Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Mammals. Canberra, Australia.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2011). Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Reptiles. Canberra, Australia.

Eyre, T.J., Kelly, A.L, Neldner, V.J., Wilson, B.A., Ferguson, D.J., Laidlaw, M.J. and Franks, A.J. (2015). BioCondition: A Condition Assessment Framework for Terrestrial Biodiversity in Queensland. Assessment Manual. Version 2.2. Queensland Herbarium, Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and Arts, Brisbane.

Neldner, V.J., Wilson, B.A., Thompson, E.J. and Dillewaard, H.A. (2012) Methodology for Survey and Mapping of Regional Ecosystems and Vegetation Communities in Queensland. Version 3.2. Updated August 2012. Queensland Herbarium, Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Brisbane. 124 pp.

Documents

Appendix 7: Spring Gully Environmental Constraints ... and social...1. Introduction 1.1. Project background Origin Energy, on behalf of Australia Pacific LNG Pty Limited (Australia