Project Atlas – PL 1037 Environmental Authority Amendment ... · SENEX-ATLS-EN-APA-010 Revision 0 5/12/2018 Page 1 of 160 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Project Atlas – PL 1037 Environmental

Project Atlas Environmental Authority Amendment Supporting Information Report

PL 1037 EA Amendment Application – Supporting Report

SENEX-ATLS-EN-APA-010 Revision 0 5/12/2018 Page 1 of

160 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED

Project Atlas – PL 1037 Environmental Authority Amendment Application -

Supporting Information

Document Number:

SENEX-ATLS-EN-APA-010

Revision: 0

Position Name

(tick one column only)

Signature Date

Approve Review

Environment Manager T. Jensen

5 / 12 / 18





Table of Contents

1. Revision History ............................................................................................................. 8

2. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 8

2.1. Overview .............................................................................................................. 8

2.2. Associated Document References ..................................................................... 10

2.3. Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 10

3. Application requirements ............................................................................................. 13

3.1. Key Requirements .............................................................................................. 13

3.2. Environmentally Relevant Activities.................................................................... 18

3.3. Amendment to Conditions .................................................................................. 20

3.4. Assessment Level Decision ............................................................................... 26

4. Need for the Amendment ............................................................................................. 27

4.1. Overview ............................................................................................................ 27

4.2. Proposed Petroleum Activities............................................................................ 28

4.2.1 Gas Field Planning, Siting and Field Development ................................... 28

4.2.2 Well Site Facilities ..................................................................................... 29

4.2.3 Gas and Water Gathering System ............................................................ 31

4.2.4 Produced Water Management System ..................................................... 31

4.2.5 Ancillary Facilities ...................................................................................... 32

4.3. CSG Water Management ................................................................................... 33

4.3.1 Quantity of CSG Water that will be Generated ......................................... 33

4.3.2 Flow Rate of CSG Water Expected ........................................................... 34

4.3.3 Quality of Water Expected ........................................................................ 35

4.3.4 Proposed Management of the Water including the Use, Treatment Storage or Disposal of the Water ............................................................................ 35

4.4. Water Management Options .............................................................................. 36

4.4.1 Management Criteria ................................................................................. 38

4.5. Disturbance Footprint ......................................................................................... 42

5. Assessment Criteria ..................................................................................................... 42

5.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 42

5.2. Assessment Approach ....................................................................................... 42

5.2.1 Description of Environmental Values ........................................................ 43

5.2.2 Emissions and Releases ........................................................................... 43

5.2.3 Potential Impacts and Environmental Management Practices .................. 43

5.2.4 Risk Assessment ....................................................................................... 44

6. Environmental Aspect .................................................................................................. 45





6.1. Air ....................................................................................................................... 45

6.1.1 Existing Environment ................................................................................ 45

6.1.2 Environmental Values ............................................................................... 46


6.1.4 Potential Impacts and Management Practices .......................................... 48

6.1.5 Risk Assessment ....................................................................................... 52

6.2. Land ................................................................................................................... 52





6.2.5 Risk Assessment ....................................................................................... 60

6.3. Ecology ............................................................................................................... 60





6.3.5 Risk Assessment ....................................................................................... 70

6.4. Environmentally Sensitive Areas ........................................................................ 71





6.4.5 Risk Assessment ....................................................................................... 75

6.5. Surface Water .................................................................................................... 75





6.5.5 Risk Assessment ....................................................................................... 86

6.6. Groundwater ....................................................................................................... 86


6.6.2 Environmental Values ............................................................................. 105

6.6.3 Emissions and Releases ......................................................................... 105

6.6.4 Potential Impacts and Management Practices ........................................ 106


PL 1037 EA AmendmentApplication – Supporting Report



6.6.5 Management Practices ........................................................................... 111

6.6.6 Risk Assessment ..................................................................................... 113

6.7. Noise ................................................................................................................ 114

6.7.1 Existing Environment .............................................................................. 114

6.7.2 Noise Limits ............................................................................................. 115


6.7.4 Emissions and Releases ......................................................................... 117

6.7.5 Potential Impacts – Construction Phase ................................................. 118

6.7.6 Potential Impacts – Operational Phase ................................................... 120

6.7.7 Management Practices ........................................................................... 121

6.7.8 Risk Assessment ..................................................................................... 122

6.8. Social and Cultural ........................................................................................... 123

6.8.1 Existing Environment (Community) ......................................................... 123


6.8.3 Potential Impacts and Environmental Management Practices ................ 124

6.8.4 Risk Assessment ..................................................................................... 125

6.9. Heritage ............................................................................................................ 125

6.9.1 Existing Environmet ................................................................................ 125

6.9.2 Emissions and Releases (Activities) ....................................................... 126

6.9.3 Potential Impacts and Environmental Practices ...................................... 127

6.9.4 Risk Assessment ..................................................................................... 128

6.10. Waste ............................................................................................................... 128

6.10.1 Environmental Values ............................................................................ 128

6.10.2 Emissions and Releases ....................................................................... 128

6.11. Pipeline tape wrap protects pipelines against corrosion. .................................. 129

6.11.1 Potential Impacts and Management Practices ...................................... 131

7. Rehabilitation ............................................................................................................. 131

7.1. Decommissioning Infrastructure ....................................................................... 131

7.2. Well Pads ......................................................................................................... 132

7.3. Gas and Water Gathering Pipelines ................................................................. 132

7.4. Access Tracks .................................................................................................. 133

7.5. Waterway Crossings ........................................................................................ 133

7.6. Infrastructure, Camps, Laydown, Hardstand and Stockpile Areas ................... 134

7.7. Dams ................................................................................................................ 134

8. Matters of State Environmental Significance ............................................................. 134





8.1. Summary of Prescribed Environmental Matters ............................................... 134

8.2. Matters of National Environmental Significance ............................................... 135

8.3. Matters of State Environmental Significance .................................................... 135

8.3.1 MSES within the Petroleum Lease .......................................................... 135

8.3.2 Avoidance, minimise and mitigation measures ....................................... 142

8.3.3 Significant Residual Impact to MSES ...................................................... 142

8.3.4 Proposed Offsets .................................................................................... 146

9. References ................................................................................................................ 147

APPENDIX A – Project Atlas – Proposed EA Conditions

APPENDIX B - Project Atlas Environmental Management Plan (EMP) [SENEX-ATLS-EN-PLN-001]

APPENDIX C - Queensland Environmental Protocol for Field Development and Constraints Analysis [SENEX-CORP-EN-PRC-019]

APPENDIX D - Project Atlas Rehabilitation Plan [SENEX-ATLS-EN-PLN-003]

APPENDIX E - Project Atlas CSG Water Management Plan [SENEX-ATLS-EN-PLN-006]

APPENDIX F - Project Atlas Production Area Ecological Assessment Report

APPENDIX G - Project Atlas Surface & Groundwater Assessment Report

APPENDIX H - Project Atlas Gas Field Development Noise Impact Assessment

APPENDIX I - Project Atlas Connectivity Tool Output

APPENDIX J - Project Atlas Offset Strategy [SENEX-ATLS-EN-PLN-008]

Figures Figure 1 : Location of Project Atlas ......................................................................................... 9 Figure 2 : Key Steps for the Environmental Constraints Protocol ......................................... 28 Figure 3 : Annual Water Production ...................................................................................... 34 Figure 4 : Project Atlas Forecast Water Production .............................................................. 34 Figure 5 : Water Management Infrastructure Schematic ...................................................... 36 Figure 6 : Senex Health Safety and Environment Management System .............................. 44 Figure 7 : Sensitive Receptors .............................................................................................. 47 Figure 8 : Topography ........................................................................................................... 53 Figure 9 : Regional Geological Map ..................................................................................... 54 Figure 10 : Soils of the Project Area ..................................................................................... 56 Figure 11 : Surrounding Tenures .......................................................................................... 58 Figure 12 : Ground Truthed Remnant Vegetation ................................................................. 62 Figure 13 : Environmentally Sensitive Areas ........................................................................ 72 Figure 14 : Regional Drainage, Key Watercourses & River Basin Divide ............................. 77 Figure 15 : Cumulative Exceedance Probability for Recorded Daily Discharge at Juandah Creek (130344A Juandah Creek at Windemere) .................................................................. 79 Figure 16 : Extent of Floodplain Areas (DNRM 2013) .......................................................... 80 Figure 17 : Stratigraphy of the Walloon Coal Measures (after OGIA 2016a; adapted from Scott et al. 2004; Ryan et al. 2012; Hamilton, Esterle, and Sliwa 2014) ............................... 88 Figure 18 : Geological Cross Sections (Surat CMA Geological Model (OGIA 2017A)) ........ 90 Figure 19 : Hydraulic Conductivity Values for Surat Basin Units (after OGIA 2016a) .............. 91





Figure 20 : Location of Monitoring Bores within the vicinity of Project Atlas ......................... 93 Figure 21 : Location of Watercourse Springs (OGIA 2016c) and Mapped Potential GDEs (DES 2018) ...................................................................................................................................... 96 Figure 22 : Mapped Potential GDEs within the Project Area .............................................. 100 Figure 23 : Location of Groundwater Users and Monitoring Bores within vicinity of Project Atlas .................................................................................................................................... 103 Figure 24 : Location of Groundwater Users and Purpose of Use ....................................... 104 Figure 25 : Summary of Impacts to Groundwater Bores – Project Only ............................. 109 Figure 26 : Sensitive Receptors & Noise Monitoring Locations .......................................... 116 Figure 27 : Regulated Vegetation Management Map ......................................................... 140 Figure 28 : Ground Truthed Regulated Vegetation – Prescribed regional ecosystems (Endangered, Of Concern RE) and within defined distance of a watercourse .................... 141 Figure 29 : Potential Glossy Black Cockatoo Habitat ......................................................... 145

Tables Table 2-1 : Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 10 Table 3-1 : Key Statutory Requirements ............................................................................... 13 Table 3-2 : ERAs currently authorised .................................................................................. 19 Table 3-3 : Additional ERA’s to be added to EA ................................................................... 19 Table 3-4 : Amendment to Table A Schedule 1 Authorised Petroleum Activities ................. 20 Table 3-5 : Proposed Amendment to EA Conditions ............................................................ 21 Table 3-6 : Assessment against Minor Amendment Criteria ................................................. 26 Table 4-1 : Summary of WCM Water Quality from Available GWDB Samples within 25 km of Project ................................................................................................................................... 35 Table 4-2 : Produced Water Management Criteria ............................................................... 39 Table 6-1 : Model inputs for Drill Rigs (construction) ............................................................ 49 Table 6-2 : Model inputs Water Treatment Facility (generators) ........................................... 50 Table 6-3 : Model inputs for Drill Rigs (operations) ............................................................... 50 Table 6-4 : Potential Air Impacts and Key Management Practices ....................................... 51 Table 6-5: Land Units and Dominant Soil Types .................................................................. 55 Table 6-6 : Land Potential Impacts and Key Management Practices ................................... 59 Table 6-7 : Ground Truthed Remnant, Regrowth and Non-Remnant Areas ......................... 63 Table 6-8 : Ground Truthed Regional Ecosystems within the Petroleum Lease ................... 63 Table 6-9 : Terrestrial Habitat Types within the Project Area ............................................... 65 Table 6-10 : Threatened Species Confirmed or Highly Likely to Occur in Project Area........ 66 Table 6-11 : Ecology Potential Impacts and Key Management Practices ........................... 68 Table 6-12 : Environmentally Sensitive areas with ............................................................... 71 Table 6-13 : Extent of Environmentally Sensitive Areas within the Project Area .................. 71 Table 6-14 : Impact to Environmentally Sensitive Areas within the Project Area.................. 73 Table 6-15 : ESA Potential Impacts and Key Management Practices .................................. 74 Table 6-16 : Surface Water Environmental Values for the Dawson River Sub-Basin within the vicinity of Project Atlas (DEHP 2011) .................................................................................... 83 Table 6-17 : Surface Water Potential Impacts and Key Management Practices .................. 84 Table 6-18 : Aquifer / Aquitard Thickness within the Project Atlas (after OGIA 2017a) ........ 89 Table 6-19 : Groundwater Elevations within the vicinity of Project Atlas .............................. 94 Table 6-20 : Summary of Groundwater Chemistry for Each Hydrostatigraphic Unit ............. 94 Table 6-21 : UWIR Watercourse Spring Details ................................................................... 97 Table 6-22 : Groundwater Dependence Assessment for Potential Terrestrial GDEs Associated with Wandoan and Woleebee Creeks ................................................................ 98





Table 6-23 : GWDB Registered Bore Statistics – Type and Status, within Project Atlas and a 25km buffer (DNRM 2017d) ................................................................................................ 101 Table 6-24 : Summary of Aquifer Attribution and Groundwater Use, 25km Radius (OGIA 2017d) ................................................................................................................................. 102 Table 6-25 : Groundwater Environmental Values for the Dawson River Sub-Basin within the vicinity of Project Atlas (DEHP 2011) .................................................................................. 105 Table 6-26 : Project Only – Summary of the Impact Assessment Results for Groundwater bores ................................................................................................................................... 107 Table 6-27 : Cumulative Scenario – Summary of the Impact Assessment Results for Groundwater Bores ............................................................................................................. 110 Table 6-28 : UWIR Watercourse Spring Details ................................................................. 110 Table 6-29 : Groundwater Potential Impacts and Key Management Practices................... 111 Table 6-30 : Existing Noise Levels ...................................................................................... 114 Table 6-31 : Maximum Predicted LAeq Noise Level - Water Treatment Facility Construction ............................................................................................................................................ 118 Table 6-32 : Predicted Offset Distances for Ancillary Infrastructure Construction .............. 119 Table 6-33 : Predicted Offset Distances Well Completions/Workover ................................ 119 Table 6-34 : Predicted Offset Distances ROW’s and Access Tracks ................................. 120 Table 6-35 : Maximum Predicted LAeq Noise Level - Water Treatment Facility Operation 120 Table 6-36 : Operational Well Offset Distances for Project Night Time Noise Limit ........... 121 Table 6-37 : Noise Potential Impacts and Key Management Practices .............................. 122 Table 6-38 : Social and Cultural Potential Impacts and Key Management Practices ......... 124 Table 6-39 : Summary of Historical Heritage Register Searches ....................................... 126 Table 6-40 : Heritage Potential Impacts and Key Management Practices .......................... 127 Table 6-41 : Waste Streams and Management .................................................................. 129 Table 8-1 : Prescribed Environmental Matters identified within the Petroleum Lease ........ 136 Table 8-2: Significant Residual Impact Assessment Summary .......................................... 143 Table 8-3 : Significant Residual Impacts ............................................................................. 146





1. REVISION HISTORY

Revision Revision

Date Document

Status Revision

Comments Author

Approved By

A 3/12/2018 Issued for Review

Document creation

K.Davies,H.Wood

T.Jensen

0 5/12/2018 Issued for Use H.Wood T.Jensen

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1. Overview

Senex Assets Pty Ltd ACN 160 649 338 (the Applicant) has prepared this supporting information report to accompany the amendment application under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act) for Environmental Authority EA0001207 for PL 1037 (otherwise known as Project Atlas). Located approximately 15.6 kilometres south west of Wandoan and 57 kilometres north-west of Miles, in southern-central Queensland, the Project Atlas Area will cover an area of approximately 58.5 square kilometres in the Surat Basin (refer to Figure 1). Senex was awarded the acreage by the Queensland Government through a competitive tender process in September 2017, with all gas to be sold to the domestic market. First gas is targeted for 2019.

The Applicant is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Senex Energy Limited ACN 008 942 827, an ASX listed company with more than three decades of experience in Australia's oil and gas industry.

The existing EA authorises the initial appraisal activity scope for the lease involving drilling up to 15 wells and constructing and operating supporting infrastructure.

This EA amendment is for the gasfield production activities involve establishing:

113 wells and associated well site facilities

Buried gas gathering and water pipeline system to transport the gas and water fromthe producing wells to the facilities

Access tracks for operational purposes for the life of each well, generally co- locatedwithin the right of way with the buried pipeline gathering system

Produced water management facilities, including additional aggregation damcapacity, water treatment facility, brine storage and an irrigation management system

Ancillary facilities such as laydowns, site offices and temporary accommodation tosupport gas field development.

The application covers the proposed activities for the life of the Project within PL 1037.





Figure 1 : Location of Project Atlas





2.2. Associated Document References

The supporting information report is an attachment to the Queensland Department of Environment and Science (DES) EA application Amendment Form (ESR/2015/1757, Version 7.00) [SENEX-ATLS-EN-APA-012].

In support of this application, the following associated documents are appended:

Project Atlas – Proposed EA Conditions (Appendix A)

Project Atlas Environmental Management Plan (EMP) [SENEX-ATLS-EN-PLN-001] (Appendix B)

Queensland Environmental Protocol for Field Development and Constraints Analysis [SENEX-CORP-EN-PRC-019] (Appendix C)

Project Atlas Rehabilitation Plan [SENEX-ATLS-EN-PLN-003] (Appendix D)

Project Atlas CSG Water Management Plan [SENEX-ATLS-EN-PLN-006] (Appendix E)

Project Atlas Production Area Ecological Assessment Report (Appendix F)

Project Atlas Surface & Groundwater Assessment Report (Appendix G)

Project Atlas Gas Field Development Noise Impact Assessment (Appendix H)

Project Atlas Connectivity Tool Output (Appendix I)

Project Atlas Offset Strategy [SENEX-ATLS-EN-PLN-008] (Appendix J).

2.3. Abbreviations

The abbreviations provided in Table 2-1 are used throughout this document.

Table 2-1 : Abbreviations

Abbreviation Description

ADWG Australian Drinking Water Guidelines

AHD Australian Height Datum

ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Conservation Council

APLNG Australia Pacific Liquified Natural Gas

Applicant Senex Assets Pty Ltd ACN 160 649 338, a wholly owned subsidiary of Senex Energy Limited

ARMCANZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand

AS Australian Standard

ATW Access to Work

BoM Bureau of Meteorology

BUA Beneficial Use Agreement

CCA Conduct and Compensation Agreements

Surat CMA UWIR Surat Cumulative Management Area Underground Water Impact Report

CMA Cumulative Management Area

CO Carbon Monoxide






CSG Coal Seam Gas

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

dBA Decibels (A-weighted)

DEHP Department of Environment and Heritage Protection

DES Department of Environment and Science

DoEE Department of Environment and Energy

DNRM Department of Natural Resources and Mines

DSITI Department of Science Information Technology and Innovation

EA Environmental Authority

EMP Environmental Management Plan

EN Endangered

Environmental Constraints Protocol

Queensland Environmental Protocol for Field Development and Constraints Analysis [SENEX-CORP-EN-PRC-019]

EP Equivalent Person

EP Act Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld)

EPC Exploration Permit Coal

EPM Exploration Permit Mineral

EPP Air Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008 (Qld)

EPP Noise Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008 (Qld)

EPP Water Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 (Qld)

EP Reg Environmental Protection Regulation 2008 (Qld)

EPBC Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth)

ERA Environmentally Relevant Activity

ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area

EV Prescribed Environmental Value

FEED Front End Engineering Design

GAB Great Artesian Basin

GDE Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem

GFDP Gas Field Development Project

GHG Greenhouse Gases

GL Gigalitre

g/s Grams per second

GWDB Groundwater Database (DNRM)

Ha Hectare

HDPE High density polyethylene

HP High Pressure

HSEMS Health, Safety and Environment Management System

KCB Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd

kPag Kilopascal Gauge

kV Kilovolts

LAAR Land Access Activity Request






mAHD Metres Above Australian Height Datum

ML Megalitre

MLES Matter of Local Environmental Significance

MNES Matter of National Environmental Significance

MSES Matters of State Environmental Significance

N/A Not Applicable

NC Act Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld)

NEPM National Environment Protection (Site Assessment) Measure

NGER National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting

NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council

NT Near Threatened

OGIA Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment

P&A Plug and Abandon

PCP Progressive Cavity Pump

PEM Prescribed Environmental Matter under the Environmental Offset Act 2014

Petroleum Legislation

Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 (Qld) and Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Act 2014 (Qld), and their applicable regulations, as the context requires

PFL Petroleum Facility Licence

PL Petroleum Lease

PPL Petroleum Pipeline Licence

Petroleum Lease The area of Petroleum Lease 1037 – the Project Area

Project Atlas The greenfield gas project in Queensland’s Surat Basin, to be carried out on PL 1037 – the Project Area

Project Area Area within PL 1037

PRS Polished rod speed

QGC Queensland Gas Company

Qld Queensland

QPED Queensland Petroleum Exploration Database

RE Regional Ecosystem

RO Reverse Osmosis

RoW Right of Way

RPI Act Regional Planning Interests Act 2014 (Qld)

RPM Revolutions per minute

RTU Remove Terminal Unit

S&D Stock and Domestic

SCADA Supervisory control and data acquisition

Senex Senex Energy Limited ACN 008 942 827

SMC DEHP Standard model conditions for petroleum activities

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

SP Act Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld)

TEG Tri-Ethylene Glycol






TJ Terajoule

TSP Total Suspended Particles

UWIR Underground water impact report 2016 prepared by the Queensland Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment

VM Act Vegetation Management Act 1999 (Qld)

VOCs Volatile Organic Carbons

VU Vulnerable

WCM Walloon Coal Measures

WHO World Health Organisation

WMS Water Monitoring Strategy

WQOs Water Quality Objectives

WSA Water Supply Agreements

WTF Water Treatment Facility

3. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

3.1. Key Requirements

Section 226, 227, 227A & 126A of the EP Act sets out the requirements for a properly made application to amend an environmental authority for applications involving coal seam gas activities. Each requirement is outlined in Table 3-1, with specific references to where the requirements are addressed in the application.

Standard criteria, as defined by Schedule 4 of the EP Act and relevant EPPs have been comprehensively addressed and considered throughout the application and supporting documents.

Table 3-1 : Key Statutory Requirements

EP Act Section

Requirement Reference

226(1)(a) Application made to administering authority

Refer to the Cover Letter of this application [SENEX-ATLS-EN-APA-011]

226(1)(b) Application made in the approved form Refer to Approved Application Form ESR/2015/1771 [SENEX-ATLS-EN-APA-012]

226(1)(c) Application accompanied by the prescribed fee

Refer to Question 19 Approved Application Form ESR/2015/1771 [SENEX-ATLS-EN-APA-012]

226 (1)(d) Describe the proposed amendment Supporting Report Sections 3.2 & 3.3

226(1)(e) Describe the land affected by the proposed amendment

Supporting Report Section 2.1

226(1)(f) Describe any development permits or approvals required under the Planning Act or State Development Act for the carrying out of the relevant activity for the authority

No development permits or approvals are required.





EP Act Section


226(1)(g) State whether each relevant activity will, if the amendment is made, comply with any eligibility criteria for the activity

Not applicable. This application is not a standard or variation application.

226(1)(h) If the application states whether each relevant activity will, if the amendment is made, comply with any eligibility criteria for the activity – include a declaration that the statement is correct

Refer to Question 20 Approved Application Form ESR/2015/1771 [SENEX-ATLS-EN-APA-012x]

226 (1)(i) State whether the application seeks to change a condition identified in the authority as a standard condition

Not applicable. This application is not a standard or variation application.

226 (1)(j) if the application relates to a new relevant resource tenure for the authority that is an exploration permit or GHG permit—state whether the applicant seeks an amended environmental authority that is subject to the standard conditions for the relevant activity or authority, to the extent it relates to the permit

Not applicable.

226(1)(k) Include an assessment of the likely impact of the proposed amendment on the environmental values (EV), including

2261)(k)(i) Description of EVs likely to be affected by proposed amendment

Supporting Report Section 6.1.2, 6.2.2, 6.3.2, 6.4.2, 6.5.2, 6.6.2, 6.7.2, 6.8.2, 6.9.1, 6.10.1

226 (1)(k)(ii) Details of any emissions or releases likely to be generated by proposed amendment

Supporting Report Section 6.1.3, 6.2.3, 6.3.3, 6.4.3, 6.5.3, 6.6.3, 6.7.3, 6.8.3, 6.9.2, 6.10.2

226(1)(k)(iii) Description of risk and likely magnitude of impacts on environmental values

Supporting Report Section 6.1.5, 6.2.5, 6.3.5, 6.4.5, 6.5.5, 6.6.5, 6.7.5, 6.8.4, 6.9.4

226(1)(k)(iv) C

Details of the management practices proposed to be implemented to prevent or minimize adverse impacts

Supporting Report Section 6.1.4, 6.2.4, 6.3.4, 6.4.5, 6.5.4, 6.6.4, 6.7.4, 6.8.3, 6.9.3, 10.3

226(1)(k)(v) D

Details of how the land the subject of the application will be rehabilitated after each relevant activity ceases

Supporting Report Section 7.

226 (1)(l) Include a description of the proposed measures for minimizing and managing waste generated by any amendments to the relevant activity

Supporting Report Section 6.10.

226(1)(m) Include details of any site management plan or environmental protection order that relates to the land the subject of the application

There are no known plans or EPOs over the land the subject of the application.

226(1)(n) Include any other documents relating to the application prescribed under regulation.

CSG documentation prescribed under Section 24AA EP Reg – Supporting Information Report [SENEX-ATLS-EN-APA-010]- Appendix E: Project Atlas CSG





EP Act Section


Water Management Plan [SENEX-WSGP-EN-PLN-008]

226(1)(m) If the application is for a prescribed ERA – state whether the applicant wants an EA granted for the application to take effect on a day nominated by the applicant

The EA is for a resource activity.

227(1) This section applies for an amendment application if—

(a) the application relates to an environmental authority for a CSG activity; and

(b) the proposed amendment would result in changes to the management of CSG water; and

(c) the CSG activity is an ineligible ERA

227(2) The application must also—

(a) state the matters mentioned in section 126(1); and

(b) (b)comply with section 126(2).

CSG documentation prescribed under Section 24AA EP Reg – Supporting Information Report [SENEX-ATLS-EN-APA-010]- Appendix E: Project Atlas CSG Water Management Plan [SENEX-WSGP-EN-PLN-008]

227AA(1) This section applies for an amendment application if—

(a) the application relates to a site-specific environmental authority for—

(i) a resource project that includes a resource tenure that is a mineral development licence, mining lease or petroleum lease; or

(ii) a resource activity for which the relevant tenure is a mineral development licence, mining lease or petroleum lease; and

(b) the proposed amendment involves changes to the exercise of underground water rights.

Applies to the application.

227AA(2) The application must also state the matters mentioned in section 126A(2).


CSG documentation prescribed under Section 24AA EP Reg – Supporting Information Report [SENEX-ATLS-EN-APA-010]- Appendix E: Project Atlas CSG





EP Act Section


Water Management Plan [SENEX-WSGP-EN-PLN-008]

126(1) A site specific application for a CSG activity must also state the following:

126(1)(a) The quantity of CSG water the applicant reasonably expects will be generated in connection with carrying out each relevant CSG activity;

Supporting Report Section 4.3.1

126(1)(b) the flow rate at which the applicant reasonably expects the water will be generated;


126(1)(c) the quality of the water, including changes in the water quality the applicant reasonably expects will happen while each relevant CSG activity is carried out;


126(1)(d) The proposed management of the water, including, for example, the use, treatment, storage or disposal of the water;


126(1)(e) the measurable criteria (the management criteria) against which the applicant will monitor and assess the effectiveness of the management of the water, including, for example, criteria for each of the following:

126(1)(e)(i) quantity and quality of water used, treated, stored or disposed of;

Supporting Report Section 4.3.1 to 4.3.4

126(1)(e)(ii) protection of the environmental values affected by each relevant CSG activity;


126(1)(e)(iii) the disposal of waste, including, for example, salt, generated from the management of the water;


126(1)(f) The action proposed to be taken if any of the management criteria are not complied with, to ensure the criteria will be able to be complied with in the future.


126(2)(a),(b) The proposed management of the water can not provide for using a CSG evaporation dam in connection with carrying out a relevant CSG activity unless:

(a) The application includes an evaluation of: (i) best practice environmental

management for managing the CSG water; and

The application does not seek to use a CSG evaporation dam.





EP Act Section


(ii) alternative ways for managing the water; and

(b) the evaluation shows there is no feasible alternative to a CSG evaporation dam for managing the water

126A (1) Requirements for site-specific applications – involving the exercise of underground water rights (1). This section applies if:

(a) the application relates to a site specific environmental authority for- (i) a resource project that

includes a resource tenure that is a mineral development licence, mining lease or petroleum lease; or

(ii) a resource activity for which the relevant tenure is a mineral development licence, mining lease or petroleum lease; and

This application is a relevant tenure as the activity relates to is a petroleum lease.

126A(2) (a) The application must also state the following-

(a) any proposed exercise of underground water rights during the period in which resource activities will be carried out under the relevant tenure

Underground water rights will be exercised in the carrying out of activities related to this petroleum lease.


126A(2) (b) The areas in which underground water rights are proposed to be exercised


126A(2) (c) For each aquifer affected, or likely to be affected, by the exercise of underground rights:

(i) a description of the aquifer (ii) an analysis of the movement of

underground water to and from the aquifer, including how the aquifer interacts with other aquifers and surface water; and

(iii) a description of the area of the aquifer where the water level is predicted to decline because of the exercise of underground water rights; and

(iv) the predicted quantities of water to be taken or interfered with because of the exercise of underground water rights during the period in

Supporting report Section 6.6.1





EP Act Section


which resource activities were carried out

126A(2) (d) The environmental values that will, or may, be affected by the exercise of underground water rights and the nature and extent of the impacts on the environmental values;


126A(2) (e) Any impacts on the quality of groundwater that will, or may, happen because of the exercise of underground water rights during or after the period in which resource activities are carried out;


126A(2) (f) Strategies for avoiding, mitigating or managing the predicted impacts on the environmental values stated for paragraph (d) or the impacts on the quality of groundwater mentioned in paragraph (e).


3.2. Environmentally Relevant Activities

As outlined in Section 4, Senex is seeking authorisation to increase the nature and scale of petroleum activities on the Project Atlas Production Lease from the current appraisal scale activities to enable full field development.

The proposed increase in scale and intensity of activities has the potential to impact the environmental values of the production lease. As assessment of the potential impacts to environmental values is presented in Section 6, which w includes details of potential emissions and releases, a summary of proposed impacts, details of proposed management practices and an assessment of the risk to values. Refer to Section 5 for additional information regarding the assessment approach.

The ERA’s currently authorised under EA EA0001207 (indicated on the front page and A1 (b)) of the EA, are outlined in Table 3-2.





Table 3-2 ERAs currently authorised

Environmentally Relevant Activities (from Sch 2 and 2A of Environmental Protection Regulation 2008)

Threshold

Schedule 2A – 8 - a petroleum activity or GHG storage activity, other than an activity mentioned in any of items 1 to 7, that includes 1 or more activities mentioned in schedule 2 for which an AES is stated, namely:

N/A

ERA 63 Sewage treatment

Sewage treatment (the relevant activity) consists of—

(a) operating 1 or more sewage treatment works at a site that have a total daily peak design capacity of at least 21EP; or

(b) operating a sewage pumping station with a total design capacity of more than 40KL in an hour, if the operation of the pumping station is not an essential part of the operation of sewage treatment works to which paragraph (a) applies.

(2) The relevant activity does not include—

(a) carrying out works, other than operating a sewage pumping station mentioned in subsection (1)(b), involving only infrastructure for the collection of sewage, including, for example, pipes; or

(b) carrying out works involving either of the following—

(i) operating or maintaining composting toilets;

(ii) treating or recycling greywater; or

(c) operating no-release works.

1(a)(i) 21 to 100EP if treated effluent is discharged from the works to an infiltration trench or through an irrigation scheme.

Additional ERA’s proposed to be authorised by this EA Amendment application and included on the EA are outlined in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3: Additional ERA’s to be added to EA

Environmentally Relevant Activities (from Schedule 2 and 2A of Environmental Protection Regulation 2008)

Threshold

Schedule 2A -3 - a petroleum activity that is likely to have a significant impact on a category A or B environmentally sensitive area

N/A

Schedule 2A - 6 - a petroleum activity carried out on a site that contains a high consequence dam or a significant consequence dam if the dam forms part of the activity

N/A

Schedule 2A – 8 - a petroleum activity or GHG storage activity, other than an activity mentioned in any of items 1 to 7, that includes 1 or more activities mentioned in schedule 2 for which an AES is stated, namely:

N/A

56 Regulated waste storage Regulated waste storage (the relevant activity) consists of operating a facility for receiving and storing regulated waste for more than 24 hours

Senex seeks to amend Schedule 1 Table A of the current EA. The current and proposed authorised petroleum activities for PL 1037, as outlined in Section 4.2, are provided in Table 3-4.





Table 3-4 : Amendment to Table A Schedule 1 Authorised Petroleum Activities

Petroleum Activities and Infrastructure

Existing Scale Proposed Amended Scale

Maximum number of activities

Intensity (maximum size

or area)

Maximum number of activities

Intensity (maximum size

or area)

Wells 15 15 ha 113 113 ha

Gas, water gathering and track ROW (colocated)

18 m (width) 27 ha 18m (width) 155 ha

All weather roads 15m (width) 30 ha

Temporary camp 2 3 ha 4 6 ha

Temporary sewage treatment facility

2 >21EP<= 100 EP per facility

4 >21EP<= 100 EP

per facility

Dams (low consequence) 2 8 ha

Regulated / low consequence structures

6 35 ha

Borrow pit 1 2 ha 16 16 ha

Laydown 2 2 ha 6 18 ha

Water Management Facility 1 4 ha

3.3. Amendment to Conditions

This section of the report provides a summary of the proposed amendment to EA conditions. A copy of the current EA which includes the amended conditions is provided in Appendix A.

A summary of proposed changes to EA conditions, and rationale for the amendment, is presented in Table 3-5.





Table 3-5 : Proposed Amendment to EA Conditions

EA Schedule Proposed Addition / Amendment Rationale / Justification

Schedule B – Waste – Authorised uses of Produced Water

Senex seek to include Standard Model Conditions Waste C1, Waste C2 and Waste Management Schedule Table 1, to clearly authorise the use of produced water for irrigation purposes.

Existing condition (B10) will require amendment to ensure the requirements of the existing condition applies to the incorporated Waste C1 condition.

Existing condition (B11) will be amended to clarify that produced water will be provided to users for domestic or stock purposes. It will also remove reference to specific sections of the Petroleum and Gas Act to ensure the condition remains appropriately aligned with future legislative amendments,

Conditions numbers and cross references to conditions within the schedule will require amendment to accommodate the additional conditions.

Senex seeks to amend the EA to include these additional conditions to ensure the EA clearly authorises the use of produced water for irrigation purposes. This is required to enable Senex to maximise the beneficial reuse of produced water.






Schedule C - Noise Senex requests an amendment to Schedule C, Table 1 – Noise Nuisance Limits to include alternate night time noise limits for drilling activities

The proposed alternate limits are requested for drilling activities, which typically take 3 days per well. However, wells are often completed in sequence and therefore may impact on a landholder for longer than 5 days due more than one well being completed within proximity to one receptor.

The result is that, broadly speaking, ‘shorter term’ noise events such as drilling are required to comply with the same noise limits that are applicable to long term noise sources (such as a field compressor facility), which could emit noise for the life of the project (i.e. 20 years).

It is therefore considered appropriate to separate the well development noise limits from those applied to fixed plant, due to the inherent difference in noise source duration and characteristics associated with these two different types of activity.

Further, in order to set appropriate night-time noise limits for short-term drilling and completions activities, a review of other international noise standards identifies the following evidence that is relevant in developing reasonable noise goals for the night period:

- The World Health Organisation (WHO) ‘Guidelines for Community Noise’ specifies an internal noise level of 30 dBA to avoid sleep disturbance (WHO 1995).

The noise limits for continuous sources recommended by WHO are consistent with the night-time noise limit in the EPP (Noise) (ie 30 dBA internal). There is no sleep disturbance noise limit for the day and evening periods.

A review of other Environmental Authorities issued by DES to CSG proponents identified that an internal night time noise limit of 30 dBA has been applied for CSG well drilling activities (examples include the APLNG Condabri Development Area (EPPG00853013) and the QCLNG Ruby Project Area (EPPG00797813)).

Refer to Section 6.7 for additional information.






Schedule F Biodiversity

Remove existing condition F6 & F7 that address impacts to ESA’s, which are not presently authorised under the Existing EA. Insert SMC’s Biodiversity 8 & 9 to authorise

where impacts to ESA’s may occur Insert additional condition (F7) to authorise

disturbance to Cat B ESA (ERE) that is not authorised under the SMC’s.

As outlined in Section 6.3, while impacts to remnant vegetation, including ERE, have been minimised by applying Environmental Protocol for Field Development and Constraints Analysis (Environmental Constraints Protocol) (refer to Section 6.3.4 & 8.3.2), impacts to ERE (Category B ESA) have not been able to be totally avoided. In addition, it has been identified that a gravel pit is required to be located within an ESA buffer area.

Including the proposed EA conditions are necessary to:

- provide a framework to ensure that the identified impacts to ERE are authorised while also providing an upper limit of disturbance to ensure that the assessed disturbance cannot be exceeded.

- Authorise the installation of a gravel pit (which is not considered an essential petroleum activity) within the primary protection buffer of a Category B ESA.

Insert SMC’s Biodiversity 10, 11, 12, 18, 19 & 20 – to authorise impacts to Prescribed Environmental Matters, which are not presently authorised under the Existing EA.

As outlined in Section 8, while impacts to PEM have been minimised by applying the Environmental Constraints Protocol (refer to Section 8.3.2), they have not been able to be totally avoided. The extent of significant residual impacts to PEM as a result of the proposed field development activities for Project Atlas have been minimised as far as practicable and area presented in Section 8.3.3.

Inclusion of the proposed EA conditions are necessary to provide a framework to ensure that the proposed impacts to PEM are not exceeded and provide a framework under which Senex will provide offsets for the unavoidable impacts to PEM.






Schedule E Land Remove refence to specific conditions from existing E1.

This makes the existing condition more consistent in that any release of contaminants to land must be as authorised by any condition of the environmental authority.

Schedule G - water Correction to wording of Condition G4 – replacement of ‘or’ with ‘of’

The construction or maintenance or of linear infrastructure in a wetland………

Update on existing G3 with the SMC Water 3. This updates the condition to reflect the current SMC

Correction.

Update of existing condition G3 to reflect the current Streamline Model Condition G (Water 3) will provide consistency between approvals that Senex operate under and achieve the same environmental outcomes.

Updates have also been made to the definitions to include subterranean cave GDE and Great Artesian Basin (GAB) spring.






Schedule I - Structures

Reference to SMC’s in this section refer to SMC’s as outlined in the DES Guideline “Structures which are dams or levees constructed as part of environmentally relevant activities “ ESR/2016/1934.

Amend existing Condition I1 to be consistent with SMC X1 to include criteria for when consequence category assessment must occur. Insert SMC X2 to X12 & SMC X14 to X35 –

to address the inclusion of regulated structures on the EA.

Required as proposed development will include regulated structures, which are not presently authorised on the Existing EA.

Minor updates have been made to these conditions ensure they are workable and still achieve the same environmental outcomes without increasing the risk of environmental harm.





3.4. Assessment Level Decision

Senex considers this EA amendment application to be a major amendment.

Under section 223 of the EP Act, major amendment for an environmental authority means an amendment that is not a minor amendment. DES (formerly DEHP) Guideline ‘Major and minor amendments’ (ESR/2015/1684 Version 7.02) provides that an amendment will be major:

If any of section 223(a) and (e)-(h) do not apply; and/or

If any of section 223(b)-(d) do not apply, for which the administering authority will decide whether the increase in scale and intensity, level of harm or impact is significant.

The proposed amendment is considered a major amendment as it is likely to:

‘Significantly increase the level of environmental harm caused by the relevant activity’ under section 223(b);

‘Significantly increase the scale or intensity of the relevant activity’ under section 223(d); and

‘Involve an addition to the surface area for the relevant activity of more than 10% of the existing area’ under section 223(f).

The minor amendment threshold criteria as per section 223 of the EP Act are addressed in Table 3-6, demonstrating that the application is likely to be major.

Table 3-6 : Assessment against Minor Amendment Criteria

s223 EP Act

Minor Amendment Criteria Applicability and Additional Information

(a) Is not a change to a condition identified in the authority as a standard condition;

There are some standard conditions in EA0001207, with the majority based upon the Streamlined Model Conditions for Petroleum Activities.

(b) Does not significantly increase the level of environmental harm caused by the relevant activity;

No. The amendment application for EA0001207 seeks the authorisation of new ERAs and associated environmental harm. The amendment will authorise a significant increase in the level of environmental harm caused by the relevant activities.

(c) Does not change any rehabilitation objectives stated in the authority in a way likely to result in significantly different impacts on environmental values than the impacts previously permitted under the authority;

Yes. The EA amendment will not change rehabilitation objectives stated in the existing EA.

(d) Does not significantly increase the scale or intensity of the relevant activity;

No. The amendment will significantly increase the scale and intensity of activities currently authorised under EA0001207as well as authorise new ERAs and associated environmental harm.

I Does not relate to a new relevant resource tenure for the authority that is

(iii) a new mining lease; or

(ii) a new petroleum lease; or

(iv) a new geothermal lease under the

Yes. No new resource authority will be applied for, as part of this amendment.





s223 EP Act

Minor Amendment Criteria Applicability and Additional Information

Geothermal Energy Act; or

(iv) a new Green House Gas (GHG) injection and storage lease under the GHG storage Act

(f) Involves an addition to the surface area for the relevant activity of no more than 10% of the existing area

No. The amendment will result in an addition to the surface area of current authorised relevant activities of greater than 10%.

(g) For an environmental authority for a petroleum activity—

(i) if the amendment involves constructing a new pipeline—the new pipeline does not exceed 150km; and

(ii) if the amendment involves extending an existing pipeline—the extension does not exceed 10% of the existing length of the pipeline

Not applicable. The amendment does not relate to the construction of a new pipeline or extension of an existing pipeline.

(h) If the amendment relates to a new relevant resource tenure for the authority that is an exploration permit or GHG permit—the amendment application under section 224 seeks an amended environmental authority that is subject to the standard conditions for the relevant activity or authority, to the extent it relates to the permit.

Not applicable. The amendment does not relate to a new relevant resource tenure.

4. NEED FOR THE AMENDMENT

4.1. Overview

The Project Atlas EA EA0001207, was originally granted in March 2018, to authorise pilot scale appraisal activities for Project Atlas. Senex seek an amendment to the existing EA for PL 1037 (Project Atlas) to authorise gas production activities.

The Project Atlas EA currently contains the relevant streamlined conditions as per the DES (formerly DEHP) Guideline ‘Streamlined model conditions for petroleum activities’ (ESR/2016/1989 Version 2.20).

As part of this amendment application, Senex proposes to adopt additional streamlined model conditions (SMC) for additional components required for gas production and amend some SMCs.





4.2. Proposed Petroleum Activities

4.2.1 Gas Field Planning, Siting and Field Development

Senex has developed the Queensland Environmental Protocol for Field Development and Constraints Analysis (Environmental Constraints Protocol) [SENEX-CORP-EN-PRC-019] (Appendix C), which describes the process for avoiding, minimizing and mitigating impacts to environmental values and protecting human health and wellbeing. The Protocol will be implemented for the gasfield development and aims to ensure all infrastructure siting:

Considers environmental constraints, such as sensitive receptors, when selecting preferential locations; and aligning with planning principles to avoid, minimise, mitigate and then manage potential environmental impacts

Is compliant with Environmental Authority (EA) conditions and State and Federal regulatory requirements

Identifies any additional external environmental approvals required and those are secured prior to the commencing construction activities.

The process involves undertaking a desktop constraints analysis, site surveys, post-survey environmental constraints analysis and preparing a report that includes a list of site specific environmental conditions and associated constraints maps. These are included in the final Access to Work (ATW) documentation, issued upon sign-off by the Project Manager to relevant staff and contractors prior to commencing construction activities (Figure 2).

Figure 2 : Key Steps for the Environmental Constraints Protocol





With respect to environmental values, the protocol addresses avoiding or minimizing and managing potential impacts to:

Biodiversity values contributing to ESAs, MNES and MSES

Habitat for wildlife, including threatened flora and fauna, and NCA breeding places

NCA trigger area for plants

Wetlands, watercourses, springs and groundwater dependent ecosystems

Sensitive receptors for air relating to:

protecting the health and biodiversity of ecosystems

human health and well-being

protecting the aesthetics of the environment including the appearance of buildings and infrastructure

protecting the agricultural use of the environment

Sensitive receptors for noise relating to human health and wellbeing and the community, and protecting the health and biodiversity of ecosystems.

The Environmental Constraints Protocol also recognises that, in addition to environmental constraints, landholder, engineering and cultural heritage constraints must be considered. Senex is required to comply with the Land Access Code 2016 at all times.

This detailed planning and field verification enables impacts to environmental values to be minimised to the greatest extent practicable. The field development plan may be updated as part of the annual planning process to account for the field’s production performance and to incorporate the results of the ongoing projects.

Well site development is expected to commence in the northern part of the Petroleum Lease and generally progress from west to east, with supporting infrastructure developing in a similar pattern to well site development. Wells will generally be spaced 500 to 750m apart. There is flexibility to locate wells and gathering infrastructure ensuring land access, cultural heritage and environmental requirements can be addressed and impacts minimised wherever possible. Well drilling is expected to be in the order of 15 – 35 wells per annum.

4.2.2 Well Site Facilities

Wells will be drilled, constructed and abandoned in accordance with all relevant legislative requirements of the Petroleum Legislation, and the Code of Practice for constructing and abandoning Coal Seam Gas wells and associated bores in Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2018). Production wells will require a nominal lease pad of approximately one hectare, except where site-specific requirements such as equipment size or erosion and sedimentation controls may require a slightly larger disturbance area.

Drilling and completions wastes will continue to be managed as currently authorized under the Atlas EA. This generally involves removal from site and disposal at an appropriately licenced facility, when sumpless drilling techniques are adopted. Drill cuttings may also be disposed of using a mix-bury-cover method in areas where offsite disposal is not practicable. Drill muds may be reclaimed for use throughout the drilling program. Recycling/reuse of drill cuttings and muds/fluids will be investigated (e.g. for use in generating gravel mixtures for well pad hardstand and access track construction in accordance with relevant operator end of waste codes issued by DES.





All well lease pad disturbance will, where practicable, be partially rehabilitated (transitional rehabilitation) following construction to a minimum area required (approximately 60 m x 60 m) for operating the well.

Following the well drilling phase, the wells will be completed and a pump installed to dewater the production reservoir. Separate connections will be provided at the well head for the gas and water streams. Produced water will be pumped to the surface by a downhole progressive cavity pump (PCP), driven by an electric motor, and connected from the wellhead tubing.

The standard well site facility will generally consist of:

A wellhead gas and water metering package to achieve full time gas and water metering for each well. This prevents pumps running dry, enables early diagnoses of pump or other equipment failure and identifying potential flowline ruptures/leaks, while monitoring efficiency of low point drain operation.

Gas and water separation. Using down hole equipment, a well head gas/water separator may be incorporated into the metering package if additional separation is required.

Natural gas power generation package to provide power for the electric motor driving the downhole pump.

Fuel and instrument gas scrubber to power the generator and supply gas to instruments.

(Optional) Sand/particulate filter separator for water and gas streams.

Remote terminal unit (RTU)/supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) and solar panel/battery package for site communication and status.

Equipment being located on sleepers (concrete or timber) to minimize disturbance and reduce/eliminate the need for foundations.

Prefabricated cattle panels for perimeter fencing around the production facilities to allow maintenance as required. The area may be gravelled to allow operating access in wet weather.

Surface pressure piping constructed of steel to the required specification. Transition to the gathering system material (high density polyethylene (HDPE)) will occur either at or below grade.

On completion of construction, the standard well site facilities will ideally be contained within a 15 m x 15 m area that will allow adequate equipment spacing for operations and maintenance.

Once the well has been completed, it may take up to 18 months to reach peak production. During a well’s operating life, maintenance may be required using a work over rig approximately every three to five years. The workover rig may require a pad of approximately 60 m x 60 m.





At the end of a well’s life, it will be plugged and abandoned according to all relevant legislative requirements of the Petroleum Legislation and the Code of Practice for constructing and abandoning Coal Seam Gas wells and associated bores in Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016).

4.2.3 Gas and Water Gathering System

Gas and water from the wellsite facilities will be transported within the PL via the gas and water gathering system.

The buried gathering system will enable gas at low pressure and water to flow through separate High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipelines. The pipelines will typically be between 63 mm and 650 mm in diameter and buried with a minimum depth of cover of 750 mm for pipe greater than 160 mm in diameter.

To install the gathering lines, right-of-ways (RoWs) between 12 and 18 m wide will require vegetation to be removed. Where reasonably practicable, the pipeline right-of-way will be aligned with existing roads/tracks, fence or power lines or other linear infrastructure to minimise disturbance and overall impact on land users.

The gas gathering system will typically operate at 70 - 400 kPag with a Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure of 615 kPag. The water gathering system will typically operate at 140 – 700 kPag with a maximum operating pressure of approximately 1 350 kPag depending on the terrain.

As a result of the entrained gas in the water, high point vents will be installed in the water gathering system. Low point vents will be installed in the gas pipelines to remove water that accumulates in pipeline low points. The low-point drain and high-point vents aim to restore the pipeline flow efficiency of the respective flowlines resulting in a more consistent and overall lower wellhead operating pressure.

Gas will be transported off PL1037 to third party owned and operated compression facilities, located adjacent to the gasfield, or for processing by others via raw gas transfer pipeline.

4.2.4 Produced Water Management System

Groundwater will be abstracted (pumped) from CSG production wells to depressurise the target production coal seams. All produced water will initially be collected from the water gathering systems into an existing dam or additional aggregation dam/s. Water for beneficial use, where treatment is not required, will be drawn from the aggregation dams.

The water management process for the produced water is expected to involve:

Water from the gathering system will be transferred to centrally located aggregation dams. The aggregation dams will be purpose-built earthen dams with an impervious liner. Where additional aggregation dam capacity may be required, measures will range from pre-engineered above ground tanks to purpose built earthen dams with impervious liners of up to 250 m x 250 m in dimension (~300 ML). Total footprint of additional aggregation dams is expected to be 20 ha.

A water treatment facility (WTF) consisting of pre-filtration and softening pre-treatments, membrane filtration, and post-treatment pH adjustment will treat water from the dam. The WTF will have a treatment capacity of approximately 1.5 ML/d, with approximately 75% recovery and is proposed to have a footprint of up to 4ha.





Treated water will be transferred to irrigation dam(s) (approximately 50ML each). The water may be blended with water from a third party to provide water of a suitable quality for irrigation.

Brine from the water treatment process will be stored in a brine storage dam(s) from where it will be further concentrated via solar and mechanical evaporation to a concentrated slurry or solid salt. Salt or salt slurry will be trucked from site and disposed of at a Regulated Waste Facility. Brine storage of up to 300ML (up to 10ha) is included in the project design, which includes contingency to allow for variations in water quality. This dam is expected to contain the entire production of brine from the project, taking into account evaporation. The salt will eventually be removed from site following solar or thermal evaporation

Water treatment and storage infrastructure will have a footprint of up to 35 ha.

4.2.5 Ancillary Facilities

Ancillary facilities will be required to enable construction and operational phase activities to function efficiently. Facilities for service and maintenance of plant and equipment and storage of fuel and chemicals will be established in cleared areas. Typically, these areas will be cleared, graded and set up with the following equipment and facilities:

workshop areas

fuel tanks (approximately 10 000 litres)

lubricant oil storage

waste oil storage

laydown yard with warehouse

communication tower

roads and well lease tracks.

Laydown/hardstand areas will be required for temporary storage of equipment and materials. These areas will also be required for storage of chemicals (e.g. oils, lubricants, diesel and other fuels etc.) and for the maintaining and refueling plant and machinery. Regulated, recyclable and general wastes will be temporarily stored in designated locations at laydown areas as required and will be transported off site by licensed contractors for reuse, disposal or recycling at licensed facilities.

The expected volumes of regulated wastes and chemicals to be temporarily stored on site will be managed to remain below the thresholds of ERAs 8 - Chemical storage and 56 - Regulated Waste storage. Notifiable Activity 5 Chemical Storage (Schedule 3, EP Act) may be triggered depending on the volumes of various chemicals stored on site.

Workers required for constructing and operating the well and infrastructure will be housed on site in temporary drilling camp(s) or may be accommodated in Wandoan, Miles or surrounding regional areas.

The temporary drilling camp(s) will comprise demountable accommodation and mess areas supported by sewage treatment systems of up to 50 equivalent persons (EP) capacity each, although workforce numbers are likely to be much lower than the capacity of the systems. These may be no-release systems or may be capable of producing treated effluent to a quality suitable for release via irrigation to a contaminant release area. Greywater is also proposed to be irrigated where practicable. Potable water will be required primarily for workforce consumption and will be trucked onto site as required.





Power required on site (e.g. for camps, well pumps etc.) will generally be supplied using diesel generators. Where feasible, generators will be powered using produced CSG. Communication infrastructure will also be required and will likely comprise a radio tower (or use of the existing radio tower on site).

4.3. CSG Water Management

The Project Atlas CSG Water Management Plan [SENEX-ATLS-EN-PLN-006] (Appendix E) outlines the water management strategy that is based on the DES Prioritization Hierarchy presented in the Coal Seam Gas Water Management Policy (DEHP, 2012).

Produced water management options for Project Atlas, have been developed to maximise the beneficial use of water. These options include providing produced water for the following activities:

Project activities, such as drilling and completions, dust suppression, etc.

Landowner Water Supply Agreements (WSA), including water for irrigation and stock watering.

The following section contains information regarding the generating and managing CSG water from the drilling program, to address the requirements of section 126 of the EP Act for the amendment of a site-specific EA. Refer to the Project Atlas CSG Water Management Plan [SENEX-ATLS-EN-PLN-006] (Appendix E) for additional details.

4.3.1 Quantity of CSG Water that will be Generated

CSG water will be produced as a by-product of depressurising coal seams to produce CSG for Project Atlas. The target coal seams are the Walloon Coal Measures (WCM).

Produced water volumes and rates have been modelled using Senex’s analytical reservoir model, with probabilistic distributions applied to several key reservoir parameters (i.e. permeability, porosity and net coal) to generate well type curves and water production forecasts. Some uncertainty is inherent in any analytical model, and reservoir models can initially over-predict water production due to factors including sensitivity to assumed porosity. Further certainty will be gained as CSG wells are drilled and tested as part of the pilot / appraisal program and as field development proceeds. As Senex acquires more production data, the model will be enhanced with historical matching of actual production data, resulting in revised production forecasts being produced. These revised production forecasts will be incorporated into the water balance model along with the actual observations of water disposal volumes, rainfall and dam levels.

Senex has confidence that this integrated and iterative approach will ensure that produced water is managed responsibly, and beneficial use optimised. Type curves will be updated throughout the life of the project as more information becomes available.





The annual water production forecast and cumulative water production is presented in Figure 3. The total volume of water forecast to be produced over the development lifetime (~41 years) is approximately 6.2 GL.

Figure 3: Annual Water Production

4.3.2 Flow Rate of CSG Water Expected

The CSG water production profile forecast for Project Atlas is presented in Figure 4. Peak CSG water production is expected to occur in November 2025.

Figure 4: Project Atlas Forecast Water Production

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Cumulative Volume (M

L)

Annual Total Water Production (M

L)

Year

Annual Water Production Cumulative Volume

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048 2053 2058 2063

Water Production Rate (ML/day)

Year





4.3.3 Quality of Water Expected

There is no current water quality data for the WCM from the Project Atlas area. Data related to the site-specific water quality will become available as CSG wells are drilled as part of pilot/appraisal programs and into production. A summary of the regional characteristics associated with the WCM are provided in Table 4-1.

The produced water quality from the WCM can vary from fresh to saline. OGIA (2016a) indicate that in general, the total dissolved solids (TDS) of the WCM within the Surat Cumulative Management Area (CMA) ranges from 30 to 18,000 mg/L, with a mean TDS of 3,000 mg/L. OGIA (2016a) also report that available samples from existing CSG bores in the Surat CMA at significant depth show distinct characteristics with negligible concentrations of calcium, magnesium and sulphate, and higher concentrations of sodium and fluoride, compared with the other formations.

Analysis results are available from the groundwater database (GWDB) for 24 WCM samples within 25 km of the Project area. The majority of these samples are from third-party groundwater bores located to the north of the Project area.

Table 4-1 : Summary of WCM Water Quality from Available GWDB Samples within 25 km of Project

Parameter Unit Count Min Max Median Average

EC µS/cm 12 1,900 13,400 8,010 7,310

pH ‐ 15 5.5 8.8 7.7 7.7

Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) 24 7.6 171 81 81

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 18 883 17,733 5,176 5,645

Sodium mg/L 24 262 6,860 2,024 2,651

Potassium mg/L 4 4.3 16.3 5.9 8.1

Calcium mg/L 24 7.9 344.3 33.5 81.1

Magnesium mg/L 24 2.9 162.9 10.7 31.4

Bicarbonate (HCO3) mg/L 16 30 862 512.0 512.3

Carbonate (CO3) mg/L 12 15 343.2 198.8 168.1

Chloride mg/L 24 375 11,454 2,904 4,014

Fluoride mg/L 15 0.2 2.2 0.8 0.9

Sulphate mg/L 16 1 57 4.0 8.7

4.3.4 Proposed Management of the Water including the Use, Treatment Storage or Disposal of the Water

Water Management Process

The following water management process for the produced water is planned (refer to Figure 5):

Water from the Project Atlas gathering system will be transferred to the centrally located aggregation dam (approximately 300 ML capacity).

A water treatment facility (WTF) consisting of pre-filtration and softening pre-treatments, membrane filtration, and post-treatment pH adjustment will treat water from the dam. The WTF will have a treatment capacity of approximately 1.5 ML/d, with approximately 75% recovery.





Treated water (permeate) will be transferred to the irrigation dam (approximately 50 ML). Additional untreated water will be blended into permeate in the irrigation dam to provide water of a suitable quality for irrigation.

An alternative to treatment of the produced water may be blending with fresh water sourced from a third party, to provide water of a suitable quality for irrigation.

Blended water from the irrigation dam will be utilised on pivot and fixed irrigators on pasture grass or crops.

Brine from the water treatment process will be stored in a brine dam (up to 300 ML, depending on water quality - expected capacity is 100 ML), from where it will be further concentrated via solar and mechanical evaporation to a concentrated slurry or solid salt. Salt or salt slurry will be trucked from site and disposed of at a Regulated Waste Facility.

Figure 5 : Water Management Infrastructure Schematic

4.4. Water Management Options

The water management strategy for the Project, has been developed to maximise the beneficial use of water. This includes providing produced water for the following activities:

Project activities, such as drilling and completions, dust suppression, etc

Landowner Water Supply Agreements (WSA), including water for irrigation and stock watering.

Where practical, Senex will use untreated produced water to support ongoing development / construction activities such as: dust suppression; drilling; well completions and workovers; facilities construction; hydro-testing gathering networks; and landscaping and rehabilitation.

Any untreated produced water used as part of project activities will be undertaken in accordance with the ‘General beneficial use approval: Associated water (including coal seam





gas water)’ (DEHP 2014b), the ‘Streamlined Model Conditions for Petroleum Activities’ (DES 2016b), and Senex’s Environmental Authority, particularly Schedule G (water) and Schedule B (waste), which provides specific conditions related to beneficial use for irrigation, dust suppression and construction.

The expected uses, and anticipated range of volumes, for produced water from the Project are provided below:

Dust suppression – up to 30 ML/yr (or 0.1 ML/d)

Construction of Wells and Facilities – up to 180 ML/yr (or 0.5 ML/d) during periods of construction only.

Senex anticipates further utilising the CSG produced water for beneficial use by establishing Landowner Water Supply Agreement (WSAs). Senex also plan to dispose of a portion of the CSG produced water volume from the Project by sustainable irrigation practices. Senex is aware that agricultural users have different water demand profiles and water requirements, with some requiring water for stock watering and others for irrigation. For these reasons, Senex plan to adopt a portfolio management approach to water management, identifying the opportunity to address beneficial use demands with anticipated produced water volumes.

Prior to undertaking any irrigation, Senex will address the requirements of the ‘Streamlined Model Conditions for Petroleum Activities’ (DES 2016b), and the Environmental Authority.

Brine and Salt Management

The DES Hierarchy within the CSG Water Management Policy (DEHP 2012) also provides a prioritisation hierarchy for managing saline waste, which comprises:

Priority 1 – Brine or salt residues are treated to create useable products wherever feasible.

Priority 2 – After assessing the feasibility of treating the brine or solid salt residues to create useable and saleable products, disposing of the brine and salt residues in accordance with strict standards that protect the environment.

The management of brine is addressed through the Environmental Authority requirements in Schedule B (waste) and Schedule I (dams). These schedules also address spills, leaks, and seepage monitoring and management. Senex’s approach to any brine management will remain consistent with industry accepted practice.

Treatment of produced water via reverse Osmosis (RO) will produce treated water (permeate) and RO reject (brine). Brine will be transferred from the water treatment facility to the brine storage dam that will be located by considering the Queensland requirements for buffers around watercourses, MNES, matters of state environmental significance (MSES) and environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs).

Based on a median salt concentration of 5,176 mg/L TDS, it is anticipated that approximately 5 tonnes of salt per ML of produced water will be generated. Brine requires specific considerations for storage and disposal, and will be stored in an engineered dam, constructed to contain the entire production of brine from the project. The brine dam will be designed and constructed under the supervision of a suitably qualified and experienced person and in accordance with the relevant DES schedule of conditions relating to dam design, construction, inspection and mandatory reporting requirements.

Stored brine will undergo both solar and mechanical evaporation resulting in a highly concentrated slurry or solid salt for transfer to an appropriately licensed Regulated Waste Facility for disposal. Senex will continue to investigate cost effective and / or commercial saline disposal uses.





4.4.1 Management Criteria

Senex will implement all produced water and brine management strategies in accordance with the applicable EA conditions and in a manner that ensures protection and maintenance of all relevant EVs.

The Environmental Protection Act 1994 requires that a site-specific application for a CSG activity must include measurable criteria (termed 'management criteria'), against which the applicant will monitor and assess the effectiveness of the management of all produced water and saline waste associated with the activity. Senex has developed criteria (refer to Table 4-2) that addresses this requirement (the criteria has been developed following guidance outlined in the DES factsheet ‘CSG water management: Measurable criteria’ (DES 2013).

The management criteria addresses:

The quantity and quality of the water:

used

treated

stored or

disposed of

Protection of EVs affected by each relevant CSG activity

The disposal of waste generated from managing water.

Where a management criteria performance indicator is identified as not being achieved, an investigation will be undertaken to determine the root cause and actions will be assigned to ensure the performance indicator is achieved. In the event that the root cause investigation identifies the performance indicator can no longer be achieved; negotiations will be undertaken with DES to determine an appropriate revised performance indicator.





Table 4-2 : Produced Water Management Criteria

Objective Environmental Values Tasks Performance Indicator

No unauthorised disturbance of environmentally sensitive areas due to CSG water management activities

Land Surface water

Secure approvals prior to disturbance by implementing the ‘Environmental Management Plan’ (SENEX-ATLAS-EN-PLN-001) and Environmental Constraints (SENEX-QLDS-EN-PRC-019).

Finalise infrastructure locations to identify area and location of disturbances.

Comply with EA conditions related to disturbance, biodiversity values and environmentally sensitive areas.

Site specific Ecology Assessment Reports

Site specific Desktop Constraints Reports

Compliance with extent of approved disturbance

No unauthorised releases to the environment from the gathering network

Groundwater Surface water

Select gathering routes by implementing the Environmental Constrains Protocol(SENEX-QLDS-EN-PRC-019).

Implement the Environmental Management Plan’ (SENEX-ATLAS-EN-PLN-001)

Develop and implement operation and maintenance plans for gathering networks. Ensure plans includes:

operational procedures for infrastructure associated with isolation, leakage detection and venting / draining for the CSG production wellhead and gathering network; and monitoring procedure for wellhead and gathering network

infrastructure.

Implement Senex Incident Reporting and Investigation Procedures.

Recorded volume of unauthorised leaks / spills

Recorded number of incidents and associated investigations






No unauthorised releases to the environment from non-regulated structures storing CSG water


Tanks – construction and maintenance in accordance with EA conditions; install remote monitoring equipment for water levels; and implement leak detection monitoring and site inspections.

Ponds – construction and maintenance in accordance with EA conditions; implement site inspection / leak detection monitoring program in accordance with EA requirements (surface water and groundwater seepage).

Implement Senex Incident Reporting and Investigation Procedures

Recorded volume of unauthorised leaks / spills

Recorded detection of unauthorised leaks (i.e. groundwater level rise, groundwater quality changes)


No unauthorised releases to the environment from regulated structures storing CSG water

Surface water Groundwater

Design, construct and operate all regulated structures in accordance with the requirements of the Manual for Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures (DES 2016a)

Develop and maintain a regulated structure register.

Develop and implement a monitoring program to assess structure integrity and groundwater seepage.

Develop and implement a rehabilitation plan for specific regulated structures, including, if required, a brine and salt management plan.

Undertake assessment and reporting in accordance with EA requirements

Recorded volume of unauthorised releases from regulated structure

Compliance with requirements of the Manual for Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures (DES 2016)

Recorded detection of unauthorised leaks (i.e. groundwater level rise, groundwater quality changes)







Maximise the beneficial use of CSG water

Groundwater Surface water Land

Maintain the analytical reservoir model to predict the quantity and quality of water over the duration of Project Atlas development.

Develop and maintain a project water balance model to optimise the size of water management infrastructure and predict changes in water quality to support the water management strategy.

Prioritise water use in accordance with the hierarchy defined in the CSG Water Management Policy (DEHP 2012).

Develop and implement a Water Quality Monitoring Program to confirm if water is fit for beneficial use.

Determine requirement for a Water Treatment Facility.

Proportion of untreated CSG water beneficially used

Proportion of treated CSG water beneficially used

Monitoring data which are within the appropriate guidelines for relevant water quality objectives for the designated beneficial use

Optimise CSG water and brine management


Maintain the analytical reservoir model to predict the quantity and quality of water over the duration of Project Atlas development.

Develop and maintain a project water balance model to optimise the size of water management infrastructure and predict changes in water quality to support the water management strategy.

Continue to investigate opportunities for CSG water and brine management and prioritise these options in accordance with the CSG Water Management Policy (DEHP 2012).

Undertake ongoing assessments of optimisation options for CSG water and brine management.

Results from the project water balance identifying the preferred CSG water and brine management options.





4.5. Disturbance Footprint

For the purpose of this EA Amendment, estimated disturbance area has been calculated that represents the upper limit of the area to be disturbed for the life of the project (as described in Section 4.2). The estimate is based on the following, which has also been utilised to provide estimates of disturbance to ESA’s, RE and MSES (as discussed in Sections 6.3, 6.4 & 8):

Indicative 113 well layout & infrastructure layout

Gathering ROW width of 18m

Infrastructure footprints as described in Section 4.2

Avoidance of remnant vegetation for siting of laydowns, water treatment infrastructure and ancillary activities.

As Project Atlas progresses and the gas field layout is defined and further pre-clearance ecological assessments are undertaken, actual disturbance areas will be reconciled to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

5. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

5.1. Introduction

Section 6 provides a description of existing environment and the environmental values that have the potential to be affected as a result the proposed EA amendment. For each environmental value (land, ecosystems, surface water, groundwater, air, noise and vibration, social and cultural, heritage and waste), potential impacts and corresponding environmental management practices are identified. Environmental management and control strategies have been proposed to minimise the impact of the proposed activities on each environmental value.

Senex has undertaken this assessment considering the application requirements outlined in the document, “Guideline - Application requirements for petroleum activities” (DEHP), and the requirements of the EP Act and other relevant legislation.

The following assessment approach has been utilised to demonstrate that Senex has fully considered potential impacts of the proposed activities.

5.2. Assessment Approach

Technical assessments undertaken by appropriately qualified and experienced persons for each relevant environmental value have been used to guide the process of assessing potential impacts for the proposed activities, selecting management practices and consideration of the potential residual risk.





5.2.1 Description of Environmental Values

Environmental values are defined by the EP Act to include:

a quality of physical characteristic of the environment that is conducive to ecological health or public amenity or safety (environmental value); or

another quality of the environment identified and declared to be an environmental value under an environmental protection policy or regulation (prescribed environmental value).

These values have been described for the Petroleum Lease, and as appropriate, additional aspects may be included to inform an assessment of indirect impacts or cumulative impacts relevant to this amendment application.

5.2.2 Emissions and Releases

Emissions and releases, as they relate to each environmental value are identified with reference to the relevant production activities. Details have been documented, where available, to consider both planned and unplanned emissions and releases.

5.2.3 Potential Impacts and Environmental Management Practices

Potential impacts as a result the proposed amendment have been identified for each environmental value. The type and extent of potential impacts, applying the mitigation hierarchy and Senex’s existing environmental management policies and plans have been considered to develop appropriate environmental management practices.

Senex will implement appropriate management practices to address the EA conditions. These are commensurate with the scale and intensity of the proposed activities.

5.2.3.1. Senex Environmental Management Framework

Senex conducts activities under its Health, Safety and Environment Management System (HSEMS) [SENEX-CORP-HS-STD-001] (Figure 6), which is applicable to all Senex worksites and personnel working for, or on behalf of Senex. Potential environmental impacts and effects of Senex operations and activities are identified and managed, using a risk based and systematic approach. The HSEMS contains Senex’s environmental management policy and is the framework under which environmental compliance is achieved across Senex operations.





Figure 6 : Senex Health Safety and Environment Management System

Senex is committed to conducting its operations and activities in an environmentally sound and responsible manner. Activities are planned and managed to minimise disturbance to the environment as far as practicable by utilising environmental standards consistent with development in technology, industry codes of practice and relevant statutory requirements.

Senex will manage potential impacts of the proposed activities in a manner consistent with the management approaches employed for appraisal activities, and where relevant, additional measures commensurate with production phase activities.

Key management documents within the HSEMS to be utilised include:

Project Atlas Environmental Management Plan [SENEX-ATLS-EN-PLN-001] (Appendix B)

Queensland Environmental Protocol for Field Development and Constraints Analysis, comprising a GIS analysis tool integrated within infrastructure development and land access planning processes [SENEX-CORP-EN-PRC-019] (Appendix C)

Environmental incident and safety management procedures comprising notification and incident response and reporting procedures


Project Atlas CSG Water Management Plan [SENEX-ATLS-EN-PLN-006] (Appendix E).

5.2.4 Risk Assessment

The residual risk of harm to environmental values has been assessed by suitably qualified and experienced specialists. This assessment has considered the magnitude, severity and duration of potential impacts following implementation of proposed management measures. The qualitative assessment categorises residual risk as low (localised, short-term and





recoverable), intermediate (localised and long-term or widespread and short-term) or high (widespread, long-term and permanent).

6. ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT

6.1. Air

An Air Quality Assessment of the gas field development has been completed by SLR Consulting Australia and the key outcomes are summarized in the following section. No fuel burning or combustion facilities that will trigger ERA levels are proposed to be operated on the PL.

6.1.1 Existing Environment

6.1.1.1. Climate

The climate of the project area is classified as subtropical with no dry season, using the modified Köppen classification system (BOM, 2017). A summary of climate statistics sourced from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) for the weather station located at Miles Constance Street (ID 042112) (BOM, 2018) located approximately 65km to the south east, is provided below:

Mean maximum temperatures range between 33.8°C in the summer months and 20.3°C in the winter months

Mean minimum temperatures range between 20.5°C in the summer months and 4.3°C in the winter months

Daily evaporation rates are generally high, and exceed rainfall throughout the year

The highest rainfall occurs during December to February, with the lowest rainfall occurring during April to September

Winds from the north are predominant in the morning and relatively uniform from each direction in the afternoon, with a lower frequency of winds from the northwest and western quadrant.

6.1.1.2. Air Quality

The air quality within the project area and adjacent surrounds is considered to be consistent with a rural setting and therefore of high quality. Localised air quality impacts are from dust generated from stock movements, dust of natural origin, bushfires and controlled burns, vehicular movements on unsealed roads, and from other gas/mining operations in the region.

The Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (DSITIA) operates a number of air quality monitoring sites around Southeast Queensland to monitor air quality in the region and ensure compliance with air quality goals. The maximum 1-hour average NO2 and 8-hour average CO concentrations measured at Toowoomba during the 2010 calendar year were significantly higher than those recorded at any of the Southwest Queensland monitoring sites in 2017.





6.1.1.3. Sensitive Receptors

Nine (9) potential sensitive receptors (residential properties) have been identified within the Production Lease area and a further five (5) within two kilometres of the lease boundary (refer to Figure 7).

In addition to residential receptors, the Juandah State Forest and Hinchley State Forest are located in the southwest and north west of the Project area respectively, as shown in Figure 7.

6.1.2 Environmental Values

The air environmental values for the Petroleum Lease that are to be enhanced or protected as required by the Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008 (EPP Air) comprise:

Protecting the health and biodiversity of ecosystems

Human health and wellbeing

Protecting the aesthetics of the environment, including the appearance of buildings structures and other property

Protecting agricultural use of the environment.





Figure 7 : Sensitive Receptors






Sources of air emissions associated with the construction and operation of the Project Atlas gas field include:

Construction:

Fugitive dust emissions from clearing and construction of wellsites, access roads and pipelines

Fugitive dust emissions from clearing and construction of the water treatment facility

Emissions of products of diesel combustion from drilling rigs

Emissions of products of diesel combustion from construction gensets operating at the wellsite.

Operations:

Emissions of products of combustion from diesel or CSG-powered engines used to provide power to dewatering pumps

Emissions of products of combustion from the CSG-fired power generators at the water treatment facility.

Key pollutants emitted from the combustion of fuels will include oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and carbon monoxide (CO). Emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) may also be associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, however, emissions of these contaminants were considered to be very low and not quantitatively assessed.

The use of diesel-fired vehicles during the construction works (such as trucks, graders, excavators etc.) will also result in emissions of diesel combustion products. However, considering the small scale of operation at each wellsite and the exhaust emissions will be released intermittently, any significant elevation of current ambient levels of combustion gases in the surrounding area due to the proposed construction works is unlikely, and therefore has not been considered further in this report.

6.1.4 Potential Impacts and Management Practices

Construction

During construction, air emissions are expected to include dust generated by operating construction equipment and machinery as well as vehicle movements on unpaved roads. Dust generation will be minimised by management strategies, including reduced speed limits and watering of construction sites and unpaved roads. Fugitive dust emissions from construction activities have been evaluated using a screening approach (advocated by the Institute of Air Quality Management, UK, 2014) to determine the likelihood of impact, given the anticipated mass emission rate in comparison to the ambient air quality criteria specified in EPP (Air). The assessment determined negligible risk of adverse dust soiling and human health impacts as a result of proposed earthwork activities. The management methods will be implemented to ensure there is not a significant impact on local air quality.

Emissions from drill rigs during construction was assessed based on the parameters outlined in Table 6-1.





Table 6-1 : Model inputs for Drill Rigs (construction)

Source Stack Height Exhaust

Temperature

Stack

Diameter

Exhaust

Velocity

NOx

Emission

Cox

Emission

m oC m m/s g/s g/s

Drill Rig (gen set) 2.5 782 0.25 31 4.56 0.76

Modelling was performed by locating the source at a range of nominal locations within the gas field to predict impacts under a range of local meteorological conditions (SLR, 2018). The assessment found that the maximum predicted incremental NOx concentrations are below the 1-hour average ground level NOx criterion of 250 µg/m3 within approximately 100 m of the source. These predictions do not include background NO22 levels, which have been conservatively estimated at 85 µg/m3 (refer to Error! Reference source not found.). However, the drill rigs only operate for limited time periods at each well location (approximately 3 days). The potential for adverse air quality impacts from NOx emissions are therefore not considered a significant risk.

Given that the CO emissions from the drill rigs are less than 20% of the NOX emissions (refer to Table 6-1) and the CO guideline is much higher than those for NO2 (11,000 µg/m3, 250 µg/m3 respectively), the assessment indicates there is no significant risk associated with CO emissions from the drill rig.

Operations

During the operational production phase, planned emissions to air will comprise combustion emissions from equipment operating at well sites as well as fugitive emissions from well heads and associated infrastructure. Dust and exhaust emissions are expected from operational vehicle movements.

The guideline for the Application Requirements for Petroleum Activities, published by DEHP, requires that atmospheric dispersion modelling is undertaken for all fuel burning equipment that uses over 500 kg of fuel per hour. While, no fuel burning or combustion facilities that will trigger ERA levels are proposed to be operated on the PL, preliminary emission modelling has been completed for the following operational scenarios:

Water Treatment Facility operations – based on 3 CSG powered power generators running at 100% capacity;

Rig Operations – combustion emissions from wellhead engines that provide power to dewatering pumps (assumed to be Shelby 60 kVA engine or equivalent).

Emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) were modelled using a combination of the TAPM, CALMET and CALPUFF models. A one year, 3-dimensional meteorological file was compiled for use in the modelling using TAPM and CALMET, based on the 2016 calendar year.

The stack and emission data used in the modelling for the water treatment facility is summarised in Table 6-2. A number of other air emission sources in the surrounding area are likely to operate concurrently with the proposed water treatment facility. The largest is a proposed third party owned and operated gas compression facility, to be located immediately north of the gas field, approximately 2km north of the water treatment facility. Emissions from this proposed compression facility (based on 12 compressor engines and 3 power generators) was included in the modelling for the water treatment facility to assess the potential for cumulative impacts.





Table 6-2 : Model inputs Water Treatment Facility (generators)

Source Stack Height

Exhaust Temperature

Stack Diameter

Exhaust Velocity

NOx Emission

COx Emission

m oC m m/s g/s g/s

Water Treatment Facility (3 generators)

7 350 0.3 25 1.5 1.5

Third party Gas Compression Facility (3 generators)

7 350 0.3 25 1.5 1.5

Third party Gas Compression Facility (12 Compressors)

7 350 0.3 30 2 2

Emissions from the operational drill rigs (dewatering pumps) was assessed based on the parameters outlined in Table 6-3. Modelling of emissions for the operational wells was performed by locating the source at a range of nominal locations within the gas field to predict impacts under a range of local meteorological conditions.

Table 6-3 : Model inputs for Drill Rigs (operations)

Source Stack Height Exhaust Temperature

Stack Diameter

Exhaust Velocity

NOx Emission

COx Emission

m oC m m/s g/s g/s

Drill Rig (dewatering pump engines)

2.5 732 0.1 33 1.67 0.11

The air quality assessment (SLR, 2018) found that:

The modelling of NOx emissions from the drill rig wellhead engines (for dewatering pumps) showed the maximum cumulative (including background) NO2 concentrations are predicted to be below the 1-hour average ground level NO2 criterion of 250 ug/m3 within approximately 100m downwind.

The modelling of NOx and COx emissions from the proposed water treatment facility (power generators for plant operation) showed the maximum predicted cumulative NOx and COx concentrations at nearby sensitive receptors would remain well below the relevant ambient air quality guidelines.

Additional air quality impacts may occur if facilities principally generating sewerage and domestic waste are inappropriately managed. Up to four mobile drilling camps are predicted to be required for the gas field development. Sewerage will be managed according to all authorised requirements including the EA conditions, and located away from sensitive receptors. Management methods to be implemented for domestic waste and other waste streams are identified in Section 6.10, ensuring there is not a significant impact on local air quality at sensitive receptors.

There are no established, measurable technical thresholds for significance of change for visual impacts. The Environmental Constraints protocol will be implemented and consultation with potentially affected visual receptors (landholders) will be conducted at the planning





phase for specific infrastructure, to identify potentially affected parties and enable mitigation through design and screening accordingly.

All emissions and releases to the air environment will be managed in accordance with the existing EA conditions.

Environmental management practices are documented within the management plans and procedures developed for the Petroleum Lease. The identified risks and potential impacts to air values will be managed in accordance with the following management plans:

Project Atlas Environmental Management Plan [SENEX-ATLS-EN-LN-001] (Appendix B);

Queensland Environmental Protocol for Field Development and Constraints Analysis [SENEX-CORP-EN-PRC-019] (Appendix C).

A summary of the potential air impacts and key management practices is provided in Table 6-4.

Table 6-4 : Potential Air Impacts and Key Management Practices

Potential Impacts Key Management Practices

Dust generation, particularly during construction activities;

Exhaust emissions;

Fuel combustion emissions from construction and operational equipment, such as generators, and pumps;

Visual amenity disruption from infrastructure.

Site specific assessment for proposed infrastructure locations to manage adverse air quality through engineering design on sensitive receptors.

Staff and contractors made aware through general site induction and training of the potential to generate dust emissions and mitigation and management measures that should be implemented.

Regular vehicle, plant and equipment maintenance to ensure all machinery is in good working order and does not generate excessive air emissions. Plant and equipment operated in their proper and effective condition.

Operate vehicles in a fuel-efficient manner and not be left idling longer than required.

Vehicles, plant and machinery must comply with site-specific speed limits to minimise dust generation.

During construction and operating, disturbed areas and access roads watered using a water cart/truck on an as-required basis to minimise the potential for environmental nuisance due to dust utilizing produced water as authorised.

Waste gas to be flared, unless otherwise authorised.

Odour complaints to be managed on a complaints-based process in the first instance and appropriate corrective actions taken.

Fugitive emissions mitigated through appropriate well design and construction, undertaken in accordance with an accepted industry standard.






Activities carried out for the project area have the potential to adversely impact on air quality, as well as contributing to increased greenhouse gas concentrations. The risk and magnitude of potential impacts to air values is considered ‘low’ as:

The EPP Air management hierarchy for air emissions will be considered in reducing wherever practicable air emissions associated with the proposed production activities;

Greenhouse gas emissions will be reported in accordance with State and Commonwealth regulatory requirements;

Drilling, construction and operating the gas field by siting wells for drilling and operating associated generators, and the water treatment facility, is based on environmental constraints, GIS data and landholder information thereby ensuring infrastructure will not exceed the EPP Air quality guidelines and thresholds at residential sensitive receptors;

Implementing mitigation and management measures in Section 7.9 of the Project Atlas Environmental Management Plan (SENEX-ATLS-EN-PLN-001) reduces the risk and magnitude of potential impacts to air (refer Appendix B).

6.2. Land


6.2.1.1. Topography

The landscape of the Petroleum Lease is predominantly composed of undulating to moderately undulating landforms. There are small level floodplain areas associated with minor streams (1% slopes), and some steeper areas. Slopes average approximately 2.4% with maximum slopes of up to 11% across the area.

The topography of the Project Atlas area is presented in Figure 8. Elevations across the area range between 250 mAHD and 360 mAHD. Topographic highs are located towards the north west and south east of the project area. Project Atlas is located within the Upper Dawson River sub-basin, which is part of the Fitzroy River Basin.

6.2.1.2. Regional Geology

Project Atlas lies within the geographical extent of the Surat Basin, a basin of Jurassic-Cretaceous age, which is underlain by the Permo-Triassic Bowen Basin. Cenozoic-age formations are present overlying the Surat Basin formations.

Project Atlas overlies two distinct, but interconnected geological basins, the Permo-Triassic Bowen Basin and the Jurassic-Cretaceous Surat Basin. The Surat Basin occupies approximately 180,000 km2 of southeast Queensland and is connected to the Eromanga Basin in the west, the Clarence-Moreton Basin in the east and Mulgildie Basin to the northeast (KCB,2016). The surface geological map within the vicinity of Project Atlas is shown in Figure 9.





Figure 8 : Topography





Figure 9 : Regional Geological Map





The Surat Basin comprises predominantly Jurassic to Cretaceous aged alternating sandstone, siltstone and mudstone layers. This sequence, at its maximum, is more than 2,500 m thick in the Mimosa Syncline to the west of Project Atlas. The Project targets the WCM; a thick sequence of siltstone, mudstone and fine-to-medium-grained sandstone that contains the main CSG producing coals in the Surat Basin. While the total thickness of the WCM can be up to 650 m, the average thickness of this unit is approximately 300 m and the total coal thickness is generally less than 30 m (OGIA 2016a).

6.2.1.3. Soils

The Roma 1: 250,000 series SG 55-12 map (Milligan et al. 1972) broadly shows the geological units present within the Petroleum Lease. Lithic sandstone, siltstone and mudstone including bentonite and fossil wood of the Orallo Formation (Juo) and quartzose sandstone, conglomerate and siltstone of the Gubberamunda Sandstone (Jug) are prominent in the majority of the Petroleum Lease. Soils formed on these units include clays, sandy loams and clay loams. The land units and dominant soil types associated with the Petroleum Lease are summarised in Table 6-5 and illustrated on Figure 10.

Table 6-5: Land Units and Dominant Soil Types

Government mapping

code Concept Dominant soils

CB3 Gentle to moderately undulating or rolling lands

Moderate to shallow depth, chiefly grey clays but with important areas of dark clays or brown clays.

Rq1 Strongly undulating or low hilly lands

Gravelly, mostly shallow loamy duplex soils with mottled clay subsoil. A wide range of other shallow duplex soils are associated, chiefly alkaline forms. Associated drainage lines have small flood-plains with loamy soils together with small areas of clays.

SI4

Small stream flood-plains that rise gradually to moderately undulating marginal valley slopes

Loamy duplex soils. Associated are smaller areas of similar soils and local occurrences of clays. Some stream levees have deep sand soils. The marginal valley slopes have alkaline soils with some uniform clays. Upslope these soils merge into the cracking clays of unit CB3.

Searches for contaminated land of all the properties within the Petroleum Lease was conducted on 23 October 2017. There were no sites registered on the Environmental Management Register or the Contaminated Land Register.





Figure 10 : Soils of the Project Area





6.2.1.4. Land Tenure and Land Use

The majority of tenures within the PL are freehold (approximately 89%), state forest (approximately 7.2%) and the remainder are lands lease, reserve and road reserves.

Land use within and surrounding the Petroleum Lease is predominantly focused on primary agricultural resources. Rural/agricultural production associated with cattle grazing and feed lotting along with petroleum activities are the dominant land uses within the region. Land parcels are illustrated in Figure 7.

The Juandah State Forest is located within the Petroleum Lease, comprising an area of approximately 398ha. In addition, the eastern extent of the Hinchley State Forest (25 ha) is located within the northern extent of the Petroleum Lease. State Forests account for approximately 7.2% of the tenure area.

The Jackson Wandoan road passes through the petroleum lease, which is also a travelling stock route. A small reserve is located adjacent to the stock route.

The tenure is surrounded by existing petroleum tenures held by Shell (QGC) and Australia Pacific LNG (refer to Figure 11). There are a range of mining projects present in the greater region, which are at varying stages of development, as well as an exploration permit for greenhouse gas over the Petroleum Lease.


There are no prescribed environmental values relating to land for the Petroleum Lease.

Based on the assessment of the existing environment, the environmental values of the land within the Petroleum Lease to be protected or enhanced are:

the integrity of undisturbed land

the integrity of the topsoil as a resource to be used in rehabilitation

the stability of disturbed land ensuring it is non-polluting

soil health and function, including the physical and chemical attributes of soil, relative to propagation and growth of vegetation

the integrity of soil stability and structure for erosion protection

the suitability of the land for continued agricultural use post-closure.


Proposed production activities will use limited quantities of chemicals that may be classed as dangerous goods (e.g. corrosive liquids (Class 8) such as acetic acid and caustic soda solution, and paint thinners, degreasers and oils (Class 3). Fuels such as diesel (combustible liquids) will also be used to operate equipment and machinery on site.





Figure 11 : Surrounding Tenures





An unplanned release of chemicals has the potential to impact on land in the Atlas Project Area. To prevent unplanned releases all chemicals will be stored and handled in accordance with the relevant legislative requirements and AS including:

AS 3780:2008 – The storage and handling of corrosive substances

AS 1940:2004 – The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids

AS 3833:2007 – Storage and handling of mixed classes of dangerous goods in packaged and intermediate bulk containers

Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011.

In addition to chemicals, produced water may also be stored on site. Produced water will be stored and managed in accordance with EA conditions, engineering guidelines, Australian Standards, ‘Structures which are dams and levees constructed as part of environmentally relevant activities’ and the ‘Manual for Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures’ (DEHP, 2016).

As a priority, produced water will be beneficially used for drilling activities, dust suppression, construction activities, landscaping and revegetation, industrial and manufacturing, domestic, stock watering, stock intensive, incidental land management activities and irrigation activities in accordance with the EA conditions and General Beneficial Use Approvals.


The potential impacts to land values will be managed in accordance with the following management plans:

Project Atlas Environmental Management Plan [SENEX-ATLS-EN-LN-001] (Appendix B Sections 7.1, 7.4, 7.5, 7.8, 7.14, 7.15 and 8);

Queensland Environmental Protocol for Field Development and Constraints Analysis [SENEX-CORP-EN-PRC-019] (Appendix C); and

Project Atlas Rehabilitation Plan [SENEX-ATLS-EN-PLN-003] (Appendix D).

The potential impacts and key management practices associated with land (topography, soils and land use) environmental values is summarised in Table 6-6.

Table 6-6 : Land Potential Impacts and Key Management Practices


Topography, Soils and Land use

Changes in land profile including redirection of natural flow paths and catchment drainage patterns.

Loss of soil resource through erosion.

Degradation of soil resource through disturbance or changes to chemical/biological/structural composition.

Introduction of pest and weed species.

Any land disturbance will be planned and undertaken in accordance with the Environmental Constraints Protocol.

Implement Senex’s Erosion and Sediment Control Procedure for disturbed soil material.

Minimise the extent and duration of exposed soils as far as practicable.

Ensure stripped topsoil is stored separately to subsoil where practicable.

Once construction activities are complete, soil horizons will be replaced in the order in which they are excavated where practicable.






Contamination of land and / or water.

Green waste may be utilized on site for erosion and sediment control.

Produced water may be used for dust suppression and construction purposes provided the use:

o Does not result in negative impacts on the composition and structure of soil or subsoils;

o Is not directly or indirectly released to waters

o Does not result in runoff from the construction site

o Does not harm vegetation surrounding the construction site.

The use of produced water for dust suppression must:

o Not cause on-site ponding or runoff;

o Be directly applied to the area requiring suppression;

o Not harm vegetation surrounding the area being dust suppressed; and

o Not cause visible salting.

Produced water from low point drains released to land only where it meets authorised water quality parameters.

Residual drilling material disposed of using the mix bury cover method only where it meets authorised quality criteria.

Sewage effluent from temporary facilities only released to land where it meets or exceeds authorised water quality parameters.

Implement the Project Atlas Rehabilitation Management Plan (SENEX-ATLS-EN-PLN-003).

Vehicles, plant, machinery, equipment and personnel must stay within approved areas.

Implement a Vehicle Weed Hygiene Procedure incorporating site specific weed management requirements defined prior to access to any property or work site.

All hazardous chemicals will be stored in accordance with Australian Standards, and transported by appropriately licensed operators.


The management practices offer effective controls to manage the potential impacts to the land and soil properties associated with the proposed activities in the Petroleum Lease. The sediment and erosion control measures and requirement to adhere to the EA and management procedures will ensure that impacts to topography and soils are localised, short-term and recoverable.

The magnitude and severity of potential impacts has been determined with consideration of the limited scale and intensity of the proposed activities. As a result of implementing the management practices outlined above, the risk of environmental harm to land profiles and soil properties from the production activities is assessed as being low.

6.3. Ecology

An Ecological Assessment (desktop and field assessment) of the project area has been completed by ERM / Boobook Ecological Consulting and reported in the Project Atlas Production Area Ecological Assessment Report, which is provided in Appendix F. The following section provides a summary of the key outcomes of the assessment.






The Petroleum Lease is located within the Queensland Brigalow Belt South Bioregion (Sattler and Williams, 1999). The Petroleum Lease straddles the boundary of two subregions within the Brigalow Belt bioregion, Taroom Downs and Southern Downs. The vegetation of the Taroom Downs is dominated by forests of Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla), other communities typical of the Southern Downs subregion are present, including belah (Casuarina cristata), poplar box (Eucalyptus populnea), mountain coolibah (E. orgadophila) and narrow-leaved ironbark (E. crebra) communities. The project area is approximately 5850 ha in total and consists of largely cleared land with 11.7% considered as remnant or regrowth.

Much of the Petroleum Lease has been extensively cleared. Some remnant vegetation is retained in two State Forests (refer to Figure 12) in association with some riparian areas and in isolated patches. Existing land use within the Petroleum Lease has primarily been agricultural (grazing of domestic livestock, with some areas of dryland and irrigated fodder cropping) (refer to Figure 12).

Biodiversity environmental values were assessed using desktop and field survey assessment. Field surveys were undertaken across a number of events (May & June 2018) utilising methods consistent with Neldner et al (2012) for flora and Eyre et al (2014) for fauna.





Figure 12 : Ground Truthed Remnant Vegetation





Habitat assessments and other observations provided additional data to identify habitat values present, with specific focus on habitats for threatened species.

A summary of the areas of ground truthed remnant, regrowth and non-remnant vegetation within the Petroleum Lease is provided in Table 6-7.

Table 6-7 : Ground Truthed Remnant, Regrowth and Non-Remnant Areas

Vegetation Type Ground truthed extent within the project area (ha)

Estimated Percentage of total disturbance for the project

Remnant 613 10.5

Mature Regrowth1 68 1.2

Non-remnant 5170 88.4

1Approximately 48.2 ha of mature regrowth vegetation is Endangered (Biodiversity status)

The project area contains fourteen regional ecosystem (RE) communities listed under the Queensland Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VM Act) as well as areas of mature regrowth vegetation and non-remnant areas. Of these, five REs are listed (Biodiversity Status) as Endangered, four listed as Of Concern and five listed as No Concern at Present. The extent of these REs and their respective Biodiversity Status are presented in Table 6-8 and shown in Figure 12. Remnant vegetation consisting of Endangered and Of Concern REs constitute less than 8 % of the project area.

Table 6-8 : Ground Truthed Regional Ecosystems within the Petroleum Lease

RE

Community

by

Biodiversity

Status

Short Description Extent within the

Production Lease (ha)

Extent within the indicative

Project Footprint (ha)

Remnant Mature

Regrowth

Remnant Mature

Regrowth

Endangered Total Endangered 255.2 48.2 4.4 0

11.3.1 Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata open forest on alluvial plains

1 2.9 0 0

11.3.17 Eucalyptus populnea woodland with Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata on alluvial plains

3 2.5 0 0

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

1.6 0 0 0

11.9.5 Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata open forest

247.8 41.2 4.4 0





RE

Community

by

Biodiversity

Status





Remnant Mature

Regrowth

Remnant Mature

Regrowth

on fine-grained sedimentary rocks.

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

1.8 1.6 0 0

Of Concern Total Of Concern 169.3 16.1 0 0

11.3.2 Eucalyptus populnea woodland on alluvial plains

14.6 3.1 0 0

11.3.4 Eucalyptus tereticornis and/or Eucalyptus spp. woodland on alluvial plains

68.6 13 0 0

11.3.25 Eucalyptus tereticornis or E. camaldulensis woodland fringing drainage lines

84.2 0 0 0

11.3.27 Freshwater wetlands. Vegetation is variable including open water with or without aquatic species and fringing sedgelands and eucalypt woodlands. Occurs in a variety of situations including lakes, billabongs, oxbows and depressions on floodplains

1.9 0 0 0

No Concern at Present

Total No Concern at Present

188.4 6

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

1.3 2.4 0 0

11.5.1 Eucalyptus crebra and/or E. populnea, Callitris glaucophylla, Angophora leiocarpa, Allocasuarina luehmannii woodland on Cainozoic sand plains and/or remnant surfaces

144.4 1.2 4.9 0

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

4 0 0 0





RE

Community

by

Biodiversity

Status





Remnant Mature

Regrowth

Remnant Mature

Regrowth

11.9.9 Eucalyptus crebra woodland on fine-grained sedimentary rocks

9.1 0 0.9 0

11.10.1 Corymbia citriodora woodland on coarse-grained sedimentary rocks

29.6 0 0.3 0

Total 612.19 67.9 10.4 0

Though much of the Petroleum Lease has been cleared for agricultural purposes, the diversity of topography and soils, and therefore vegetation types, provides several broad habitat types where this vegetation has been retained. Habitats for native species were assessed and five broad habitat types are described. The broad groups and characteristic microhabitat features are listed in Table 6-9.

Table 6-9 : Terrestrial Habitat Types within the Project Area

Broad Habitat Type Remnant or regrowth RE Type or other habitat

Microhabitat Features recorded

Eucalypt-dominated woodlands and open forests on riparian and floodplain areas

11.3.2, 11.3.4, 11.3.17, 11.3.25, 11.3.39

Hollow live and/or dead trees, hollow logs, coarse woody debris, decorticating bark, leaf litter, food trees, mistletoe

Eucalypt-dominated woodlands and open forests on uplands and non-alluvial plains

11.5.1, 11.9.2, 11.9.9, 11.9.10, 11.10.1

Hollow live and/or dead trees, hollow logs, coarse woody debris, decorticating bark, leaf litter, loose and embedded rocks, food trees, mistletoe

Brigalow Acacia harpophylla and/or belah Casuarina cristata open forests

11.3.1, 11.9.5 Coarse woody debris, rare hollow trees or logs, decorticating bark, some cracking clays, leaf litter, food trees, mistletoe

Semi-evergreen vine thicket 11.9.4 Coarse woody debris, rare tree and log hollows, leaf litter, some loose and embedded rock

Ephemeral wetlands associated with riparian areas and drainage lines

11.3.27, farm dams Ephemeral freshwater wetlands, cracking clays, food trees, tree hollows, food trees, mistletoe

There are no areas of Essential Habitat mapped within the project area.





Desktop sources and field survey results identified at least 273 flora taxa and at least 144 fauna taxa known within the Petroleum Lease. The likelihood of occurrence assessment of thirty-six (36) species listed as endangered, vulnerable, near threatened or special least concern under the NC Act determined that nine of those species are considered ‘confirmed’ or high likelihood of occurrence within the Petroleum Lease (refer to Table 6-10).

Table 6-10 : Threatened Species Confirmed or Highly Likely to Occur in Project Area

Species Common Name

Status (EPBC/NCA)

Likelihood of Occurrence Category

Potential Habitat Extent (ha)*

Percentage Habitat Extent of Area (%)

Plants

Cadellia pentastylis Ooline NCA – VU EPBC – VU

High 243 4.2

Homopholis belsonii Belson’s panic

NCA – EN EPBC – VU

High 319 5.5

Birds

Calyptorhynchus lathami

Glossy-black cockatoo

NCA – VU EPBC –

High 508 8.7

Mammals

Phascolarctos cinereus

Koala NCA – VU EPBC – VU

Confirmed 245 4.2

Tachyglossus aculeatus

Short-beaked echidna

NCA – SLC EPBC –

Confirmed 685 11.7

Reptiles

Strophurus taenicauda

Golden-tailed gecko

NCA – NT EPBC –

Confirmed 681 21.6

Other

Adclarkia dulacca Dulacca woodland snail

NCA – E EPBC – E

High 262

4.5

Migratory

Apus pacificus fork-tailed swift

NCA – SLC

EPBC - M

High Overfly entire area

Overfly entire area

Hirundapus caudacutus

white-throated needletail

NCA – SLC

EPBC -M

High Overfly entire area

Overfly entire area

*See Appendix F for detail on threatened species habitat area calculation method.

NCA – Nature Conservation Act 1992, EPBC- Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

E – Endangered, V- Vulnerable, NT- Near threatened, SLC- Special Least Concern, M - Migratory

An additional 14 endangered, vulnerable or near threatened NCA listed species determined to have a medium likelihood of occurrence based on habitat present within the project area, species habitat preference and location of confirmed records:

Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea)

Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus)





Squatter Pigeon (Geophaps scripta scripta)

Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta)

Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis)

Southern Long-eared Bat (Nyctophilus corbeni)

Greater Glider (Petauroides volans)

Common death adder (Acanthophis antarcticus)

Collared Delma (Delma torquata)

Yakka Skink (Egernia rugosa)

Southern Snapping Turtle (Elseya albagula)

Dunmall’s Snake (Furina dunmalli)

Fitzroy River Turtle (Rheodytes leukops)

Pale imperial hairstreak butterfly (Jalmenus eubulus).

The remainder are considered a low likelihood of occurence due to an absence of suitable habitat or other aspects such as outside the natural range of the species.

Habitat for each of the threatened species was identified within the Petroleum Lease using species specific criteria and ground-truthed vegetation mapping.

Fauna dispersal opportunities within the Petroleum Lease are largely restricted to riparian areas, most notably in continuous corridors of woodland on the banks and floodplains of Wandoan and Woleebee Creeks. Lesser (and less continuous) areas of riparian habitat are present on Ogle and Splitter Creeks within the Petroleum Lease. The cleared, non-remnant areas typical of much of the Petroleum Lease are considered likely to impede dispersal for most (less common) reptiles, amphibians, small ground mammals and arboreal mammals.

Aquatic values associated with the project area are discussed in Section 6.5.1.5. Groundwater dependent ecosystems are mapped within the project area in association with Wandoan and Woleebee Creeks and further discussed in Section 6.6.1.3. No high ecological significance wetlands, high ecological value wetlands or high ecological value watercourses were identified in the project area. There is 0.7 ha of lacustrine wetland mapped within the project area that is not associated with any remnant or regrowth vegetation.


There are no prescribed environmental values relating to terrestrial ecology for the Petroleum Lease.

The environmental values of terrestrial ecology within the Petroleum Lease to be protected or enhanced are:

the integrity of undisturbed land and ecosystems within the Petroleum Lease

the integrity of regional ecosystems and the habitat values they provide within the Petroleum Lease

the integrity of habitat for endangered, vulnerable, near threatened and special least concern species





the integrity of movement corridors provided by riparian zone vegetation.


There are no expected emissions or releases to the identified terrestrial ecology environmental values.

An unplanned release of chemicals has the potential to impact on terrestrial ecosystems in the Petroleum Lease and this has been discussed in Section 6.2.3.


Environmental management practices are documented within the management plans and procedures developed for the Petroleum Lease. The identified risks and potential impacts to terrestrial ecology values will be managed in accordance with the following management plans:




The key management practices for potential impacts to terrestrial and aquatic ecology are outlined in Table 6-11.

Table 6-11 : Ecology Potential Impacts and Key Management Practices


Clearing of native vegetation (less than 1.7% of remnant & regrowth vegetation in the Petroleum Lease), and habitat including for threatened wildlife species, and endangered and of concern regional ecosystem types)

During project planning, the Environmental Constraints Protocol will be used to preferentially minimise disturbance to biodiversity values.

Vegetation will not be cleared unless authorised under a Senex Access to Work (ATW) permit. The ATW will be approved prior to any vegetation clearance or disturbance occurring.

Prior to undertaking activities that result in significant disturbance to land, an ecological survey to confirm on ground biodiversity values will be undertaken by a suitably qualified person.

Targeted surveys for threatened species will be undertaken where potential habitat is proposed to be disturbed.

Infrastructure will be located preferentially in predisturbed areas of land.

RoWs widths will be minimised; for gathering RoWs, the width is being designed to be an 18 metres RoW.

Infrastructure will preferentially avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts on native vegetation or areas of ecological value.

To prevent unnecessary land and vegetation disturbance, vehicles and equipment will be retained within the approved work zone.

‘No-go’ areas will be GPS located and clearly marked e.g. with signage, bunting, flagging tape.






Clearing of mature or hollow bearing trees will be avoided where reasonably practicable, and otherwise undertaken in accordance with the Queensland Fauna and Stock Management Procedure.

A Species Management Program will be developed and implemented.

Introduction and/or spread of weed species

A biosecurity plan will be developed and implemented for the project.

Activities will be planned so that movement of vehicles, plant, machinery and equipment avoid moving between properties, corridors or areas with high priority weed infestations as required.

Site specific weed management requirements will be defined prior to access to any property or work site.

Weed management and control methods will depend upon the location, weed species identified, the degree of the infestation, relevant landholder agreement or conduct and compensation agreements (CCA) provisions, and local, state and national regulatory requirements.

Imported material able to transport weed seed will be assessed to ensure they are free of contamination, disease and invasive weeds. Landowner approval may also be required for imported soils and gravel.

Disturbance or displacement to fauna species from foraging or roosting habitat, or breeding places.

Where identified, as required, a qualified fauna spotter-catcher will conduct a search immediately prior to clearing of vegetation for the presence of fauna species.

Where fauna are detected, the spotter catcher will assess and implement the most appropriate method to avoid or minimise impacts on that fauna as a result of clearing.


Degradation of native flora and fauna habitats, including through:

Excessive dust generation and deposition

Land disturbance causing indirect impacts via increased erosion

Accidental release or spill of hazardous materials

Staff and contractors will be made aware through general site induction and training of the potential to generate dust emissions and mitigation and management measures that should be implemented.

Vehicles, plant and machinery will comply with site-specific speed limits to minimise dust generation.

Disturbed areas and access roads will be watered using a water cart/truck on an as-required basis to minimise the potential for environmental nuisance due to dust.

Works on site will not commence until any relevant Contractor erosion and sediment control procedures have been approved by the Senex Site Supervisor and be installed as required on significantly disturbed land.

Sediment and erosion control to be managed in accordance with the Senex Qld Erosion and Sediment Control Procedure and the Contractor’s erosion and sediment control procedures.

Erosion and sediment control structures must be inspected periodically as required and after rain events and maintenance carried out where required.

All fuel, oil and chemicals are to be stored, transported and handled in accordance appropriate standards including AS 3780:2008 – The storage and handling of corrosive






substances, AS 1940:2004 – The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids, AS 3833:2007 – Storage and handling of mixed classes of dangerous goods in packaged and intermediate bulk containers.

Appropriate spill response equipment must be available on site and/or with vehicles, and regularly maintained.

Habitat fragmentation Infrastructure will be located preferentially avoiding, then minimize isolating, fragmenting, edge effects or dissecting tracts of native vegetation.

Linear infrastructure will maximize co-location. Natural vegetation buffers along creeks and rivers will not be

disturbed unless authorised under an ATW and only at the location indicated on the Site Environmental Instruction.

RoW widths in native vegetation and waterway crossings will be minimised where possible.

Where activities may impose barriers to the movement of fauna for extended period of time, reasonable measures will be implemented to facilitate fauna movement around or through active work areas.

Fauna injury during construction activities

Measures to prevent fauna entrapment and facilitate escape must be implemented during construction and operations where required (e.g. open excavations).

Excavations and trenches must be inspected for trapped fauna on a daily basis during construction.

Where identified as required a qualified fauna spotter-catcher will conduct a search immediately prior to clearing of vegetation for the presence of fauna species. Where fauna are detected, the spotter catcher will assess and implement the most appropriate method to avoid or minimise impacts on that fauna as a result of clearing.



The management practices offer effective controls to manage the potential impacts to terrestrial ecology associated with the proposed activities in the Petroleum Lease. Specifically, implementing Senex’s Environmental Constraints Protocol, adhering to the EA conditions (refer to Section 3.3) as well as the management practices identified above, will minimise the extent of habitat removed and associated impacts to flora and fauna. It is estimated that less than 1.7% of the remnant vegetation will be affected by construction and operation activities in the Petroleum Lease, indicating that clearing impacts will be localised, short-term and recoverable.

Indirect disturbances to terrestrial ecosystems relating to weeds and pests, displacement and degradation of habitat, as well as potential for mortality of fauna, will be effectively managed by implementing the environmental management practices outlined above. Given the construction activities will be progressive and followed by restoration and rehabilitation activities, disturbance will be localised, short term and recoverable. The magnitude and severity of potential impacts has been determined based on technical assessments carried out by suitably qualified and experienced specialists. As a result of implementing the management practices outlined above, the risk of environmental harm to terrestrial ecology is assessed as being low.





In addition, a biodiversity offsets strategy will be implemented to the measures required by the Environmental Offsets Act 2014. This is discussed in more detail in Section 8.

6.4. Environmentally Sensitive Areas


Within the Petroleum Lease, there are Category B and C environmentally sensitive areas (ESA) as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1994. These are summarised in Table 6-12 and the extent illustrated in Figure 13.

Table 6-12 : Environmentally Sensitive areas occurring on PL 1037

ESA Matter Comment

Category A ESA None present

Category B ESA that are other than ‘endangered’ regional ecosystems

None present

Category B ESA that are ‘endangered’ regional ecosystems

There are areas of remnant and regrowth vegetation that are endangered regional ecosystem (biodiversity status). (REs- 11.3.1, 11.3.17, 11.9.4, 11.9.5, 11.9.10).

Category C ESA that are ‘nature refuges’ or ‘koala habitat’

No koala habitat areas, as defined under the Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan are located in the project area.

No nature refuges are present in the project area.

Category C ESA that are ‘essential habitat’, ‘essential regrowth habitat’, or ‘of concern’ regional ecosystems

There are ‘of concern’ regional ecosystems (biodiversity status) within the Petroleum Lease. (REs- 11.3.2, 11.3.4, 11.3.25, 11.3.27).

There are no areas of essential habitat or essential regrowth habitat mapped within the Petroleum Lease.

Category C ESA that are ‘regional parks’ (previously known as ‘resource reserves’)

None present

Category C ESA that are ‘state forests’ or ‘timber reserves’

There are two state forests within the Petroleum Lease – Hinchley State Forest (in part) and Juandah State Forest.

There are no timber reserves mapped within the Petroleum Lease.

Based on validated regional ecosystems, the extent of ESA within the Project Area is summarised in Table 6-13 and shown in Figure 13.

Table 6-13 : Extent of Environmentally Sensitive Areas within the Project Area

ESA Matter Mapped extent within the Petroleum Lease (ha)

Percentage of Area (%)

Category B ESA that are ‘endangered’ regional ecosystems (Remnant and Regrowth)

303 5.2

Category C ESA that are ‘of concern’ regional ecosystems

169 2.9

Category C ESA that are ‘state forests’ 423 7.2





Figure 13 : Environmentally Sensitive Areas






Environmentally sensitive areas are defined in the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008 and EA. The ESAs to be protected within the Petroleum Lease include:

Endangered remnant and regrowth vegetation areas (Category B ESA)

Of concern remnant vegetation areas (Category C ESA)

State Forest (Hinchley & Juandah State Forest) (Category C ESA).


An unplanned release of chemicals has the potential to impact on ESAs in the Petroleum Lease and this has been discussed in Section 6.2.3.

There are no expected emissions or releases to the identified ESAs.


An estimate of the proposed disturbance to ESA’s is in Table 6-14. This estimate is based upon an indicative field layout and the ground truthed values with within the Project Area.

Table 6-14 : Impact to Environmentally Sensitive Areas within the Project Area

ESA Matter Extent within the Petroleum Lease (ha)

Mapped extent within Indicative Footprint

(ha)

Category B ESA that are ‘endangered’ regional ecosystems (Remnant and Regrowth)

303 4.4

Category C ESA that are ‘of concern’ regional ecosystems

173.5 0

Category C ESA that are ‘state forests’ 423 14.2

Based on the proposed well spacing for the gas field to achieve optimum gas production, wells and gathering infrastructure are proposed to be located within Juandah State Forest. To minimise the impact to the State Forest, wells will be located externally to the State Forest where feasible, however being located centrally within the PL, gas extraction from within the state forest is proposed.

Within the Juandah State Forest (Category C ESA), the wells and gathering will be located preferentially within the non remnant vegetation, and then the remnant vegetation (not of concern RE) followed by the Category B ESA (ERE) where there are no other feasible alternatives.

Following desktop and detailed field assessments, the proposed indicative layout requires impacts to an area of 14.2 hectares of Category C ESA, of which 4.4ha is Category B ESA (ERE).

In addition, it has been identified that a proposed estimated 3ha gravel/borrow pit (which is not considered a limited or essential petroleum activity) is required to be located on an area of pre-existing disturbance within a primary protection zone of a Category B ESA (ERE).





The borrow pit will be located on the northern boundary of Lot 28FT672. The entire northern boundary of the property is within ESA primary and secondary buffers. The borrow pit has been located where the resource has been identified; to avoid impacting ground truthed ESAs and RE; in a location of acceptable access and slope; and to utilise an existing disturbed area. Access to borrow pit will be via existing access tracks on the property. The impacts from this activity will be appropriately managed by implementing the Atlas Environmental Management Plan.

Environmental management practices are documented within the management plans and procedures developed for the Project Atlas, in particular management practices for ESAs relate to clearing vegetation, introduction and/or spread of weeds and degradation of vegetation communities adjacent to clearing areas. The identified risks and potential impacts to will be managed in accordance with the following management plans:




The environmental management practices outlined in Table 6-15 will minimise the impact to ESAs.

Table 6-15 : ESA Potential Impacts and Key Management Practices


Direct disturbance of an ESA or protection zone

During project planning, the Environmental Constraints Protocol will be used to preferentially minimise disturbance to biodiversity values.

Within ESA’s, infrastructure will be preferentially located in areas of non-remnant vegetation, and where practicable, water storage facilities will be located more than 300m from a Category B ESA and 200m from a Category C ESA, where feasible.

Prior to undertaking activities that result in significant disturbance to land, an ecological survey to confirm on ground biodiversity values will be undertaken by a suitably qualified person.

To prevent unnecessary land and vegetation disturbance to ESAs, vehicles and equipment will be retained within the approved work zones.

ESAs that are ‘No-go’ areas, will be GPS located and clearly marked e.g. with bunting, flagging tape.

Introduction and/or spread of weed species

A biosecurity plan will be developed and implemented for the project. Activities will be planned so that movement of vehicles, plant, machinery and

equipment avoid moving between properties, corridors or areas with high priority weed infestations as required.

Site specific weed management requirements will be defined prior to access to any property or work site.

Weed management and control methods will depend upon the location, weed species identified, the degree of the infestation, relevant landholder agreement or CCA provisions, and local, state and national regulatory requirements.

Imported material able to transport weed seed will be assessed to ensure they are free of contamination, disease and invasive weeds. Landowner approval may also be required for imported soils and gravel.

Indirect degradation of ESAs, including:

Excessive dust Land disturbance

Staff and contractors will be made aware through general site induction and training of the potential to generate dust emissions and mitigation and management measures that should be implemented.






potential downstream impacts

Accidental release or spill of materials

Vehicles, plant and machinery will comply with site-specific speed limits to minimise dust generation.

Disturbed areas and access roads will be watered using a water cart/truck on an as-required basis to minimise the potential for environmental nuisance due to dust.

Works on site will not commence until any relevant Contractor erosion and sediment control procedures have been approved by the Senex Site Supervisor and be installed as required on significantly disturbed land.

Sediment and erosion control to be managed in accordance with Senex’s Erosion and Sediment Control procedure and the Contractor’s erosion and sediment control procedures.

Erosion and sediment control structures must be inspected periodically as required and after rain events and maintenance carried out where required.

All fuel, oil and chemicals are to be stored, transported and handled in accordance appropriate standards including AS 3780:2008 – The storage and handling of corrosive substances, AS 1940:2004 – The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids, AS 3833:2007 – Storage and handling of mixed classes of dangerous goods in packaged and intermediate bulk containers.



The management practices offer effective controls to manage the potential impacts to ESAs associated with the proposed activities in the Petroleum Lease. Specifically, implementing the Environmental Constraints Protocol, adherence to the EA conditions for Biodiversity, and the management practices identified in Table 6-15 will minimise the extent of removal of ESAs and minimise indirect disturbances to ESAs. Given the construction activities will be progressive and followed by restoration and rehabilitation activities, disturbance will be localised, short term and recoverable.

The magnitude and severity of potential impacts has been determined based on technical assessments carried out by suitably qualified and experienced specialists. As a result of implementing the management practices outlined above, the risk of environmental harm to ESAs is assessed as being medium.

6.5. Surface Water

A Surface Water Assessment (desktop and field assessment) of the project area has been completed by KCB and reported in the Project Atlas Surface and Groundwater Assessment Report, which is provided in Appendix G. The assessment included an assessment of aquatic values, which was completed by ecologists from Hydrobiology, which is provided in Appendix III of the Surface and Groundwater Assessment Report. The following section provides a summary of the key outcomes of the assessment.


6.5.1.1. Surface Water Catchments

Project Atlas is located within the Upper Dawson River sub-basin, which is part of the Fitzroy River Basin. The Fitzroy River Basin is the second largest externally drained basin in Australia and the largest on the eastern coast. Covering an area of 150,000 km2, the basin





contains several significant tributaries, including the Nogoa, Comet, Mackenzie and Dawson Rivers. The basin discharges into the Coral Sea east of Rockhampton.

The divide between the upper Dawson sub-basin and the Condamine-Balonne Rivers sub-basin is located ~16 km to the south of the project area.

Key watercourses, as shown on (refer to Figure 14), within the vicinity of Project Atlas include:

Woleebee Creek, which flows north from its headwaters flanking the eastern boundary of the project to join Juandah Creek to the northeast.

Smaller headwater tributaries of Woleebee Creek present within the Project area include Wandoan Creek, Splitter Creek and Ogle Creek. The Project Atlas petroleum lease lies almost entirely within the sub-catchment of Woleebee Creek.

Horse Creek and Horse Creek-East Branch are located to the west of Project Atlas and flows in a general northerly direction, joining Juandah Creek in the north.

Juandah Creek flows towards the north to join the Dawson River, 3 km south of Taroom. Juandah Creek is joined by Woleebee Creek, Horse Creek (from the south) and Bungaban Creek from the east before joining the Dawson River.





Figure 14 : Regional Drainage, Key Watercourses & River Basin Divide





Watercourses within the Project Atlas area are classified as Stream Orders 1 to 5 using the Strahler method, with the majority being Stream Order 1 (minor streams) (DNRM 2017a). Reaches of Stream Order 5 (major streams) are associated with Woleebee Creek in the east.

Watercourse flows in the Project area are characteristically ephemeral, episodic in nature, and typically generated only due to significant runoff events. This is likely a consequence of the catchments being in the uppermost reaches with limited runoff area. There are no identified third-party surface-water users in the vicinity of the Project.

6.5.1.2. Hydrology and Geomorphology

The hydrology of the PL area is directly influenced by the distinct seasonal rainfall and the subsequent highly variable streamflow patterns. Watercourses across the Project area are characteristically ephemeral and typically flow only during significant runoff events. Peak stream discharges usually occur during the wet season months of December to February when rainfall is highest.

6.5.1.3. Surface Water Flow

The watercourses across the Project area are characteristically ephemeral and typically flow only during significant runoff events. This is likely a consequence of the catchments being in the upper most reaches with limited runoff area.

During the field verification program (June / July 2018 – refer to Appendix I of Appendix G), no surface water flow was observed in any of the watercourses surveyed. This is consistent with the ephemeral nature of these watercourses.

There are no DNRM surface water flow gauges within the Petroleum Lease, however one flow gauge is located ~20 km north of the project area within Juandah Creek (Figure 14), downstream of the confluence between Woleebee Creek and Juandah Creek (130344A - Juandah Creek at Windamere).

Gauge data was available from October 1974 to May 2018 (DNRME, 2018). The highest average daily flows occur between November and February, with the lowest flows in June to August. Figure 15Figure 15 shows the cumulative exceedance probability for the average daily recorded flow and indicates that flows are present 37% of the gauged period, and the discharge is greater than 400 ML/d for 5 % of the gauged period. The data highlights the ephemeral nature of Juandah Creek and that it is likely to flow only during and after significant runoff events.





Figure 15 : Cumulative Exceedance Probability for Recorded Daily Discharge at Juandah Creek (130344A Juandah Creek at Windemere)

6.5.1.4. Flood Regime

Floodplain mapping was sourced from the DNRM (2013) and is presented in Figure 16. The mapping indicates that areas to the east of Project Atlas associated with Woleebee and Ogle Creeks are potentially at threat of inundation by flooding. In the wider project area, Juandah and Horse Creeks are also at threat of inundation by flooding.

Flood modelling maps is available through Queensland Globe (DNRM 2017b). Flood modelling mapping for a 1 % annual exceedance probability (AEP), or 1 in 100-year flood, are available. The mapping indicates that for a 1 in 100-year flood event, flooding may occur in all main channels and tributaries. In upper tributaries, flood depths are generally less than 0.5 m, while in the main channels of Wandoan, Ogle and Splitter Creeks, flood depths are generally 0.8 to 1 m, with flood depth between 1 and 2 m mapped within Woleebee Creek to the east.





Figure 16 : Extent of Floodplain Areas (DNRM 2013)





6.5.1.5. Aquatic Ecology

An aquatic ecology field survey was undertaken within the Project area in July 2018 and is reported in Appendix G. The field survey noted that the sites surveyed were influenced by surrounding land uses and disturbances (e.g. irrigated cropping, grazing, etc.).

Watercourses within the project area are considered to be highly disturbed, and the aquatic habitat diversity at the time of the survey (July 2018) was very low, restricted to several pools, all of which were disturbed by cattle, had high turbidity, and limited cover and macrophytes. Aquatic flora was instead dominated by filamentous algae, indicative of high nutrient inputs from surrounding land use. Bed materials are dominated by fine sands, silt and small gravel, with limited cobble areas with potential to provide riffle habitat. Some large and small woody debris provides structural habitat in several areas.

Based on the results of the assessment, watercourses transecting the project area were rated as Moderate value, at a local level, primarily due to the presence of permanent or persistent pools. These provide critical dry season refugia for the aquatic life that use them, to sustain them until the rains, which is significant on a local tributary scale. On a catchment scale, aquatic value of these watercourses would be Low, as the more permanent main channel of the Dawson and its larger tributaries support much more diverse aquatic communities.

All sites surveyed were scored as Fair habitat, had presence (but low diversity) of non-conservation significant native aquatic fauna and flora. No EVNT and Priority species were identified in the field and were considered unlikely to occur based on available habitat. However, these conclusions are drawn based on only four survey sites of two creeks during the dry season due to land access limitations, and the possibility of EVNT and Priority species occurring in the area cannot be ruled out.

6.5.1.6. Groundwater Surface Interactions

In general, groundwater-surface water interactions within the Project Atlas area are expected to occur as a result of two key processes:

Discharge of groundwater to watercourses as baseflow

Recharge to aquifers as leakage from watercourses.

Baseflow-fed reaches have been identified within the project area in recent work by OGIA (OGIA 2017). Reaches of Woleebee and Horse Creeks have been identified as baseflow-fed or gaining streams.

Reaches of Woleebee Creek within the Project area were assessed during the Senex field verification program in June/July 2018 (Appendix I of Appendix G). The following observations are made in regard to Woleebee Creek as a gaining stream:

The assessment was conducted during the dry season and no flow was observed within the areas surveyed.

Pools of water were encountered in the lower reaches of Woleebee Creek (within the PL), which were considered to be rainfall derived surface water based on their non-clear appearance and field water quality (547 µS/cm).

Based on the difference between the field water quality measured at Woleebee Creek pools, field observations and groundwater elevation monitoring data obtained the alluvium and Gubberamunda Sandstone), it is considered unlikely that Woleebee Creek is a baseflow-fed reach.

A review of the water quality from surface water samples from Juandah Creek (DNRME gauge), in comparison with groundwater sampled from groundwater bores screened in the





alluvium in the vicinity of the Project show similar water chemistry and characteristics compared to water chemistry and characteristics from the shallowest Surat Basin units within the Project area (Gubberamunda Sandstone and Westbourne Formation). Comparison of water quality characteristics coupled with field observations, suggest that the pools of water observed along Wandoan Creek are more similar to surface water than the underlying Surat Basin units.

Where a sufficient hydraulic head exists within the alluvium, there may be some downwards recharge from the alluvium to the underlying Surat Basin units, however given the surface area of alluvium and ephemeral nature of the flow, localised recharge would be considered limited in extent within the Project area.

Further discussion related to springs and groundwater dependent ecosystems is provided in Section 6.6.1.3.

6.5.1.7. Current Surface Water Stressors

The Dawson River sub-basin is heavily influenced by anthropogenic pressures including land use, riparian management, water infrastructure and point source pollution; and, is also highly modified as a result of agricultural and grazing practices.

Since circa 1850, the primary land use in the Dawson River sub-basin has been sheep and cattle grazing. The State of River report (Telfer 1995) lists indicators of the physical conditions of the Dawson River and its tributaries. The “Southern Tributaries” catchment identified by Telfer (1995) is of most relevance to this report as the upper reaches are located within Project Atlas.

The condition of land immediately adjacent to the State of River study reaches (Telfer 1995) is typically rated as being in poor to moderate condition (89 % of reaches). Subjective assessments of disturbance reflect these ratings with 9% moderately disturbed, 43 % highly disturbed, 31 % very highly disturbed, and 15 % extremely disturbed. Major factors contributing to disturbance were identified as grazing (94 % of sites), roads (37 %), bridges or culverts (20 %), ford and ramp structures (13 %) and forestry (4 %).

6.5.1.8. Surface Water Users

Under the Fitzroy Basin ROP (DNRM 2015), creeks within the project area are within the Dawson Valley Water Management Area. Within this management area: Woleebee; Horse; and Juandah Creeks; are a tributary of the Dawson N Zone, along the AMTD reach 356.5 to 428.0 (km); and, is described as ‘Upstream limit of Glebe Weir and Eurombah Creek Junction’.

There are no resource operations licence holders in the Dawson N Zone of the Dawson Valley Water Management Area. No other surface water users have been identified within the vicinity of Project Atlas.


The Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 (State of Queensland 2016b) provides defined EVs and water quality objectives (WQOs) for the Dawson River sub-basin under schedule 1 of the policy and are detailed in DEHP (2011). Surface water EVs for the Upper Dawson are presented in Table 6-16.

The WQ1308 plan (DEHP 2013) that accompanies the policy indicates that the area of Project Atlas is located on the southern tributaries of the Upper Dawson (Taroom area). Surface water values extend to all categories, except for aquaculture.





Table 6-16 : Surface Water Environmental Values for the Dawson River Sub-Basin within the vicinity of Project Atlas (DEHP 2011)

Water

Environmental Values

Aq

uat

ic

Eco

syst

em

Irri

gat

ion

Far

m S

up

ply

/ U

se

Sto

ck W

ater

Aq

uac

ult

ure

Hu

man

co

nsu

mer

Pri

mar

y re

cre

atio

n

Sec

on

dar

y re

cre

atio

n

Vis

ual

rec

reat

ion

Dri

nki

ng

wat

er

Ind

ust

rial

use

Cu

ltu

ral a

nd

sp

irit

ual

val

ues

Southern tributaries—

developed areas

Undeveloped areas

means the EV is selected for protection. Blank indicates that the EV is not chosen for protection

6.5.2.1. Water Quality Objectives

WQOs for surface water are also outlined by DEHP (DEHP 2011) to protect EVs. A summary of the WQOs for surface water in the Upper Dawson are provided below:

Where the aquatic ecosystem has high ecological value the WQO is to maintain the existing water quality, habitat, biota, flow and riparian areas.

For the upper Dawson River sub-basin waters and main trunk the aquatic ecosystem is described as moderately disturbed and specific water quality guidelines have been produced (Table 2 of DEHP 2011).

For the protection for human consumption, objectives as per the Australian drinking water guidelines (ADWG) (NHMRC 2011) and Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Commonwealth of Australia 2017).

For suitability for industrial use there are no WQOs as water quality requirements vary within the industry.

For secondary contact and visual recreation, objectives as per NHMRC (2011).

For drinking water, local WQOs exist which relate to before and after water treatment and are based on a number of guidelines / legislation including the ADWG (NHMRC 2011).

WQOs to protect or restore indigenous and non-indigenous cultural heritage should be consistent with relevant policies and plans.

For irrigation, WQOs exist for metals, pathogens and other indicators in the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000).

For stock watering, objectives exist for faecal coliforms, total dissolved solids, metals, and other objectives based on guidelines presented in ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000).

For farm use / supply, objectives are as per the guidelines in ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000).

For primary contact recreation objectives as per NHMRC (2011) and for fresh water objectives exist for cyanobacteria / algae.






The activities to be carried out as part of Project Atlas do not involve any planned emissions or releases to surface waters. There is the potential for unplanned releases to occur as a result of the following:

Fuel and chemicals will be used as part of the project, with the potential for unplanned release that could impact surface water quality.

Unplanned releases from water management or storage facilities.

Unplanned releases of sediment as a result of constructing linear infrastructure, such as RoWs and tracks through watercourses, or adjacent to them.

Monitoring, management and mitigation practices associated with these unplanned releases are discussed further in Section 6.2.3.


Impacts to surface water and associated aquatic systems from the Project are anticipated to be minimal. The Project does not include any:

Planned discharge to / abstraction from the surface water systems; or

Surface water diversions.

Environmental management practices are documented within the management plans and procedures developed for Project Atlas. The identified risks and potential impacts to surface water values will be managed in accordance with the following management plans:




The identified potential impacts to surface water from Project Atlas and the key management practices are provided in Table 6-17.

Table 6-17 : Surface Water Potential Impacts and Key Management Practices


Transport of suspended sediment to waters. Works on site will not commence until any relevant Contractor erosion and sediment control procedures have been approved by the Senex Site Supervisor and are installed as required on significantly disturbed land.

Sediment and erosion control will be managed in accordance with Senex’s Erosion and Sediment Control Procedure and the Contractor’s erosion and sediment control procedures.

Erosion and sediment control structures will be inspected periodically as required and after rain events and maintenance carried out where required.





The duration that disturbed soils are exposed to the erosive forces of wind rain and flowing water will be minimised.

Once construction activities are complete, soil horizons will be replaced in the order in which they are excavated.

Progressive rehabilitation will be undertaken where appropriate.

Release of contaminants to waters.

Release of hydrotest water, effluent or trench water to waters.

Produced water will predominantly be utilised for beneficial use, and/or appropriately disposed as required.

It is expected that the volume of produced water from the project will not require water discharge into surface waters.

Produced water from low point drains released to land only where it meets authorised water quality parameters (acceptable standards for release to land as defined in the EA).

Residual drilling material disposed of using the mix bury cover method only where it meets authorised quality criteria.

Sewage effluent from temporary facilities only released to land where it meets or exceeds authorised water quality parameters.

All fuel, oil and chemicals are to be stored, transported and handled in accordance appropriate standards including AS 3780:2008 – The storage and handling of corrosive substances, AS 1940:2004 – The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids, AS 3833:2007 – Storage and handling of mixed classes of dangerous goods in packaged and intermediate bulk containers.


Storage and refuelling areas will be preferentially located away from watercourses and sensitive areas.

Containment bunds and/or sumps will be drained periodically of accumulated rainwater to prevent overflow and subsequent pollution of the surrounding land and watercourses.

In the event of a chemical, oil or fuel spill, the spill will be contained and cleaned up.

Altered geomorphic watercourse character (e.g. changes to bank and bed profile).

Changes to riparian buffers (vegetation clearing) and construction in bed and/or banks of waterways

Allow stormwater to pass through the site in a controlled manner and at non-erosive flow velocities.

Where required, watercourse crossing points will be adequately stabilised to prevent erosion.

Minimise RoW construction period in waterways.

Construction activities must not interfere or block natural drainage e.g. disturbing channel contours or creation of windrows.

Clean stormwater will be diverted around disturbed land wherever practicable.

Reduction in surface water base-flow due to decline in groundwater levels

Discussed in Section 6.6.4






There are limited permanent waterbodies within the Petroleum Lease and the majority of surface waters are ephemeral in nature with flow mainly occurring in response to heavy rainfall. The key watercourse within the PL area is Woleebee Creek. Potential impacts are only likely to occur during rain event induced flows and are therefore short in duration and extent.

Any potential impacts to aquatic habitats, downstream water users and waterway bed and banks from proposed activities will be localised, short term and have only recoverable minor impact on water users and biota during the construction phase of the Program.

The magnitude and severity of potential impacts has been determined based on technical assessments carried out by suitably qualified and experienced specialists. As a result of implementing the management practices outlined above, the risk of environmental harm to aquatic habitats, downstream water users and waterway bed and banks is assessed as being low.

6.6. Groundwater

A Surface Water Assessment (desktop and field assessment) of the project area has been completed by KCB and reported in the Project Atlas Surface and Groundwater Assessment Report, which is provided in Appendix G. An assessment of these GDEs has been undertaken by Ausecology, which is provided in Appendix II of the Surface and Groundwater Assessment Report. The following section provides a summary of the key outcomes of the assessment.


6.6.1.1. Regional Hydrostratigraphy

The Surat Basin forms part of the Great Artesian Basin (GAB), which comprises several aquifers and confining aquitards. Aquifers of the Surat Basin are a significant source for water used for stock, public water and domestic supply.

OGIA (2016a) presents the hydrostratigraphy of the Surat and Bowen Basin, included as Figure 17. A summary of each of the hydrostratigraphic units within the Surat Basin and of relevance to Project Atlas is provided below (from oldest to youngest).

The Precipice Sandstone Aquifer

The Precipice Sandstone is the basal unit of the Surat Basin, which overlies the Moolayember Formation and sedimentary sequences of the Bowen Basin. Lower and upper subunits are recognised, often separated by a siltstone or shale unit. The layers with the coarsest grain sizes were deposited by transverse bars in a braided stream system and the sediment layers with finer grain sizes were deposited in a lower energy fluviatile meandering system (Martin 1981). The lower subunit, also known as the Precipice Braided Stream Facies (or Precipice BSF), consists of white, fine to very coarse-grained, in part pebbly, thin to very thickly bedded, porous, quartz rich sandstone with a white clay matrix (Exon 1976).

The Evergreen Formation Aquitard

The Evergreen Formation conformably overlies the Precipice Sandstone and separates the Precipice Sandstone from the Hutton Sandstone. The Evergreen Formation is considered an





aquitard and generally consists of mudstones laminated with fine-grained sandstone, siltstone and shale (Green 1997).

The Hutton Sandstone Aquifer

The Hutton Sandstone was deposited in a non-marine environment by meandering streams on a broad floodplain (Exon 1976) and consists mainly of sandstone with interbedded siltstone, shale, minor mudstone, and coal. The sandstone is white to light grey, fine to medium-grained, well sorted, generally quartz-rich, partly porous with some pebble bands, shale, and siltstone clasts in the lower part. Siltstones and shales are light to dark grey, micaceous, carbonaceous and commonly interlaminated with very fine-grained sandstone (Green 1997). It is highly heterogeneous, with sand bodies limited in vertical and lateral extent.

The Eurombah Formation Aquitard

The Eurombah Formation, often referred to as the Durabilla Formation, conformably overlies the Hutton Sandstone. The depositional environment for this unit was fluvial with periods of rapid sedimentation. It is often difficult to differentiate the Eurombah Formation from the WCM. It is more restricted in extent than either the Hutton Sandstone or the WCM (Green 1997). The Eurombah Formation is considered an aquitard, consisting of siltstone, mudstone and fine to medium-grained poorly sorted sandstone, with almost no coal and consequently, little permeability (OGIA 2016a).

The Walloon Coal Measures Productive Coal Seam

The WCM is the target formation for the Project Atlas. This formation conformably overlies the Eurombah Formation. It was deposited in a low-energy meander-belt river system, with the coal layers deposited mainly in an overbank environment (Exon 1976). The WCM consists of very fine to medium-grained argillaceous sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, and coal with minor calcareous sandstone, impure limestone, and ironstone (Swarbrick 1973). Typically, the coal layers are positioned in the upper half to three-quarters of the coal measures, with mudstones, siltstones and lithic sandstones dominant in the lower part. At a regional scale the WCM is considered as a leaky aquitard (OGIA 2016b). The stratigraphy of the WCM is presented in Figure 17.

The Springbok Sandstone Aquifer

The Springbok Sandstone overlies the WCM and was deposited by streams and includes overbank and swamp deposits in the upper part of the unit which indicates streams becoming less energetic with time (Exon 1976). The Springbok Sandstone consists mostly of feldspathic sandstones, commonly with calcareous cement (Green 1997). At the basin scale, the sandstones range from very fine to coarse-grained, although some very coarse-grained, poorly sorted pebbly beds also occur. Minor interbedded siltstones, mudstones, and thin coal seams are also present, primarily in the upper part of the unit. Within the GAB, the Springbok Sandstone is considered a usable water source, however it is highly variable in hydraulic properties and yield across the basin. The Springbok Sandstone also has a very high content of mudstone and siltstone at many locations with very low permeability (OGIA 2016a).

The Westbourne Formation Aquitard

The Westbourne Formation conformably overlies the Springbok Sandstone. It was deposited in an environment with characteristics consistent with a low energy, lacustrine deltaic plain (Green 1997). The Westbourne Formation comprises predominately siltstone layers with thick interbeds of fine to medium grained sandstone and minor mudstone. Small coal fragments, lenses and lamina are common throughout the formation. Within the GAB sequence, the Westbourne Formation is considered an aquitard.





The Gubberamunda Sandstone Aquifer

Regionally, the Gubberamunda Sandstone conformably overlies the Westbourne Formation, but locally is disconformable, particularly around the margins of the Basin (Green 1997). It was deposited by braided and meandering stream systems draining surrounding highlands (Exon 1976). Consistent with a fluvial depositional environment, repeated packages of siltstone and fine to coarse sandstone were deposited. Deposits of carbonaceous shale along with minor coal fragments are typically present. Within the GAB, the Gubberamunda Sandstone is considered a usable aquifer.

The Orallo Formation Minor Discontinuous Aquifer

The Orallo Formation conformably overlies the Gubberamunda Sandstone. It was deposited in a relatively low energy fluvial environment with local ponding (Green 1997). The Orallo Formation consists of fine to coarse grained sandstone interbedded with clay, siltstone, silty mudstone, bentonite clay, and coal. The Orallo Formation is considered a minor discontinuous aquifer.

Figure 17 : Stratigraphy of the Walloon Coal Measures (after OGIA 2016a; adapted from Scott et al. 2004; Ryan et al. 2012; Hamilton, Esterle, and Sliwa 2014)





6.6.1.2. Local Hydrogeology

Project Atlas is situated in an area where the Orallo Formation, Gubberamunda Sandstone and Westbourne Formation outcrop. Two cross sections, oriented North-South and West-East, through the project area, are shown on Figure 18. The cross sections have been prepared using the OGIA Surat CMA Geological Model (OGIA 2017b) and indicate that the WCM occurs at ~220 to 300 m below ground level; and, is ~440 m thick. Table 6-18 presents the mean thickness within the project area for each of the underlying hydrostratigraphic units.

Table 6-18 : Aquifer / Aquitard Thickness within the Project Atlas (after OGIA 2017a)

Hydrostratigraphic Unit Aquifer / Aquitard Mean Thickness (m)

Orallo Formation Minor Discontinuous Aquifer 2

Gubberamunda Sandstone Aquifer 13

Westbourne Formation Aquitard 70

Springbok Sandstone Aquifer 170

Walloon Coal Measures Productive Coal Seams 440

Eurombah Formation Aquitard 84

Hutton Sandstone Aquifer 238

Evergreen Formation Aquitard 250

Precipice Sandstone Aquifer 84

Quaternary-age alluvium is also mapped as occurring within the project area and is associated with Wandoan, Woleebee and Ogle Creeks. The alluvium is mapped as relatively thin across the Project Atlas lease, with increase lateral extent towards the north as the creeks converge into Woleebee Creek. Verification of the alluvium presence, extent and other hydrogeological observations were made along reaches of Wandoan and Woleebee Creek during the field program. A summary of the observations and interpretations from the field verification is provided below, with full descriptions provided in Appendix I of Appendix G.

There are no major geological structures (e.g. faults) within the vicinity of the Project.

Inter-Aquifer Connectivity

The Surat Basin comprises layers of aquifers and aquitards of varying hydraulic properties. The formations predominantly comprise fluvial sedimentary deposits that have formed vertical stratifications of sand, silt and clay within and across formations (OGIA 2016b). Groundwater flow within the Surat Basin hydrostratigraphic units is predominately horizontal, with vertical flow restricted by the spatial extent and continuity of aquitards, and by lower permeability horizons within the aquifers (OGIA 2016b).

Within the Project Atlas extent, there is potential for interaction between the WCM and aquifers above and below, specifically the overlying Springbok Sandstone and underlying Hutton Sandstone (separated from the WCM by the Eurombah Formation). The Eurombah Formation is mapped across the entire project area, with a mean thickness of 84 m, providing a significant vertical barrier between the WCM and underlying Hutton Sandstone. An upper WCM aquitard has been mapped by OGIA (2016a) as being up to 25 m thick across the project area, separating the coal seams from the overlying Springbok Sandstone.





Figure 18 : Geological Cross Sections (Surat CMA Geological Model (OGIA 2017A))

Hydraulic Properties

A number of hydraulic tests to determine hydraulic parameters have been conducted regionally across the Surat Basin on formations overlying and underlying the WCM. OGIA (2016b) present a range of hydraulic conductivity values estimated from core, DSTs and pumping tests within the Surat CMA. These values are shown on Figure 19. The data was compiled from a range of sources including the Queensland Groundwater Database (GWDB), Queensland Petroleum Exploration Database (QPED), GAB Water Resource Assessment (Smerdon et al. 2012) and investigations undertaken by other CSG proponents including QGC, APLNG and Arrow.





Figure 19 : Hydraulic Conductivity Values for Surat Basin Units (after OGIA 2016a)





Groundwater Recharge

Groundwater recharge processes within the Surat Basin are summarised in (OGIA 2016b) and based on Kellett et al. (2003). Key processes of recharge include localised recharge, preferential pathway flow and diffuse recharge. Within the vicinity of Project Atlas, groundwater recharge is likely to occur as a result of localised recharge occurring beneath watercourses and alluvial systems where sufficient saturation and hydraulic head allow water to infiltrate into surficial aquifers. Recharge will also occur as diffuse recharge with rainfall infiltrating directly through outcropping aquifers, such as the Gubberamunda Sandstone.

Groundwater Elevation and Monitoring Bores

At the basinal scale, groundwater flow within the Surat Basin is typically from the outcrop areas, located in the north. In the area towards Taroom, there is a change to the basinal scale flow direction, with a preference for groundwater to flow towards the north (towards Taroom) on the northern side of the Great Dividing Range (OGIA 2016a). Groundwater movement is slow in the GAB with flow velocities estimated at 1 to 5 m/yr (Habermehl 1980). Generally, groundwater flow and movement occurs as sub-horizontal flow, with limited vertical leakage across formations, where pressure differences may exist (OGIA 2016a). Local groundwater flow conditions may be different with steeper gradients and increased velocities in response to hydraulic stresses such as groundwater abstraction.

Project Atlas is located adjacent to other CSG tenure holders, including:

QGC’s Northern Development Area, which is located to the west and north of Project Atlas and commenced CSG production between 2008 and 2014 (OGIA 2016a).

Origin’s Ramyard gas field located to the south and the Sandpit gas field located to the northeast, both planned to commence between 2020 and 2025, and the Woleebee gas field located to the east, planned to commence between 2025 and 2035 (OGIA 2017c).

A number of groundwater monitoring bores exist within the proximity of Project Atlas (Figure 20). The majority of these monitoring bores are installed as part of the UWIR and other programs such as the CSG Online or CSG Net programs operated by the DNRME. Registered monitoring bores within the Project area are inferred to be monitoring the Springbok Sandstone (above the WCM).

A summary of the available data, sourced from the GWDB, for monitoring bores shown in is provided in Table 6-20. It should be noted that some of the monitoring bore records are not currently available through the GWDB, which may be a function of recent installation, or the frequency of data entry into the GWDB. Refer to Section 5.5.7.2 of Appendix G for additional information.





Figure 20 : Location of Monitoring Bores within the vicinity of Project Atlas





Table 6-19 : Groundwater Elevations within the vicinity of Project Atlas

Hydrostratigraphic unit Aquifer / Aquitard Groundwater Elevation of

Monitoring Bores within the vicinity of Project Atlas

No. Bores

Alluvium (Woleebee Creek) ~ 260 mAHD 1

Gubberamunda Sandstone Aquifer ~ 260 to 310 mAHD 6

Westbourne Formation Aquitard ~ 290 to 340 mAHD 2

Springbok Sandstone Aquifer ~ 270 to 350 mAHD 6

Walloon Coal Measures Productive Coal Seam ~ 140 to 340 mAHD 6

Hutton Sandstone Aquifer ~ 235 to 280 mAHD 5

Evergreen Formation Aquitard ~ 280 mAHD 1

Precipice Sandstone Aquifer ~ 260 mAHD 1

It was noted that the alluvium bore is located in close proximity to a Gubberamunda Sandstone bore in the east of the Project area and is considered to be a nested monitoring site due to the close vicinity of the bores. From the limited available data, the Gubberamunda Sandstone groundwater elevation is ~0.5 m higher than the alluvium elevation, which indicates that the Gubberamunda Sandstone may be providing groundwater to the unconsolidated alluvium at this location.

Groundwater Chemistry

Groundwater chemistry within the Surat Basin has been considered using information provided in the Hydrogeological Conceptualisation Report which supports the UWIR (OGIA 2016b). A summary of the regional groundwater chemistry associated with each hydrostratigraphic unit occurring within the Project area from OGIA (2016b) is presented in Table 6-20. Generally, the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), used as an indicator of salinity, presents as a broad range across the hydrostratigraphic units of the basin.

Table 6-20 : Summary of Groundwater Chemistry for Each Hydrostatigraphic Unit

Hydrostratigraphic Unit OGIA (2016b) Description

Orallo Formation Fresh to saline conditions with TDS ranging from 75 to 20,000 mg/L, mean of

1,700 mg/L.

Gubberamunda Sandstone

Fresh to brackish water. Mean TDS of 450 mg/L with a range of between 70 and 7,500 mg/L. Mean TDS ranges between 480 to 1,160 mg/L, depending on

location category.

Westbourne Formation Characterised by fresh to saline groundwater (TDS mean of 1,500 mg/L), ranging

from 150 to 19,000 mg/L.

Springbok Sandstone

Fresh to brackish water quality, with a mean TDS of 1,000 mg/L (ranging between 200 and 7,000 mg/L). Within and close to the recharge areas, some

Springbok Sandstone bores exhibit similar hydrochemical characteristics to the WCM (KCB 2016).

WCM Fresh to saline groundwater, TDS ranges from 30 to 18,000 mg/L, with a mean

TDS of around 3,000 mg/L.

Hutton Sandstone TDS ranges from 70 to 16,000 mg/L, with a mean TDS of around 1,600 mg/L, low-salinity calcium and magnesium bicarbonate type water in the recharge

areas, to a relatively high-salinity sodium-chloride type water in discharge areas.





Hydrostratigraphic Unit OGIA (2016b) Description

Evergreen Formation Low salinity (TDS) and concentrations of sodium and chloride, TDS ranges from

80 to 670 mg/L, with a mean TDS of around 260 mg/L

Precipice Sandstone Precipice Sandstone has the freshest groundwater in the Surat CMA, salinity

ranges from 50 to 850 mg/L with a mean salinity (TDS) of 193 mg/L

6.6.1.3. Springs & Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) are defined by DoEE (2015) as ‘Natural ecosystems which require access to groundwater on a permanent or intermittent basis to meet all or some of their water requirements so as to maintain their communities of plants and animals, ecological processes and ecosystem services (Richardson et al. 2011). The broad types of GDE (Eamus et al. 2006) are: ecosystems dependent on surface expression of groundwater; ecosystems dependent on subsurface presence of groundwater; and subterranean ecosystems.’

Surface expression GDEs and subsurface GDEs are mapped by DSITI (2015) as potentially being present in the vicinity of Project Atlas (Figure 21). These generally correspond with the location of the mapped alluvium associated with Woleebee Creek, Horse Creek and Juandah Creek.

Recent work by OGIA (2017a), published since the UWIR, to re-map gaining streams (or baseflow fed reaches, watercourse springs) has identified sections of Woleebee Creek, Horse Creek and Juandah Creek as potentially gaining streams. The DSITI (2015) dataset was used in the assessment, and the methodology also included components such as OGIA’s depth to water table mapping, CSIRO’s bioregional assessment and water observations from space dataset. Field verification was also completed at Juandah Creek, with other sites planned for field verification campaigns as part of OGIA’s project.

The assessment results indicated that there is a high confidence that the reaches of Woleebee, Horse and Juandah Creeks are gaining streams, while there was low confidence in the reach of Horse Creek (East Branch) being fed by groundwater.





Figure 21 : Location of Watercourse Springs (OGIA 2016c) and Mapped Potential GDEs (DES 2018)





The assessment of Juandah Creek by OGIA (2017a), located 25 km east of Project Atlas, included a field assessment and concluded that at this location surface water is supported by groundwater from the alluvium and is unlikely to be fed by the underlying Walloon Coal Measures, Springbok Sandstone or Westbourne Formation.

Horse Creek (East Branch) is also identified in the UWIR, which precedes the recent work, as the site of four GAB watercourse springs. These are shown on Figure 21, with details of the springs summarised in Table 6-21. However, based on the recent work by OGIA (2017a), there is a lower confidence in these springs being fed from GAB aquifers.

Table 6-21 : UWIR Watercourse Spring Details

Site Number

Name Source Aquifer Distance from the

Project Atlas Boundary

W76 Horse Creek (East Branch) Gubberamunda Sandstone 14 km

W77 Horse Creek (East Branch) Mooga Sandstone, Orallo Formation 10 km

W78 Horse Creek (East Branch)

Tributary Mooga Sandstone, Orallo Formation 11 km

W79 Horse Creek (East Branch)

Tributary Mooga Sandstone, Orallo Formation 12 km

The DES (2018) dataset identifies potential terrestrial GDEs within the Project area. They are located in the area of Wandoan and Woleebee Creeks. An assessment of these GDEs has been undertaken by Ausecology (KCB, 2018). A summary of the findings is provided in this section, with the full assessment included in Appendix II of Appendix G.

The assessment was conducted in three stages. Firstly, a desktop analysis was performed to identify potential terrestrial GDEs. A field survey was then performed to verify these potential Terrestrial GDEs and collect data to assess their condition and identify other ecological values. This was undertaken in conjunction with the hydrogeological field verification in the vicinity of the mapped potential GDEs. This information was synthesised to infer groundwater dependence and assess the ecological value of these potential terrestrial GDEs.

Groundwater dependence of the identified vegetation was inferred using the risk assessment guidelines in Serov et al. (2012). The assessment is outlined in Table 6-23 and ground truthed potential GDE is illustrated on Figure 22.

The results indicated that both the Wandoan and Woleebee Creek potential terrestrial GDEs may be groundwater dependent as they are mapped within the area of an alluvial system (associated with the creeks) and the ecosystem is associated with stream lines. However, this assessment can only infer groundwater dependence based on the field observations and methodology used in this assessment.





Table 6-22 : Groundwater Dependence Assessment for Potential Terrestrial GDEs Associated with Wandoan and Woleebee Creeks

Groundwater Dependence Wandoan Creek Woleebee Creek General

Is the ecosystem identical or like another that is known to be groundwater dependent?

No. RE 11.3.25 are not mapped as ‘known’. Terrestrial

GDEs in the DES dataset (DES 2018c). All RE 11.3.25 in

this mapping is mapped as ‘potential’ terrestrial GDEs.

No. RE 11.3.25 are not mapped as ‘known’. Terrestrial GDEs in the DES

dataset (DES 2018c). All RE 11.3.25 in this mapping is mapped as ‘potential’

terrestrial GDEs.

Does the community contain species known to require

permanent saturation such as within aquifers, karsts, or mound

springs or some wetlands?

No No

Is the distribution of the ecosystem consistently

associated with known areas of groundwater discharge; e.g. springs, mound springs or

groundwater seeps in terrestrial and/or near shore marine

environments?

No. Standing water present but not considered to be

groundwater and it unlikely that groundwater would express as baseflow or

watercourse springs along these creeks

No. Standing water present but not considered to be groundwater and it

unlikely that groundwater would express as baseflow or watercourse springs along

these creeks

Is the distribution of the ecosystem typically confined to locations where groundwater is

known or expected to be shallow? For example, topographically low

areas, major breaks of topographic slope; i.e. cliffs or

escarpments, alluvial and coastal sand beds aquifers, gaining

streams?

Yes. The vegetation is located within the area of sandy

alluvium associated with the watercourse. However, these creeks are not considered to

be gaining streams

Yes. The vegetation is located within the area of sandy alluvium associated with

the watercourse. However, these creeks are not considered to be gaining streams

Terrestrial GDEs

Is the water table level near or at the surface or within the root zone of the surrounding vegetation? If roots can reach a source of fresh water it is generally true that this

water will be absorbed by the roots and transpired by the

canopy.

Yes. One monitoring bore is located in alluvium on

Woleebee Creek. Measurements at this bore record groundwater at 9.05 mbGL. The dominant tree

species of these vegetation communities is Eucalyptus tereticornis. The maximum root depth of this species in

the wild is unknown. However, the species has been shown to root to a depth of 9.3 m in 20-year old plantations in India

(Kallarackal and Somen 2008)

Yes. One monitoring bore is located in alluvium on Woleebee Creek.

Measurements at this bore record groundwater at 9.05 mbGL. The

dominant tree species of these vegetation communities is Eucalyptus tereticornis. The maximum root depth of this species

in the wild is unknown. However, the species has been shown to root to a

depth of 9.3 m in 20-year old plantations in India (Kallarackal and Somen 2008). Along Woleebee Creek there are small

patches of RE 11.3.2. This ecosystem is dominated by Eucalyptus populnea. This species was shown to decline in canopy health with decreases in groundwater by

Kath et al. (2014) in the nearby Condamine Catchment.

Is the vegetation community composed of species known to

require permanent saturation (wet rainforest or wet sclerophyll forests) or high soil moisture

levels (dry rainforest)?

No. Although some dry rainforest and wetland species are present, they are not a key contributor to the ecosystem.

No. Although some dry rainforest species are present, they are not a key contributor to the ecosystem.

Does the vegetation in a particular community occur along stream

lines?

Yes. The vegetation analogous to RE 11.3.25

occurs along Wandoan Creek.

Yes. The vegetation analogous to RE 11.3.25 occurs along Woleebee Creek.





Groundwater Dependence Wandoan Creek Woleebee Creek

Is the vegetation community known to function as a refuge for

more mobile fauna during times of drought?

No. Wandoan Creek is ephemeral and therefore

would not likely have permanent water in drought. In addition, this vegetation is the only mostly intact vegetation in

the landscape and already provides refuge for fauna in all

climatic conditions

No. Woleebee Creek is ephemeral and therefore would not likely have

permanent water in drought. In addition, this vegetation is the only mostly intact

vegetation in the landscape and already provides refuge for fauna in all climatic

conditions





Figure 22 : Mapped Potential GDEs within the Project Area





6.6.1.4. Groundwater Users

Within the vicinity of Project Atlas (within the Project Atlas lease and a 25 km buffer of the Project Atlas extent), there are 496 registered groundwater bores recorded in the GWDB, as of October 2017 (DNRM 2017c). Of these, 412 are existing bores with the remainder either abandoned or decommissioned. A summary of registered bores is presented in Table 6-23 along with their type and status, as derived from GWDB.

Table 6-23 : GWDB Registered Bore Statistics – Type and Status, within Project Atlas and a 25km buffer (DNRM 2017d)

Type1 Abandoned and Destroyed (AD)

Abandoned but Usable (AU)

Existing (EX) Total

Artesian

Condition Unknown (AB)

1 1

Ceased to Flow (AC) 1 5 6

Controlled Flow (AF) 1 9 10

Sub‐Artesian 81 1 397 479

Total 83 1 412 496

Bore Baseline Assessment

A bore baseline assessment program within the Project Atlas tenure was undertaken in July to August 2018 in accordance with the ‘Baseline Assessment Guideline’ (DES 2017a).

Senex were required to undertake baseline assessments for 13 bores within the Project Atlas tenure. To date baseline assessments have been completed for six bores out of the 13 bores identified within the Project Atlas tenure. Of the remaining seven bores, five were confirmed by the relevant landholder as not existing and two bores have not been assessed due to land access constraints, however these two bores were confirmed as abandoned and destroyed by the landholder (consistent with GWDB record). The assessment identified the following:

Only two out of the six bores surveyed are used for water supply purposes, with others currently not in use due to recent access to the SunWater pipeline, or now used as monitoring bores.

Two bores, which were previously considered to be sourcing groundwater from the alluvium to the east of the Project area are inferred to be also open within the Westbourne Formation (supported by GWDB bore log and water chemistry).

Groundwater Use and Purpose

OGIA completed an assessment to estimate groundwater use within the Surat CMA as part of the UWIR (OGIA 2016a) and have provided their estimate for bores within 25 km of Project Atlas to Senex. OGIA have also provided their aquifer attribution dataset to Senex, which identifies the screen interval for each groundwater bore. A summary of the aquifer attribution is presented in Table 6-24 – noting that a number of bores are potentially screened across multiple formations.

1 AB: artesian condition unknown; AF: bores that are under artesian pressure and capped to control free flow; AC: bores that have been

artesian in the past but have now become sub‐artesian due to a reduction in artesian pressure; AB: likely artesian bores, however their current pressure condition is unknown; SF: bores which do not flow under any condition and where active pumping is required to abstract water.





Table 6-24 : Summary of Aquifer Attribution and Groundwater Use, 25km Radius (OGIA 2017d)

Formation Number of Bores (EX or AU) Water Use Estimate

(ML/yr) Alluvium (Juandah Creek) 16 35

Bungil Formation 16 21 Bungil Formation to Mooga Sandstone 2 2

Mooga Sandstone 38 38 Mooga Sandstone to Orallo Formation 3 3

Mooga Sandstone to Gubberamunda Sandstone 4 5 Orallo Formation 16 16

Orallo Formation to Gubberamunda Sandstone 8 6 Gubberamunda Sandstone 61 87

Gubberamunda Sandstone to Westbourne Formation 20 20 Westbourne Formation 18 25

Westbourne Formation to Springbok Sandstone 4 5 Westbourne Formation to Evergreen Formation 1 5

Springbok Sandstone 31 62 Springbok Sandstone to Walloon Coal Measures 3 6

Walloon Coal Measures 48 124 Walloon Coal Measures to Hutton Sandstone 2 3

Eurombah Formation to Hutton Sandstone 1 4 Hutton Sandstone 14 94

Hutton Sandstone to Evergreen Formation 3 137 Hutton Sandstone to Moolayember Formation 1 4

Hutton Sandstone to Precipice Sandstone 1 101 Evergreen Formation to Moolayember Formation 1 1

Precipice Sandstone 4 539 Precipice Sandstone to Moolayember Formation 2 3

Total 318 1,345

Of the registered existing bores in Table 6-24, 318 bores have been identified as being used for water supply purposes (OGIA 2017c), with the remaining bores used for non-water supply purposes (such as monitoring bores). Within Project Atlas boundary, two bores (of 13) have been confirmed (as part of completed baseline assessments) as being currently used for water supply purposes, with the remaining either being abandoned, or used for monitoring purposes.

Within the wider Project area (25 km outside), groundwater abstraction for stock and domestic (S&D) use is the dominant water use purpose within the vicinity of the Project. Four bores are used for town water supply and nine bores used for agricultural purposes (refer to Figure 24).





Figure 23 : Location of Groundwater Users and Monitoring Bores within vicinity of Project Atlas

HORSE

CR

EEK

TCHA NNING CR EE K

WO

LE

EBEE

CR

EEK

HORSE

CREE

K(EAS

TB

RA

NC

H)

GULUGUBA

WANDOAN

JUANDAHC

REE

K

BUNGABAN

CREE K

JUAN D AH

CR

EE

K

BUNGABAN CREEK

760,000 780,000 800,000

7,08

0,0

00

7,10

0,0

00

7,12

0,0

00

7,14

0,0

00

0 4 8 12 16 20

km

PROJECTION1. Horizontal Datum: GDA942. Grid Zone: 553. Vertical Datum: Mean Sea Level4. Scale:

Town

Principal Road

Major Watercourse

Other ProponentsProduction Tenure

Project Atlas

25km buffer1:400,000

NOTES:1. Topographic features sourced GEODATA TOPO 250k series 3 Geoscience Australia. 2. Project Boundary provided by Senex. 3. Aquifer Attribution provided by OGIA The State of Queensland (2017)4. Aquifer attribution modified based on results of Baseline Assessment (KCB 2018)

Aquifer Attribution (OGIA, 2017)

Alluvium

Bungil Formation

Mooga Sandstone

Orallo Formation

Gubberamunda Sandstone

Westbourne Formation

Springbok Sandstone

Walloon Coal Measures

Hutton Sandstone

Evergreen Formation

Precipice Sandstone

27/0

8/20

18, K

Cor

bett,

Z:\D

\BN

E\D

1017

1A04

- Pr

ojec

t Atla

s - P

hase

2\4

00 D

raw

ings

\Arc

GIS

\Issu

ed\F

ig_X

_Bor

e_re

cept

ors.

mxd





Figure 24 : Location of Groundwater Users and Purpose of Use






The Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 (State of Queensland 2016b) provides defined EVs and water quality objectives (WQOs) for the Dawson River sub-basin under schedule 1 of the policy and are detailed in DEHP (2011). Groundwater EVs for the Upper Dawson are presented in Table 6-25.

The WQ1308 plan (DEHP 2013) that accompanies the policy indicates that the area of Project Atlas is located on the southern tributaries of the Upper Dawson (Taroom area). The EVs presented in Table 6-25 indicate that groundwater values extend to all categories listed, except for aquaculture, human consumer and secondary recreation.

Table 6-25 : Groundwater Environmental Values for the Dawson River Sub-Basin within the vicinity of Project Atlas (DEHP 2011)

Water

Environmental Values

Aq

uat

ic

Eco

syst

em

Irri

gat

ion

Far

m S

up

ply

/ U

se

Sto

ck W

ater

Aq

uac

ult

ure

Hu

man

co

nsu

mer

Pri

mar

y re

cre

atio

n

Sec

on

dar

y re

cre

atio

n

Vis

ual

rec

reat

ion

Dri

nki

ng

wat

er

Ind

ust

rial

use

Cu

ltu

ral a

nd

sp

irit

ual

val

ues

Groundwater

means the EV is selected for protection. Blank indicates that the EV is not chosen for protection

6.6.2.1. Water Quality Objectives – Groundwater

WQOs for groundwater are also outlined by DEHP (DEHP 2011) to protect EVs. A summary of the WQOs for groundwater in the Upper Dawson are provided below:

WQOs for aquatic ecosystems applicable to groundwater where groundwater interacts with surface water, the groundwater quality should not compromise identified EVs and WQOs for those waters.

For drinking water, local WQOs exist which relate to before and after water treatment and are based on a number of guidelines / legislation including the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (NHMRC 2011).

WQOs to protect or restore indigenous and non-indigenous cultural heritage should be consistent with relevant policies and plans.

For irrigation, WQOs exist for metals, pathogens and other indicators in the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000).

For stock watering, objectives exist for faecal coliforms, total dissolved solids, metals, and other objectives based on guidelines presented in ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000).

For farm use / supply, objectives are as per the guidelines in ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000).


Activities to be carried out as part of Project Atlas do not involve any planned emissions or releases to groundwater.





Drilling activities will be carried out using authorised drilling fluids/muds. This includes authorised, non-synthetic / non-oil based drilling muds and additives. Hydraulic stimulation activities are not proposed to be undertaken, therefore, no stimulation fluids will be used.

There is the potential for unplanned releases to occur from water storage facilities that have the potential to impact groundwater.

Monitoring, management and mitigation practices associated with the above activities are discussed further in Section 6.6.4.


CSG water production occurs as part of the CSG extraction process. Groundwater is removed via CSG wells during the process of depressurising the coal seams, which then liberates gas flow. This depressurisation and gas flow sustains a groundwater flow from each well to maintain the target producing operational pressure.

As part of Project Atlas, Senex intend to exercise their underground water rights under the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 (State of Queensland 2017a) to produce CSG. A number of other authorised petroleum lease holders are also exercising their underground water rights in the vicinity of Project Atlas. Details of predicted CSG water production and flow rates has been presented in Section 4.3.

Potential impacts as a result of CSG water production include:

Decline in groundwater level / pressure at water bores, reducing water availability and potentially impacting groundwater EVs.

Reduction in groundwater head resulting in a reduction of groundwater discharge at spring complexes, potentially causing degradation of GDEs.

Reduction of baseflow to watercourses, potentially resulting in degradation of groundwater dependent ecosystems and reduced water availability to potential users downstream.

Other potential impacts to groundwater associated with the proposed development include:

Potential to introduce a connection between hydrostratigraphic units, which were previously isolated units, through drilling and construction of CSG production wells, resulting in the potential for alteration of groundwater flow regimes and quality.

Drilling fluids are used during the drilling process, which have the potential to impact groundwater quality.

CSG produced water storage facilities have the potential to impact groundwater levels and quality, through seepage or unplanned releases from surface storage dams.

Localised incidental CSG activities have the potential to impact shallow groundwater systems, such as fuel spills or improper storage of chemicals.

Beneficial use activities, such as irrigation and stock watering, have to potential to impact shallow groundwater systems should over-irrigating occur, or the relevant beneficial use quality guidelines are not adhered to.

An assessment of the impact to groundwater levels and groundwater values as a result of CSG water production has been undertaken and is detailed in the following sections.

6.6.4.1. Impacts to Third Party Ground Water Users





As part of the Surat CMA UWIR (OGIA 2016a), OGIA developed a regional numerical groundwater flow model to predict cumulative groundwater pressure impacts due to activities from multiple petroleum and gas tenure holders. The model was first developed and utilised as part of the 2012 UWIR (QWC 2012). An updated UWIR and updated numerical groundwater model was published by OGIA in September, 2016 (OGIA 2016a).

The primary purpose of the model is to predict regional water pressure or water level changes in aquifers within the Surat CMA in response to extraction / production of water from the producing coal seams. In particular, the OGIA numerical groundwater model is used to assess potential impacts to landholder groundwater bores and springs and develop strategies for management of those impacts.

Potential long-term impacts to groundwater bores have been assessed against the Water Act 2000 bore trigger threshold of 2 m for an unconsolidated aquifer (e.g. alluvium) and 5 m for a consolidated aquifer (e.g. Surat Basin units) using the outputs and drawdown predictions from the UWIR model. The maximum predicted drawdown has been used for this assessment, irrespective of the timing of the predicted drawdown. An assumption and limitation of this assessment includes:

Many of the groundwater bores within the vicinity of the Project are constructed to intersect multiple formations. For conservatism in undertaking the impact assessment, bores screened across multiple formations have been assigned to either the formation closest to the WCM or to the WCM, if the bore is screened through the WCM.

There are a number of bores which are assigned as screened within the alluvium. The majority of these are located along Juandah Creek, ~20 km from the Project. The OGIA model does not simulate the alluvium in this location, and therefore the drawdown predicted in the unit mapped as underlying the alluvium has been considered for the impact assessment and assessed against the Water Act 2000 bore trigger threshold of 2 m for an unconsolidated aquifer.

Project Only Scenario

A summary of the impacts to groundwater bores based on Project Atlas alone is presented in Table 6-26 which indicates the number of bores assessed for each formation; the number of bores that are predicted to have any drawdown; the number of bores that exceed the groundwater bore trigger threshold of 5 m drawdown for consolidated aquifers; and the maximum drawdown modelled for all the bores attributed to that formation.

Table 6-26 : Project Only – Summary of the Impact Assessment Results for Groundwater bores

Formation Number of

Bores

Number of Bores with any

Drawdown

Number of Bores Predicted to

Exceed Trigger Threshold

Maximum Drawdown Observed

Across the Bores (m)

Bungil Formation 16 0 0 0 Mooga Sandstone 40 2 0 0.01 Orallo Formation 19 11 0 0.01

Gubberamunda Sandstone 74 47 0 0.05 Westbourne Formation 39 27 0 0.6 Springbok Sandstone 48 28 1 5.9

Walloon Coal Measures 56 17 0 1.9 Eurombah/Durabilla

Formation 1 1 0

1.1

Hutton Sandstone 18 18 0 0.5 Evergreen Formation 1 1 0 0.1 Precipice Sandstone 6 6 0 0.1





The results indicate that drawdown (of any magnitude) is observed in bores attributed to the majority of the hydrostratigraphic units, however only one bore screened across the Springbok Sandstone has a predicted drawdown of more than 5 m.

The location of the bore, where the water level is predicted to decline greater than the trigger threshold, is presented in Figure 25.

Cumulative Scenario

The Project area is located adjacent to other active and proposed CSG developments (Section 3.1). As groundwater is removed via CSG production wells to depressurise the coal seams, there will be a degree of interaction between the individual tenure holders. There is also the potential for planned future mining operations in the area to increase the cumulative impacts.

The cumulative drawdown scenario includes all CSG water production from other proponents, including Origin, Santos, Arrow, QGC and Senex’s other tenure, WSGP. The cumulative drawdown is reported by OGIA as part of the UWIR. OGIA have provided a revised cumulative scenario to Senex which includes CSG production from Project Atlas, awarded after publication of the UWIR 2016 (OGIA 2016a).

The cumulative impact assessment was undertaken using the same approach adopted for the Project impacts (e.g. Water Act 2000 trigger thresholds).

A summary of the cumulative impact results for groundwater bores is presented in Table 6.27. The results indicate the following:

Within the 25 km radius from the Project, 62 bores are triggered (i.e. >5 m drawdown) in the cumulative scenario.

There are no additional bores triggered as part of the cumulative scenario (i.e. the contribution of the Project Atlas development does not result in additional bores being triggered in the cumulative scenario). All bores which are predicted to experience a water level decline greater than the trigger threshold were already predicted to be triggered as reported in the UWIR 2016 (OGIA 2017d), which did not include the Project.

Of the 62 bores, the Project only contributes drawdown (of any magnitude) to 23 of these bores. The maximum contribution from the Project is 31 % of the drawdown (in the bore triggered in the Project only scenario). The Project has less than 10% contribution to the maximum drawdown at 19 of the triggered bores.





Figure 25 : Summary of Impacts to Groundwater Bores – Project Only





The cumulative drawdown results indicate drawdown within the vicinity of the Project area for the Westbourne Formation, Springbok Sandstone, WCM and Hutton Sandstone. The majority of the drawdown occurs towards the west of the Project, associated with neighbouring CSG developments. Drawdown also occurs to the southeast, also where other CSG proponents are operating.

Table 6-27 : Cumulative Scenario – Summary of the Impact Assessment Results for Groundwater Bores

Formation Number of Bores

within 25 km

Project Only – Number of Bores

Triggered

Cumulative – Number of Bores Triggered

Bungil Formation 16 0 0 Mooga Sandstone 40 0 0 Orallo Formation 19 0 0

Gubberamunda Sandstone 74 0 0 Westbourne Formation 39 0 11 Springbok Sandstone 48 1 8

Walloon Coal Measures 56 0 36 Eurombah Formation 1 0 1

Hutton Sandstone 18 0 7 Evergreen Formation 1 0 0 Precipice Sandstone 6 0 0

6.6.4.2. Impacts to GAB Watercourse Springs

Watercourses springs supported by GAB formations are located to the west of the Project area and are associated with Horse Creek (East Branch). These springs have been assessed against the Water Act 2000 spring trigger threshold of 0.2 m using the outputs and drawdown predictions from the UWIR numerical model. The Project only drawdown at these locations in the relevant source aquifer is provided in Table 6-28.

Table 6-28 : UWIR Watercourse Spring Details

Site Number

Name Source Aquifer Distance from

the Project Atlas Boundary

Project Only Drawdown (m)

W76 Horse Creek (East

Branch) Gubberamunda Sandstone 14 km 0

W77 Horse Creek (East

Branch) Mooga Sandstone, Orallo

Formation 10 km 0

W78 Horse Creek (East Branch) Tributary

Mooga Sandstone, Orallo Formation

11 km 0

W79 Horse Creek (East Branch) Tributary

Mooga Sandstone, Orallo Formation

12 km 0

The results indicate that there is no drawdown predicted at these locations and therefore the spring trigger threshold is not exceeded.

6.6.4.3. Impacts to Terrestrial GDE’s

The terrestrial GDE assessment indicates that the mapped GDEs along Wandoan and Woleebee Creek may be groundwater dependent, as they are mapped within the area of an alluvial system (associated with the creeks) and the ecosystem is associated with stream lines.

The UWIR numerical model does not simulate the alluvium in this location, however results did not predict any drawdown in the Surat Basin units underlying the alluvium in the location of the alluvium (Project Only scenario). There are also no proposed discharges to





watercourses from the Project. Therefore, it is considered unlikely that there will be any potential impacts to the terrestrial GDEs as a result of the Project.

For ecological systems potentially reliant on groundwater within the shallow aquifers, the cumulative scenario does not predict any drawdown within the Gubberamunda Sandstone from the Project. Predictions of drawdown from the cumulative scenario in the Westbourne Formation are up to 5 m within the Project boundary, however, no drawdown is predicted to occur in the areas underlying the potential terrestrial GDEs, therefore it is unlikely that groundwater within the alluvial systems potentially supporting vegetation will be impacted.

6.6.5 Management Practices

Potential impacts to groundwater are summarised in Table 6-29, which are mitigated and managed by adopting the appropriate standards, and management practices. The identified risks and potential impacts to groundwater EVs will be managed in accordance with the following management plans:

Project Atlas Environmental Management Plan [SENEX-ATLS-EN-PLN-001] (Appendix B);

Environmental Protocol for Field Development and Constraints Analysis [SENEX CORP EN PRC-019] (Appendix C); and

Project Atlas CSG Water Management Plan [SENEX-ATLS-EN-PLN-006] (Appendix E).

In addition, relevant guidelines and regulatory requirements will be complied with, including, but not limited to:

Code of Practice for constructing and abandoning coal seam gas wells and associated bores in Queensland (DNRM 2018);

Water Act 2000 (State of Queensland 2017b);

Underground Water Impact Report for the Surat Cumulative Management Area (OGIA 2016a); and

Baseline Assessment Guideline (DEHP 2017).

The groundwater monitoring requirements for CSG tenure holders within the Surat CMA are provided as part of the UWIR WMS (OGIA 2016a). Due to the relatively small scale of the Project, and location in relation to existing tenure holders, and monitoring infrastructure (required by the UWIR WMS), Senex are not currently required by OGIA to install any groundwater monitoring facilities within Project Atlas. Senex will comply with any updates to the WMS that may be required in any future updates of the UWIR.

Table 6-29 : Groundwater Potential Impacts and Key Management Practices

Activity Potential Impacts Key Management Practices

CSG Well Drilling and General Project Activities

Potential for a connection to be introduced between previously isolated units during drilling.

Potential for drilling fluids to impact groundwater quality.

Potential for localised incidental CSG activities, such as fuel

CSG production wells will be designed, constructed and decommissioned in accordance with the “Code of Practice for constructing and abandoning coal seam gas wells and associated bores in Queensland” (DNRM, 2018).

Drilling fluids and additives used during drilling activities will be water-based, appropriate for the well design and local geological conditions, and will






spills or improper storage of chemicals, to impact shallow groundwater systems

be used in accordance with the mandatory requirements and good practice guidelines outlined in the code of practice (DNRM, 2018).

All applicable materials will be stored and handled in accordance with the relevant legislative requirements and Australian Standards

CSG Production Decline in groundwater level / pressure at water bores, reducing water availability and potentially impacting groundwater EVs.

Reduction in groundwater head resulting in a reduction of groundwater discharge at spring complexes, potentially causing degradation of groundwater dependent ecosystems.

Reduction of baseflow to watercourses, potentially resulting in degradation of groundwater dependent ecosystems and reduced water availability to potential users downstream.

As per the requirements outlined in the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 (State of Queensland, 2017), the volume of CSG water produced will be monitored and recorded.

Senex will comply with any updates to the make good agreements required under the Water Act 2000 in future updates of the UWIR, and undertake bore assessments as required as a result of make good obligations.

CSG Water Management

CSG produced water storage facilities have the potential to impact groundwater levels and quality, through seepage from the storage facilities.

Senex will design, construct and operate all regulated structures in accordance with the requirements of the Manual for Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures (DEHP, 2016) and maintain a regulated structure register.

Water storage facilities will be monitored to ensure the operating water levels are maintained within the specifications of the dam design.

Shallow groundwater surrounding water storage dams will be monitored for dam seepage in accordance with the relevant EA conditions.

Beneficial Use Activities

Beneficial use activities have the potential to impact shallow groundwater systems should over-irrigating occur, or the relevant beneficial use quality guidelines not be adhered to.

Beneficial uses proposed for the project include using the produced water for dust suppression, construction and drilling. Using water for beneficial use will be undertaken in accordance with the water quality objectives in the ‘General beneficial use approval’ (DEHP, 2014a). Untreated CSG water quality will be monitored on a quarterly frequency or based on licencing requirements for the intended use (e.g. stock watering or irrigation).

Water quality data from treated CSG water will be monitored regularly and used to confirm that the water quality is suitable for the designated beneficial use or water supply arrangement and in accordance with water quality objectives in the ‘General beneficial use approval’ (DEHP 2014); and confirm the water treatment facility is effectively treating the CSG water.






Irrigation operating procedures will be developed to ensure that the quality and quantity of CSG water is appropriate for the receiving environment; and

A monitoring system, such as groundwater monitoring bores, will be established to ensure effectiveness of these measures.


Outputs from the Surat CMA numerical model have been used to consider drawdown impacts to groundwater. For the ‘Project only’ scenario, the predicted long-term drawdown impacts associated with the Project are limited to the lower Springbok Sandstone, WCM and upper Hutton Sandstone.

Potential impacts to water-dependent assets have been considered with respect to the Queensland Water Act 2000 trigger threshold for springs (0.2 m drawdown) and bores (5 m drawdown in consolidated aquifer; 2 m drawdown in unconsolidated aquifer) using the predicted drawdown for both the ‘Project only’ and Cumulative scenarios. In the ‘Project only’ scenario, one third-party groundwater user in the Springbok Sandstone is predicted to experience a decline greater than the trigger threshold. Negligible impacts are predicted for the GDEs. The results of the cumulative scenario indicate that the Project contributes to drawdown at 23 triggered third-party groundwater bores, however all of these bores were already triggered as reported in the 2016 UWIR which did not include the proposed Project Atlas production (OGIA 2016a).

Non-drawdown related impacts may potentially occur as a result of CSG activities. These may include impacts associated with drilling and construction of CSG production wells, CSG produced water storage facilities, localised incidental CSG activities such as fuel spills or improper storage of chemicals and beneficial use activities, such as irrigation and stock watering. These potential impacts are mitigated and managed by adopting the appropriate standards and implementing appropriate controls.

Groundwater monitoring will act as a key mechanism for the early identification of the response to CSG water production, within the formations where groundwater receptors exist. These groundwater monitoring requirements are provided as part of the UWIR, which establishes baseline trends and provides for early identification of potential impacts to groundwater. Senex will continue to comply with any future updates of the UWIR.

The Water Act 2000 outlines requirements for make good obligations of resource tenure holders for bores located in an immediately affected area. The UWIR assigns bores to tenure holders located within immediately affected areas, including within the cumulative management area where any individual tenure holder may not be the only entity creating the need for the activity to be carried out. As a responsible tenure holder Senex will meet all required make good obligations as required under the Water Act 2000, including undertaking bore assessments as required.

To minimise the impact to these EVs, Senex will adopt of number of mitigation, management and monitoring measures. As part of their CSG water management strategy, Senex plan to beneficially use produced water, through landholder water supply agreements. Other measures include adherence to relevant EA conditions as well as mandatory requirements and guidelines, such as the ‘Code of Practice for construction and abandonment of coal seam gas and petroleum wells and associated bores in Queensland (DNRME 2018b), applicable Australian Standards for storing and handling applicable materials, ‘Manual for





Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures’ (DES 2016a), and ‘Streamlined Model Conditions for Petroleum Activities’ (DES 2016b).

Other impacts associated with the Project Atlas (non-drawdown related) are generally considered to be of a low risk when considering the management and monitoring practices that have been, or will be, established.

6.7. Noise

A Noise Assessment of the gas field development has been completed by SLR and reported in the Project Atlas Gas Field Noise Impacts Assessment Report, which is provided in Appendix H. The following section provides a summary of the key outcomes of the assessment.


6.7.1.1. Existing Noise Environment

A baseline noise survey was undertaken in June and July 2018 within the PL area to define the existing noise environment and inform the establishment of appropriate noise limits (assessment criteria). Noise was continually monitored for fourteen (14) days at two (2) receptor locations (refer to Figure 26). Noise Monitoring Location 1 was located approximately 2.3 km to the south-east of a potential water treatment facility site and within close proximity of Jackson-Wandoan Road. Noise Monitoring Location 2 was located on private property 3.6 km northwest of the same location and represented the rural environment of the Project area.

The existing noise environment has background noise levels as low as LA90 18 dBA (night time) and aside from natural sources of noise such as wind noise, insects and birdsong, the only other notable source of noise was infrequent traffic noise from Jackson Wandoan Road (refer to Appendix H). The monitored ambient and background noise levels are summarised in Table 6-30.

Table 6-30 : Existing Noise Levels

Location Measured Rating Background Level (dBA)

Measured LAeq, T noise level (dBA)

Day Evening Night Day Evening Night

1 – Receptor adjacent Jackson Wandoan Road

25 21 18 49 42 43

2 – Receptor – north of Wandoan Creek

27 19 19 47 45 36

The measurement periods were: Day – 7am – 6pm, Evening – 6pm – 10pm & Night – 10pm – 7am





6.7.1.2. Sensitive Receptors

Nine (9) potential sensitive receptors (residential properties) have been identified within the Production Lease area and a further five (5) within two kilometres of the lease boundary (refer to Figure 26. Sensitive receptors will continue to be confirmed through ongoing field assessment and landholder liaison.

In addition to residential receptors, the Juandah State Forest and Hinchley State Forest are located in the southwest and north west of the Project area respectively, as shown in Figure 26.

6.7.1.3. Existing Noise Limits

6.7.2 Noise Limits

The noise assessment criteria utilised for this assessment is based upon Condition C1 in the existing Project Atlas EA:

(C1) Notwithstanding condition (A18), emission of noise from the petroleum activity(ies) at levels less than those specified in Schedule C, Table 1—Noise nuisance limits are not considered to be environmental nuisance.

Schedule C, Table 1 – Noise nuisance limits

Time period Metric Short term noise event

Medium term noise event

Long term noise event 1

7:00am—6:00pm LAeq,adj,15 min 45 dBA 43 dBA 40 dBA 6:00pm—10:00pm LAeq,adj,15 min 40 dBA 38 dBA 35 dBA

10:00pm—6:00am LAeq,adj,15 min 28 dBA 28 dBA 28 dBA

Max LpA, 15 mins 55 dBA 55 dBA 55 dBA 6:00am—7:00am LAeq,adj,15 min 40 dBA 38 dBA 35 dBA

As outlined in Section 3.3, Senex are requesting an amendment to Schedule C, Table 1 – Noise Nuisance Limits to include alternate night time noise limits for drilling activities of 35 dBA (measured externally), which would be equivalent to a minimum of 30dBA (measured internally).

This request is based on the condition that ‘Short term’ noise events such as drilling are required to comply with the same noise limits that apply to long term noise sources (such as a field compressor facility), which could emit noise for the life of the project (i.e. 20 years).

The proposed alternate limits are requested for drilling activities, which typically take 3 days per well. However, wells are often completed in sequence and therefore may impact on a landholder for longer than 5 days due to numerous wells being completed within proximity to one receptor.

It is therefore considered appropriate to separate the well development noise limits from those applied to fixed plant, due to the inherent difference in noise source duration and characteristics associated with these two different types of activity.





Figure 26 : Sensitive Receptors & Noise Monitoring Locations





Further, in order to set appropriate night-time noise limits for drilling and completions activities, a review of other international noise standards identifies the following evidence that is relevant in developing reasonable noise goals for the night period:

The World Health Organisation (WHO) ‘Guidelines for Community Noise’ specifies an internal noise level of 30 dBA to avoid sleep disturbance (WHO 1995).

The noise limits for continuous sources recommended by WHO are consistent with the night-time noise limit in the EPP (Noise) (ie 30 dBA internal). There is no sleep disturbance noise limit for the day and evening periods.

A review of other Environmental Authorities issued by DES to CSG proponents identified that an internal night time noise limit of 30 dBA has been authorised for CSG well drilling activities (examples include the APLNG Condabri Development Area (EPPG00853013) and the QCLNG Ruby Project Area (EPPG00797813)).


The noise environmental values for the Petroleum Lease that are to be enhanced or protected as required by the Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008 (EPP Noise) comprise:

The qualities of the acoustic environment that are conducive to protecting the health and biodiversity of ecosystems;

The qualities of the acoustic environment that are conducive to human health and wellbeing, including the individual’s opportunity to have sleep, relaxation, and conversation without unreasonable interference from intrusive noise; and

The qualities of the acoustic environment that are conducive to protecting the amenity of the community.


Noise will be generated in the petroleum Lease through construction and operation of production infrastructure. Noise can be constant or intermittent occurring over the short or long term.

Key sources of construction related noise associated with the gas field development will include:

Drilling and completions operations for individual wells (the following activities are expected during these works, drilling, completions work over, completions jetting, cementing)

Construction of WTF infrastructure including water storage

Construction of gathering RoWs, trenching (including access tracks)

Construction of ancillary infrastructure (ie camps, offices, laydowns, borrow pits).

Primary source of noise emissions during the operation phase will include the operational wells and operation of the water treatment facility.

The operational well field is forecast to comprise 113 gas wells in operation 24-hours per day, which will consist of drive-heads to drive the well shaft as well as gensets to power the well-pad infrastructure. Both the drive-heads and gensets are the only noise sources anticipated to generate significant noise emissions throughout the operation of the well field.





The operation of the WTF is anticipated to operate 24-hours per day and will involve the operating numerous pumps and generators across the site in order to treat the supplied water.

The number and sound power level of construction and operational equipment proposed to be utilized for the Project Atlas gas field development is provided in Section 4.2 of Appendix H.

6.7.5 Potential Impacts – Construction Phase

A SoundPLAN (Version 7.4) computer noise model was used for the prediction of noise levels at sensitive receptors from construction and operational phases of the gas field development (refer to Appendix H). The noise model comprised contours of the localised terrain, proposed area for the WTF, noise sources for the construction and operational activities as well as the location of noise sensitive receptors. The results are summarised in the following sections and are considered conservative given the equipment modelled and assumption that all equipment will be operating simultaneously.

6.7.5.1. Construction of Water Treatment and Ancillary Infrastructure

Noise levels were predicted for the earthworks (clear and grade works), concreting and plant installation phases of the water treatment facility construction. The maximum predicted noise level at the closest sensitive receptor (approximately 0.4km to south) is provided in Table 6-31 (based on neutral weather conditions). It is anticipated that construction works would occur during the daytime period, as such, predicted noise levels have been assessed against the project daytime noise limits of 40 dBA.

Table 6-31 : Maximum Predicted LAeq Noise Level - Water Treatment Facility Construction

Water Treatment Facility Construction

Maximum Predicted LAeq Noise Level (dBA)

Earthworks Concreting works Plant Installation

37 38 43

Based on the current modelling, there is the potential for construction of the water treatment facility to exceed the likely noise limits at the closest sensitive receptor without additional mitigation.

Further assessment of the potential noise impacts will be undertaken once the detailed design of plant and facilities has been finalised and construction methodologies have been established.

Reduction in the noise emissions will be possible by:

Reducing the number of plant operating at the one time;

Installing temporary screening (if required);

Siting operating plant as far away from the sensitive receptor as possible.

Noise predictions have been made for the construction scenarios associated with the ancillary infrastructure to provide offset distances for compliance with the daytime noise limit of 40 dBA LAeq. The predicted offset distances for these construction works are detailed in Table 6-32 and were formed using ‘neutral’ weather conditions.





Table 6-32 : Predicted Offset Distances for Ancillary Infrastructure Construction

Ancillary Facility Construction

Offset Distance for Daytime Noise Limit

Earthworks Concreting works Plant Installation

560 m 565 m 940 m

6.7.5.2. Well Pad Construction and Drilling

Noise modelling was conducted to determine the required offset distance that would be required between the well pad construction, drilling and completions and receptor locations in order to achieve the daytime noise limit. Completions and workovers were found to be the activity with the highest potential for noise impacts and the results are presented in Table 6-33.

Table 6-33 : Predicted Offset Distances Well Completions/Workover

Activity Weather Condition

Predicted Noise Level at Buffer Distance (LAeq dBA)

100 m 250 m 500 m 1,000 m 2,000 m 3,000 m

Completion/Work Over Neutral 72 60 50 41 30 23

Adverse 72 63 54 45 35 29

The exact location for the well pads (and associated drilling and completions activities) is not presently finalised. As such, noise modelling was conducted to determine the required offset distance to achieve the relevant noise criterion. As drilling and completions/workover of wells could potentially occur 24 hours a day, the predicted noise levels have been modelled to incorporate both ‘neutral’ and ‘adverse’ weather conditions.

Based on the current modelling, the predicted offset distances to achieve the proposed night-time noise criterion of 30 dBA LAeq (internal), from drilling activities are shown below:

1,500 m under neutral weather conditions; and

2,050 m under adverse weather conditions.

Further assessment of the potential noise impacts will be undertaken in parallel with site selection for well sites to assess the cumulative impacts of both construction and operational impacts from the well sites.

6.7.5.3. ROW’s and Access Tracks

Noise modelling was conducted to determine the required offset distance that would be required between the RoWs and access track construction activity and receptor locations to achieve the daytime noise limit (refer to Table 6-34).





Table 6-34 : Predicted Offset Distances ROW’s and Access Tracks

Activity Weather Condition

Predicted Noise Level at Buffer Distance (LAeq dBA)

100m 250m 500m 1,000m 2,000m

Clear and grade Neutral 62 51 42 33 23

Trenching Neutral 62 49 40 31 22

Padding and backfilling Neutral 64 53 44 35 25

Access track construction Neutral 64 53 44 35 25

Based on the modelling undertaken, the minimum required offset distance to achieve the daytime noise limit of 40 dBA LAeq for the construction stages associated with the RoWs and access track construction is predicted to be 660 m.

6.7.6 Potential Impacts – Operational Phase

6.7.6.1. Water Treatment Facility Operation

Noise levels were predicted for the operational phase of the water treatment facility. The maximum predicted noise level at the closest sensitive receptor (approximately 0.4km to south), without further mitigation, is provided in Table 6-35.

Table 6-35 : Maximum Predicted LAeq Noise Level - Water Treatment Facility Operation

Water Treatment Facility Operation Predicted Noise Level at Buffer Distance (LAeq adj T dBA)

Neutral Weather Conditions Adverse Weather Conditions

Closest Sensitive Receptor 36 41

This predicted noise level of 41 dBA LAeq,adj,T at the closest sensitive receptor exceeds the most stringent night time project noise limit of 28 dBA LAeq,adj,T, without noise additional mitigation. The modelling predicted that the project noise limits could be achieved at all other receptors.

On the basis of the modelling results, it has been determined that to achieve the required night-time noise limit, an overall reduction of 13dBA would need to be achieved at the source (operational water treatment facility). A combination of measures will be undertaken to achieve the required reduction, including:

Selection of the water treatment facility site that maximizes the distance between the facility and sensitive receptors;

Creation of bunds and utilisation of the adjacent aggregation dam wall (where possible) to create a Nosie barrier;

Development of plant orientation to enable screening of the plant by any buildings or solid infrastructure;

Investigation of options for quieter plant;

Installing noise barriers or housing of pumps and noise generating plant in buildings to minimise noise emissions.

The measures incorporated into the design will be undertaken to ensure that the operational noise limits are achieved.





6.7.6.2. Well Operations

The exact locations and layout of the wells in the wellfield were not known at the time of the assessment, instead offset distances to achieve the most stringent project night time noise limit of 28 dBA LAeq have been made. The offset distances presented are representative of ‘flat earth’ with ‘adverse’ weather conditions.

There is potential for both a drive-head and a genset to be installed at each well, or, for only a drive-head to be installed and powered externally. As such, both potential operational scenarios have been considered across the representative operational range. Based on the results of the preliminary modelling, the offset distances required for the project night time noise limit are detailed in Table 6-36.

Table 6-36 : Operational Well Offset Distances for Project Night Time Noise Limit

Offset distance to achieve night time noise limit of 28 dBA LAeq,adj,T

100 rpm offset distance (m)



Drive-head only 50 210 750

Drive-head and Genset 480 500 825

It is noted that the majority of wells will be designed for a maximum polished rod speed (PRS) of 300rpm – speeds in excess of this would be considered an exception for the well operations.

AsS outlined in Section 6.7.5.2, further assessment of the potential noise impacts is proposed be undertaken in parallel with site selection for well sites to assess the cumulative impacts of both construction and operational impacts from the well sites.

A combination of measures will be undertaken to achieve the noise emissions from the well heads, including:

Locating well pads as far as reasonable possible from sensitive receptors;

Incorporating mitigation measures from drive-head and genset suppliers to reduce source noise levels

Powering drive heads externally via a centralised genset on a less noise sensitive well pad to eliminate the need for a genset close to sensitive receptors

Utilising localised noise barriers / screens at the drive heads to mitigation noise emissions

Detailed site specific field modelling will be undertaken on an ongoing basis throughout the process of determining field layout, consistent with the Environmental Constraints Protocol.

The incorporated design measures will be undertaken to ensure that the operational noise limits are achieved.

6.7.7 Management Practices

Noise becomes a nuisance when there is an unreasonable interference with an acoustic value. Nuisance noise can be continuous or intermittent, but the effect is such that there is a material interference with property or the personal comfort or quality of life of persons (DEHP, 2017b). The construction and operational activities to be undertaken on the Petroleum Lease have the potential to impact on noise environmental values with the impact dependent on the separation distances to sensitive receptors (generally rural residences), the level and duration of the noise, and the time of day that the noise occurs.





A number of mitigation measures will be implemented during the design phase of the project to further mitigation potential noise emissions through project design and siting measures (refer to Section 6.7.5 & 6.7.6).

Environmental management practices are documented within the management plans and procedures developed for Project Atlas. The identified risks and potential impacts to acoustic values will be managed in accordance with the following management plans:




Potential impacts and key management practices are summarised in Table 6-37.

Table 6-37 : Noise Potential Impacts and Key Management Practices


Exceedance of noise limits causing an impact to sensitive receptors.

Disturbance to or displacement of fauna species from foraging or roosting.

Operational vibration causing an impact to sensitive receptors.

Selection of well sites away from sensitive receptors, considering site specific factors.

Attenuate and mitigate noise generation by design engineering infrastructure, where required.

Site planning to minimize noise generation. Prior to construction and other noisy activities,

landholders and owners of any adjacent sensitive places will be notified of the nature and expected duration of noisy activities.

Construction hours and operations will be in accordance with EA conditions and requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008 (EPP Noise).

Operators of construction equipment will be aware of potential noise impacts and be required to employ techniques and/or equipment to minimise noise emissions as applicable.


Implementing the proposed design and mitigation measures will reduce potential noise receptor impacts to low, based on the following:

The EPP Noise management hierarchy for noise emissions will be considered in reducing wherever practicable noise emissions associated with activities (i.e. avoid, minimise, manage);

The siting of wells and associated generators is based on environmental constraints GIS data and landholder information thereby ensuring infrastructure is preferentially located away from sensitive receptors such as residences and sensitive environmental areas; and

Implementing mitigation and management measures (refer to Sections 6.7.5, 6.7.6 & 6.7.7) to reduce the risk and magnitude of potential impacts on noise values.





6.8. Social and Cultural

6.8.1 Existing Environment (Community)

The boundary of the Petroleum Lease includes properties consisting of varying forms of tenures including freehold, lands lease, reserve, State forest and State land. The size of freehold blocks varies considerably, ranging from smaller blocks of less than 300 ha to several blocks over 4500 ha.

The Petroleum Lease is located in the Western Downs Regional Council area. The Western Downs Regional Council is home to approximately 33,000 people. Chinchilla and Dalby comprise more than half of the population in the Council area, however they are located more than 100 km and 200 km from the PL respectively. The closest population centres to the PL are Wandoan (500 people) and Miles (1700 people). The area around the PL is considered a low density population, consistent with a rural setting.

Roma is a regional hub for the CSG industry, servicing the surrounding gas fields, and approximately 2 hours by car from the Petroleum Lease.

Mining and resources provide the largest contribution to the regional economy, followed by agriculture, forestry and fishing, construction and manufacturing.

Local business will be supported by Senex wherever practicable, boosting the growth of local economies.

Senex will adopt an open approach to stakeholder engagement; with consultation aimed at clearly identifying relevant stakeholders, appropriate channels of engagement and hosting engagement activities to enable opportunities for stakeholders to provide feedback and input at different stages of project planning.

Stakeholder consultation will be ongoing throughout the development of the production lease. Contact with stakeholders is made by the appropriate Senex representative for that particular stakeholder e.g. contact is made with landholders by an experienced land access manager to share information and seek feedback on proposed activities. Every effort is made to ensure that landholders are consulted and have the opportunity for providing input during project activities; and initial communication with landholders has already commenced.

Senex recognises the importance of maintaining relationships with landholders and aims to keep stakeholders up to date on project activities and to support opportunities for involvement, comment and general awareness.


Although there are no prescribed environmental values for social and cultural within the Petroleum Lease, social values of importance to the local community exist, and require due consideration. The social and cultural environmental values for the PL include:

the overall amenity, liveability and sense of community supported by profitable local businesses;

access to social, community services and infrastructure in the region surrounding the PL (including economic conditions and benefits within the affected community); and

the qualities of the land that are conducive to human health and wellbeing.





6.8.3 Potential Impacts and Environmental Management Practices

Environmental management practices will be documented within management plans and procedures developed for Project Atlas. Senex will manage the identified risks and potential impacts to social and cultural values in accordance with management plans, similar to those developed for its existing coal seam gas project in the region, the Western Surat Gas project, including:


Queensland Environmental Protocol for Field Development and Constraints Analysis [SENEX-CORP-EN-PRC-019] (Appendix C);

Environmental incident and safety management procedures comprising notification and incident response and reporting procedures;


Senex will ensure contractor supervision is managed appropriately and the level of supervision afforded shall be commensurate to the risks associated with the activity being performed in the Petroleum Lease (for an example, refer to Project Atlas Environmental Management Plan [SENEX-ATLS-EN-PLN-001] in Appendix B).

Senex has undertaken a preliminary assessment of potential impacts and environmental practices, in relation to the proposed activities. The outcomes of this preliminary assessment are listed in Table 6-38.

Table 6-38 : Social and Cultural Potential Impacts and Key Management Practices


Gasfield production impacts/co-existence with existing landholder activities;

Increased demand for local workforce including the need for skilled and unskilled labour

Service and supply opportunities during construction and operational phases of the project

Income injection into the local economy Impacts on water supply and management; Road impacts and traffic generation; Nuisance impacts (light, noise, dust, visual

amenity); Biosecurity impacts (pest and weed

translocation/introduction).

Land Access Grievance Register (Queensland); All work must have ATW permits to commence; Land Access Activity Requests and Rules; Implementing the Environmental Constraints

Protocol to minimise visual and nuisance impacts and to protect environmental values;

Maintain a complaints management system ensuring, where practicable, issues and/or complaints are appropriately addressed;

Implement company policies relating to service provision and purchasing hierarchies (e.g. local personnel and business first if suitably qualified and commercially competitive); and

Adherence to all CCA and the Land Access Code for all dealings with landholders.

Senex recognises the benefits that can be achieved from community engagement and consultation, and is committed to developing and maintaining community engagement to maintain good relationships and social license before and during the proposed activities. Ongoing consultation shall identify issues of concern and/or complaints regarding the proposed activities are appropriately addressed. Furthermore, Senex will comply with the Land Access Code for all dealings with landholders, including obtaining CCAs where required by law, and ensuring appropriate onsite behavior by Senex personnel and contractors.





Senex will record any grievances raised by the Landholder in relation to conduct on their property via the Land Access Grievance Register – Queensland, and tracked until formally closed out and resolved. Senex has a number of measures to ensure all company representatives are aware of the terms and conditions relating to access and conduct on a Landholder’s property. These include:

Land Access Activity Request (LAAR) required for activities (either singular or multiple) undertaken;

the internal ATW, which captures activity specific considerations, which is communicated to contractors and staff; and

Land Access Rules negotiated with the Landholders specific to each property.


While there are no prescribed social environmental values, Senex will implement a suite of management practices to minimise impacts to social values. Given the rural location and the typically large distances to most residences, the potential impact to social values is considered to be localised, short-term and recoverable. Potential impacts related to noise are discussed in Sections 6.7.5 and 6.7.6.

The magnitude and severity of potential impacts has been determined based on technical assessments carried out by suitably qualified and experienced specialists. As a result of implementing the management practices above, the risks of environmental harm on social values is assessed as being low.

6.9. Heritage

6.9.1 Existing Environmet

6.9.1.1. Indigenous Heritage

The majority of the Project Atlas tenure area overlaps the Iman People #2 Native Title determination area, which was determined on 23 June 2016. The Registered Native Title Body Corporate for the Iman People #2 is the Wardingarri Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC. The remainder of the Project Atlas tenure is not currently overlapped by a registered Native Title claim, however, the Iman People #4 have lodged a Native Title claim application over this area and have asserted that they are the Aboriginal Party under section 35(7) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) for this area.

Senex has commenced engagement with the Wardingarri Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC and the Iman People #2 and intends to comply with its duty of care obligations under the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) by implementing Senex’s Cultural Heritage and Native Title Management Procedure for Queensland and by complying with our Cultural Heritage Management Agreement with the Iman People which was executed in February 2018. Eleven Aboriginal sites in the Petroleum Lease are recorded by the Iman People #2 and the Western Wakka Wakka People (DATSIP, 2017).

6.9.1.2. Non-Indigenous Heritage

There are no registered historical heritage places within the Petroleum Lease (refer to Table 6-39).





Table 6-39 : Summary of Historical Heritage Register Searches

Register Sites within Petroleum Lease

World Heritage List None

National Heritage List None

Commonwealth Heritage List None

Register of the National Estate (non-statutory) None

State Heritage Register None

Reported Places Register (non-statutory) None

Maranoa Regional Council Heritage Overlay None

There is the potential for historical archaeological deposits to exist across the Petroleum Lease given historic land use. These are most likely to be associated with working and living areas, such as the huts, yards and outstations identified from archival sources. In general, this early pastoral history can be archaeologically represented by:

building remains (fireplaces, posts, post holes, etc);

rubbish dumps (discarded bottles, crockery, metal and bone);

yards and fencing (posts and/or post holes); and

water infrastructure (bores, windmills, tanks, dams, wool scours and irrigation channels, etc.).

Given that the first structures in the Petroleum Lease were most likely built from bush timber and bark, it is unlikely that any structural elements remain. Instead, they are most likely to be represented by the more durable objects of domestic life, including glass and ceramic refuse. Based on the history of the Petroleum Lease, it is likely any archaeological remains would be of local significance, providing insight into the settlement of the Wandoan area and the development of the early pastoral industry

6.9.1.3. Environmental Values

The following values are relevant for indigenous and non indigenous heritage for the gasfield development within the Petroleum Lease:

Cultural and spiritual values of the land; and

Qualities of the land that are conducive to protecting the aesthetics of the environment, including the appearance of culturally significant buildings, structures and other property.

6.9.2 Emissions and Releases (Activities)

Proposed activities relevant to indigenous and non indigenous heritage in the Petroleum Lease may include the following:

Locating wells or other infrastructure proximate or within heritage site perimeters;

Disturbing indigenous and non indigenous heritage sites during construction; and





Discovering further heritage material.

6.9.3 Potential Impacts and Environmental Practices

Respect for items or areas of cultural significance to Australia’s traditional owners is central to the cultural heritage procedures adopted by Senex. Senex works closely with traditional owners in its areas of operation to preserve and protect areas of cultural significance and to broaden local knowledge of cultural heritage.

Senex operates under its Cultural Heritage and Native Title Management Procedure for Queensland. This procedure outlines Senex’s process for managing Cultural Heritage and Native Title, including monitoring and ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements.

Senex has commenced engagement with the Wardingarri Aboriginal Corporation and intends to work closely with them to protect cultural heritage in areas where the operational areas overlap their claim area. In summary, the Queensland procedure requires:

1) Senex staff and contractors to undertake cultural heritage inductions

2) Completing cultural heritage clearances before Senex undertakes work activities in the Petroleum Lease

3) monitoring Senex’s work activities to protect items or areas cultural significance.

In general, environmental management practices are documented within the management plans and procedures developed for the Project Atlas. Senex will manage the identified risks and potential impacts to indigenous and non indigenous heritage in accordance with the following management plans:

Project Atlas Environmental Management Plan [SENEX-ATLS-EN-PLN-001] (Appendix B Section 7.6);



Queensland Cultural Heritage and Native Title Procedure – Queensland [SENEX-CORP-NT-PRC-002].

Senex will ensure contractor supervision is managed appropriately and the level of supervision afforded shall be commensurate to the risks associated with the activity being performed in the Petroleum Lease.

Senex has identified potential impacts and proposed key management practices as listed in Table 6-40.

Table 6-40 : Heritage Potential Impacts and Key Management Practices


Damage to and desecration of sites of indigenous heritage;

Damage to and desecration of sites of non-indigenous heritage.

Cultural heritage clearance is to be undertaken prior to commencement of any works other than preliminary walk-over type surveys (e.g. ecology surveys, bore baseline assessment) within the Petroleum Lease.

No works are to be undertaken or access permitted within areas marked as cultural heritage ‘no go’ areas.





The Senex Site Supervisor and Senex Approvals Manager must be notified immediately if any cultural heritage sites, objects or remains are located. Should this occur, work must cease immediately.


As there are no registered historical heritage places within the Petroleum Lease, the greatest risks and potential impacts from operations is the disturbance of any registered indigenous sites, or any unregistered sites of indigenous or non-indigenous heritage.

The magnitude and severity of potential impacts has been determined based on technical assessment carried out by suitably qualified and experienced specialists. As a result of implementing the mitigation and management measures outlined in Section 6.9.3, the risks of adverse impacts on indigenous and non-indigenous heritage is assessed as being low.

6.10. Waste


Within the Project Atlas area and surrounds, solid and liquid wastes are generated from domestic and commercial premises as well as agricultural, industrial and resource activities. These wastes comprise general, recyclable and regulated wastes.

In addition to these waste types, produced water (i.e. groundwater produced from CSG activities) is also considered as waste under the EP Act unless approved for use as a resource under a beneficial use approval. Produced water is discussed in more detail in Section 4.3.

Although there are currently no prescribed environmental values for waste management, those previously prescribed under the Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Policy 2000 (repealed) provide some guidance on the matter. The former environmental values for waste were:

the life, health and wellbeing of people;

soil, air, and surface and groundwater quality; and

land use capability, having regard to economic considerations


Wastes generated from the gasfield activities comprise:

General waste - those not defined as regulated waste under legislation. General wastes comprise putrescible wastes (easily decomposed, recyclable by composting) and non-putrescible wastes (not easily decomposed, may be recyclable);

Recyclable waste – this waste type is able to be reconditioned, reprocessed or reused; and

Regulated waste - regulated wastes are those that require specific controls or actions as defined by legislation. Listed, hazardous, regulated, controlled or trackable wastes





typically have unique handling and disposal requirements in order to manage specific associated hazards.

Wastes likely to be generated are presented in Table 6-41 along with the activity likely to generate that waste and the proposed waste minimisation/management measures. Expected volumes of waste will be determined further into the engineering design process of the field development activities.

Table 6-41 : Waste Streams and Management

Waste Name Description Activity Minimisation / Management Measures

General Wastes

Green waste Whole or parts of trees, bushes, grass or similar produced from vegetation clearing activities

Construction activities

Utilised in rehabilitation activities where practical otherwise disposed to landfill.

Domestic wastes

Food scraps, tea bags, coffee grounds etc.

Food wrappers and packaging Textile materials Plastic wrapping films, plastic bags Facial tissues, ear plugs Pens and pencils Polystyrene Aluminium foil, waxed paper or

cardboard Non-recyclable plastics No recyclables, hazardous wastes, liquids, chemicals or batteries.

All activities Disposal to landfill.

Pipeline tape wrap

Pipeline tape wrap protects pipelines against corrosion.

Construction and operational activities

Disposal to landfill.

Timber Untreated timber derived from packaging and uses that cannot be reused or recycled.

All activities Recycled/reused where practical otherwise disposed to landfill.

Treatment filters and membranes

Cartridge filters generated from water treatment process.

Water treatment Recycled/reused where practical otherwise disposed to landfill.

Wellhead separator waste

Separators at wellheads separate gas and water and remove other materials and fines.

Production Recycled/reused where practical otherwise disposed to landfill.

Uncontaminated scrap metals and wiring

Uncontaminated scrap metals and wiring. No pressurised cylinders or drums with chemical or oily residue.

All activities Recycled where practical otherwise disposed to landfill.

Recyclable wastes

General Recycling

Plastic bottles and clean food containers

Glass bottles and jars, milk cartons, aluminium bottles and cans, metal lids from jars, tin cans, plastic and paper cups.

Cardboard and paper packaging Folders, phone books, envelopes,

office paper, magazines, cereal boxes, clean paper towels.

Scrap metals (uncontaminated) No plastic food wrap or general waste.

All activities Recycled at local facility wherever practicable.






Intermediate bulk containers

Containers used for transport of fluids and bulk materials.

All activities Returned to supplier once no longer required.

Plastic (HDPE) Waste HDPE includes dam liner material, flowlines and drip tubes from irrigation activities.


Reuse or recycle wherever practicable.

Scrap Metals Uncontaminated scrap metals and wiring No pressurised cylinders or drums with chemical or oily residue.

All activities Reuse, sell or return to supplier wherever practicable.

Regulated wastes

Asbestos and Synthetic Mineral Fibre Insulation (SMF)

Asbestos can be found in materials such as lagging, insulation, gaskets and brake pads. Examples of SMF include waste insulation and rock wool.

All activities Transported by appropriately licensed transporter to an appropriately licensed disposal / recycling facility.

Batteries Lead, gel, nickel-cadmium and alkaline type batteries generated from equipment, vehicles, generators and electronics.

All activities

Chemical waste and chemical containers (including plastic fuel, and lubricant containers)

Chemical wastes may include herbicides, pesticides, water treatment chemicals (biocides), paint and solvents. Regulated chemical containers are those containing any volume of free chemical that is regulated. These may include waste oil containers, and aerosol cans containing solvent or paint.

All activities

Contaminated soil

Contaminated soils are generated where local spills of hydrocarbons and other contaminants may occur.

All activities

Cooking oil Waste cooking oil is generated from kitchen facilities at camps.

Incidental activities

Drilling Fluid Waste drilling fluids are generated from the drilling process.

Drilling activities

Drilling muds and cuttings

Waste drilling muds are generated from the drilling process.

Drilling activities

Salt or brine Salt or brine is generated as a result of treating produced water using RO technology.

Operational activities

Grease trap waste

Grease trap waste is generated from kitchen facilities at camps.


Medical and clinical waste

Sharps and biohazard wastes are generated at camps during routine medical care and treatment.


Oily filters, rags, absorbents

Oily filters, rags and absorbents are generated from routine equipment and vehicle servicing, repair and filter changes.

All activities

Triethylene Glycol / Glycol / coolant

Waste Triethylene Glycol / Glycol / coolant are generated from vehicle and equipment fluid changes, and as part of the gas dehydration process.


Tyres Tyres and tubes are generated from tyre changes on work vehicles and equipment.

All activities

Used spill kits Used spill kits are generated from spill clean-up of chemicals and hydrocarbons.

All activities






Waste oil (clean waste oil)

Small quantities of waste oil are generated routinely from vehicle and equipment oil changes.

All activities


Potential impacts to the identified environmental values may result from excessive waste generation from the inefficient use of resources, or from the improper management or storage of wastes generated during the activities being carried out. Improper management or storage of waste can result in land contamination and groundwater and surface water pollution.

Waste will be managed in accordance with the waste management hierarchy as required by the Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011, to avoid or minimise the potential for:

release of waste to land or waters either through inappropriate waste disposal or accidental release;

inadequate waste management leading to inappropriate disposal or inadequate re-use and recycling; and/or

impacts to the environment, land use or well-being of people resulting from inappropriate waste disposal.

Environmental management practices are documented within the management plans and procedures developed for Project Atlas. The identified risks and potential impacts to waste related values will be managed in accordance with the following management plans:


Proposed management measures for particular waste streams are summarised in Table 6-41.

7. REHABILITATION

The applicant will adopt the standard conditions for rehabilitation for the gasfield development. Further rehabilitation requirements are outlined in the Project Atlas Rehabilitation Plan [SENEX-ATLS-EN-PLN-003] and summarised in the following sections.

7.1. Decommissioning Infrastructure

Decommissioning the gas field and associated infrastructure will be undertaken in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Petroleum Legislation and environmental authority conditions.

The timing and works undertaken as part of rehabilitation activities will be dependent on the activity type and operational stage of the project and governed by EA requirements. Some project activities such as drilling are temporary in nature, enabling transitional rehabilitation (also called progressive rehabilitation) to be undertaken once the disturbance area is no-longer required for operational activities. Other infrastructure and disturbance is longer-term requiring decommissioning and rehabilitation at the end of project life.





All infrastructure constructed by Senex will be removed from site except where it is to remain with the written agreement of the landholder. All decommissioning and rehabilitation activities will be undertaken in accordance with Senex acceptance criteria and EA conditions.

7.2. Well Pads

When no longer required for production purposes, a well is ‘plugged and abandoned’; a process that involves decommissioning the well and rehabilitating the site. This involves isolating the groundwater aquifers within the well using cement plugs as the sealing medium. The final cement plug is brought to surface and the wellhead is cut off approximately 1.5 m below the surface, capped with a metal identification plate and buried. The land is then rehabilitated to its pre-disturbed state or as agreed with the landholder. These works are undertaken in accordance with the Petroleum and Gas Act 2004 requirements and the Code of Practice for constructing and abandoning coal seam gas wells and associated bores in Queensland – Department of Natural Resources and Mines (Queensland), October 2018.

After completing primary drilling of the well, but usually before the completion rig is mobilised, drilling fluids and muds in sumps will be disposed of in accordance with EA conditions. They will be either removed from the tenure area for disposal at a licenced facility or disposed of using mix-bury-cover or other method of disposing to land that is certified as not causing environmental harm.

The disturbance area associated with well construction is then reduced through transitional rehabilitation after well completion to a hardstand area of approximately 0.36 ha. This is maintained for the operational life of the well, typically up to 30 years. Transitional rehabilitation of well lease pads generally involves ripping any compacted areas, partial respreading of topsoil and direct seeding with species that will provide an appropriate level of groundcover and that are suitable considering the intended post-disturbance land use.

Once the well lease pad is no longer required for ongoing petroleum activities, final rehabilitation will be undertaken as follows:

Decommissioning/removing the well head, pumps and other infrastructure

Cut and fill batters profiled to re-contour the land surface and drainage lines

Compacted hardstand areas are ripped

Stockpiled topsoil is respread

Topsoil is seeded with pasture grasses, or native species depending on the final land use.

7.3. Gas and Water Gathering Pipelines

Pipelines trenches will be backfilled and topsoil reinstated within three months after pipe laying. During backfilling of pipeline trenches, soils should be replaced so that the topsoil and subsoil are consistent with the immediately surrounding area, this will allow for natural regeneration. Following soil replacement, areas will be revegetated. Areas required for operational purposes (i.e. access tracks and areas above pipelines) should be revegetated with pasture grasses, or native grasses and ground cover species depending on the final land use. Remaining areas no longer required for operational activities or maintenance will be rehabilitated to the post-disturbance land use.





Final rehabilitation of the gas and water gathering lines will occur after decommissioning of all pipelines. Where it is practical and safe to do so, the pipelines will be abandoned and left in-situ in accordance with the APGA Code of Practice - Upstream Polyethylene Gathering Networks- CSG Industry, and AS 2885 section 10.6 and section 8 of the Australian Pipeline Industry Association Code of Environmental Practice. The pipelines will be left in-situ to avoid disturbing the re-established vegetation through excavation and removal. The overall objective is to leave the RoW in a condition that is as near as practical to pre-existing environmental conditions. If the pipelines are to be abandoned and left in-situ, an abandonment plan will be developed in accordance with APGA Code of Practice – Upstream Polyethylene Gathering Networks – CSG Industry. When abandoning in-situ, the pipeline section shall be abandoned in such a way to ensure that ground subsidence and the risk of contamination of the soil or groundwater is minimised.

The pipelines/gathering lines are to be disconnected from all sources of hydrocarbons that may be present and shall be purged of all hydrocarbons and vapour with a non-flammable fluid and then capped. Disposal of the purging fluid shall meet all relevant environmental and safety requirements. The pipeline will be decommissioned in a manner that minimises potential impacts to the environment, land use and third parties and guidance should be taken from AS 2885. All above ground pipes and supports along the pipeline should be cut-off at a minimum depth of 750mm below the natural surface, or at pipeline depth as determined by AS 2885.3. These pipes should be removed and capped off below the surface. All above ground signs and markers above the pipeline should be removed.

When it is either unsafe or not practical, decommissioning will be undertaken via removal, and the removal methods should be considered similar to those for pipeline construction, and shall comply with the relevant requirements of AS 2885.1.

After decommissioning of the pipeline compacted hardstands, access tracks and stockpile areas should be ripped to aid binding of the soil layers, increase water retention, helping water infiltrate into the soil, and thus increase seed germination success. Seeding will be undertaken on the remaining areas with an appropriate seed mix, depending on the post-disturbance land use to be achieved.

7.4. Access Tracks

Temporary access tracks no longer required for ongoing operational activities or not to be retained by the landholder will be closed and reinstated to a condition compatible with the surrounding land use. This will generally involve ripping to remove compaction, re-spreading stockpiled topsoil and revegetating. Landholder tracks in existence prior to construction will have access re-instated and will not be blocked in anyway. Where tracks are to be retained by landholders, any wheel ruts should be graded and erosion-control measures such as diversion drains installed to an agreed condition.

7.5. Waterway Crossings

If disturbed, waterway crossings will be rehabilitated by re-contouring disturbed areas to match the surrounding land as soon as practicable after petroleum activities have ceased. The surface will usually be lightly scarified before spreading the topsoil, to promote vegetation re-growth and protect against the topsoil loss. Temporary waterway barriers will be removed and reseeding undertaken to minimise erosion and promote regeneration of riparian vegetation.





7.6. Infrastructure, Camps, Laydown, Hardstand and Stockpile Areas

Rehabilitation will be undertaken when the area for infrastructure, laydowns, hardstands or stockpile areas is no longer required for operational activities. Once infrastructure is removed or transported off site, gravel is generally removed from the hardstand and any areas of contamination remediated or excavated for disposal at an off-site licensed facility. Compacted areas should be ripped and the area seeded with a species mix determined by the post-disturbance land use.

7.7. Dams

Produced water will be managed using aggregation dams and brine storage dams. Prior to decommissioning, landholders will be given the option to retain the dams for their own water storage purposes. Any residue in the dam must be quantified and tested to demonstrate that it is safe and fit the intended use of the dam.

Aggregation dams will have all water removed (preferably through beneficial use options). Once any liquid is removed, dams will be rehabilitated to remove any source of potential contaminants and the land returned to a useable form. The process for decommissioning and rehabilitating the produced water holding and brine storage dams generally involve the following:

Removing and recycling or disposing synthetic liners.

Assessing any land contamination that may have occurred. In the case were some leakage of the liner system has occurred a contaminated land assessment should be undertaken as per the current National Environment Protection (Site Assessment) Measure (NEPM).

Remediating soils by removal to a soil remediation area or in-situ treatment of contaminated soils where required or dispose of the contaminated soils to an off-site licensed facility.

Retaining clay materials where clay has been used as part of the containment system for reuse if reasonably practicable.

Rehabilitating the site by pushing in dam embankments and filling in depressions to re-contour landforms to match surrounding topography. Any retained subsoil could be used to infill dams and topsoil can be respread.

Revegetating the area by direct seeding with appropriate species based on post-disturbance landform.

8. MATTERS OF STATE ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE

8.1. Summary of Prescribed Environmental Matters

In accordance with the Environmental Offsets Act 2014 and Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014, an offset condition may be imposed for a significant residual impact on a prescribed environmental matter. A prescribed environmental matter under the regulation is described as a matter of national environmental significance (MNES), a matter of state environmental significant (MSES) or a matter of local environmental significance (MLES).

A number of prescribed matters have been found to occur or potentially occur within the Petroleum Lease as a result of the field assessment:





MNES – threatened ecological communities, threatened species habitat and migratoryspecies habitat

MSES – prescribed regional ecosystems, connectivity areas and protected wildlifeareas

The Regional Council does not define MLES, so this is not considered further for this EA Application.

Impacts to MNES are considered in accordance with the EPBC Act, which will be assessed by the Federal Department of Environment and Energy.

8.2. Matters of National Environmental Significance

Senex submitted an EPBC Referral to the Department of Environment and Energy on 2nd November 2018 (EPBC 2018/8329). Potential impacts to biodiversity values, including Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) have been assessed as part of this EA Application (refer to Section 6.3 and Appendix F).

Two migratory species listed under the EPBC Act considered ‘fly over species’ were assessed to have a high likelihood occurrence in the project area. The species were assessed against the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 – Matters of National Environmental Significance (DoE 2013) and determined that impacts to these species are not significant (refer to section 7.1 and Annex E of Appendix F).

Four threatened species under the EPBC Act were identified as having a high likelihood of occurrence in the project area. The significance of impacts to the species were assessed against the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 – Matters of National Environmental Significance (DoE 2013). For each species, the impact assessment of indicative field layout on potential habitat found that it was unlikely to lead to a significant impact to the species (refer to section 7.1 Appendix F).

In summary, impacts to MNES were assessed under the relevant guidelines, and no significant impacts are considered likely as a result of the project. Therefore, no offsets are considered for MNES.

8.3. Matters of State Environmental Significance

8.3.1 MSES within the Petroleum Lease

MSES are defined Schedule 2 of the Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014. The MSES identified within the Petroleum Lease as a result of field assessments are summarised in Table 8-1.





Table 8-1 : Prescribed Environmental Matters identified within the Petroleum Lease

MSES (as listed in Schedule 2 of the EO Reg)

Relevance to Atlas Petroleum Lease Significant Residual Impact

S2. REGULATED VEGETATION

1) Prescribed regionalecosystems that areendangered regionalecosystems (ERE)

238.5 ha of prescribed regional ecosystems that are endangered RE has been identified within the Project area.

The extent of endangered prescribed regional ecosystem located within the Project area is illustrated on Figure 28

.

The indicative Project Atlas footprint will impact 4.4 ha prescribed regional ecosystem that are ERE.

Refer to Section 8.3.2 for Significance Assessment.

2) Prescribed regionalecosystems that are OfConcern regionalecosystems (not within anurban area)

48.9 ha of prescribed regional ecosystems that are of concern RE has been identified within the Project area.

The extent of Concern prescribed regional ecosystem located within the Project area is illustrated on Figure 28

.

The indicative Project Atlas footprint will not impact prescribed regional ecosystem that are OCRE.


3) (a) Prescribed regionalecosystems (not within anurban area) that intersecta wetland on thevegetation managementwetlands map

The project area does not contain any areas of essential habitat on the essential habitat map.

No significant residual impact assessment required no areas are intersected.

3) (b) Prescribed regionalecosystems that intersectan area of essentialhabitat on the essentialhabitat map for an animalor plant that isendangered or vulnerablewildlife.

The project area does not contain any areas of essential habitat on the essential habitat map.

No significant residual impact assessment required no areas are intersected.

4) Prescribed regionalecosystems (not within anurban area) within thedefined distance from thedefining banks of arelevant watercourse onthe vegetationmanagement watercoursemap

Prescribed regional ecosystems within the defined distance of a relevant watercourse has been identified within the Project are and is illustrated on Figure 28.

Defined distance is outlined in the Environmental Offsets Policy for non-coastal bioregions (including the Brigalow Belt) as below.

25m from stream order 1 or 2

50m from stream order 3 or 4

100m from stream order 5 ormore

The proposed Atlas Footprint will impact prescribed regional ecosystem within the defined distance of two stream order 1 watercourses within the Jundah State Forest.


S3. CONNECTIVTY AREAS







Prescribed regional ecosystem that is a connectivity area and

• The connectivity areais of sufficient size orconfigured in a way thatmaintains ecosystemfunctioning and• The area will remaindespite a threateningprocess.

The Project Area is a heavily fragmented landscape. The indicative Project Atlas footprint will involve disturbance within areas of prescribed regional ecosystem. There are limited tracts of vegetation to facilitate ecosystem connectivity within the region.

Loss of connectivity has been assessed using the DES Environmental offset landscape connectivity assessment tool and no significant residual impacts are predicted (refer to Appendix I).

WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES

1) (a) A wetland in a wetlandprotection area or of highecological significanceshown on the Map ofreferable Wetlands

The project area does not contain any mapped wetlands in a wetland protection area or of high ecological significance shown on the Map of referable Wetlands.

No significant residual impact assessment required as no mapped wetlands are impacted.

1) (b) A wetland orwatercourse in highecological value waters.

There are no wetlands or watercourses within the Project area considered to be a wetland or watercourse in high ecological value waters as defined in the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009, schedule 2.

DESIGNATED PRESCINCTS IN STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL AREA

Designated precinct in a strategic environmental areas

The project is not located in a designated precinct in a strategic environmental area.

No significant residual impact assessment required as no areas are intersected.

PROTECTED WILDLIFE HABITAT

1) An area shown as a highrisk area on the florasurvey trigger map thatcontains plants that areendangered or vulnerablewildlife

The Project area does not contain any areas shown as high risk of the flora survey trigger map.


2) An area not shown as ahigh risk area on the florasurvey trigger map thatcontains plants that areendangered or vulnerablewildlife

Field surveys did not identify any plant species that are endangered or vulnerable. However, two species have been identified with a high likelihood of occurrence – Ooline (Cadellia pentastylis) and Belson’s panic (Homopholis belsonii).

Ooline is proposed to be managed by avoidance on the PL if found to occur. Where Belson’s Panic is found to occur and cannot be avoided, offsets will be managed through the NCA clearing permit process.

3) A non-juvenile koalahabitat tree located in abushland habitat area,high value rehabilitationhabitat area or mediumvalue rehabilitation habitatarea are under thePlanning Regulation 2017

The Project area does not contain any bushland habitat area, high value rehabilitation habitat area or medium value rehabilitation habitat area as defined under the Planning Regulation 2017.


4) Habitat for an animal thatis endangered wildlife,vulnerable wildlife orspecial least concernanimal.

Ecological assessments identified four species (E, V or SLC) that has a high likelihood of occurrence within the Project area:

It is estimated that the proposed Project Atlas Footprint will impact on the following potential habitat:







- 507.7 ha Glossy black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami) - V

- 245 ha koala (Phascolartos cinereus) - V

- 10.6 ha short-beaked echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus) - SLC

- 262 ha Dulacca woodland snail (Adclarkia dulacca) – E

Habitat mapping is provided in Section 5.2 of Appendix F - Project Atlas Production Area Ecological Assessment Report (ERM, 2018)

- 10.5 ha Glossy black cockatoo

- 1.4 ha Koala - 10.6 ha Short-beaked

echidna - 5.2 ha Dulacca

woodland snail


PROTECTED AREAS

National park There are no protected areas located within the Project area.

No significant residual impact assessment required as there are no impacts to Protected Areas as part of Project Atlas.

Regional park

Nature refuge

HIGHLY PROTECTED ZONES OF STATE MARINE PARKS

Conservation park zone The Moreton Bay Marine Park is located over 300 km east of the Project area, which drains inland to the north. The Project will not impact a marine park.

No significant residual impact assessment required as there are no impacts to Highly Protected Zones of State Marine Parks as part of Project Atlas.

Marine national park zone

Preservation zone

Other zones

FISH HABITAT AREAS

A declared fish habitat area The Project area is not in a coastal area and there are no declared Fish Habitat Areas that will be impacted by the Project.

No significant residual impact assessment required as there are no impacts to Fish Habitat Areas as part of the Project Atlas.

WATERWAY PROVIDING FOR FISH PASSAGE

Any part of a waterway providing for passage of fish if the construction, installation or modification of waterway barrier works carried out under an authority will limit the passage of fish along the waterway.

Watercourses within the gas field area are ephemeral. The project does not require construction of barriers across any drainage lines that are likely to be used for fish passage. Any crossing of watercourses or draining lines will be constructed as a bed level crossing and not create a barrier for fish passage.

No significant residual impact assessment required as the works will not limit the passage of fish along waterways.

MARINE PLANTS

Marine plant (not in an urban area)

Proposed gas field activities will not impact on any marine plants. .

No significant residual impact assessment required as there are no impacts to marine plants

LEGALLY SECURED OFFSET AREA

Legally secured offset area There are no secured offset areas on or near the Project area.

No significant residual impact assessment required as there







are no impacts to Legally Secured Offset Areas as part of the Project.

Mapped regulated vegetation associated with the project area is illustrated in Figure 27. Prescribed regional ecosystems that are endangered or of concern RE or within a defined distance of a watercourse are illustrated Figure 28.





Figure 27 : Regulated Vegetation Management Map





Figure 28: Ground Truthed Regulated Vegetation – Prescribed regional ecosystems (Endangered, Of Concern RE) and within defined distance of a watercourse





8.3.2 Avoidance, minimise and mitigation measures

Many avoidance and mitigation measures are to be implemented in the Petroleum Lease to minimise the impact of the project to matters of state environmental significance as far as practicable. The measures include:

Prior to undertaking activities that result in significant disturbance to land, an ecological survey to confirm on ground biodiversity values will be undertaken by a suitably qualified person. This includes MSES and MNES and habitat assessment.

The Queensland Environmental Protocol for Field Development and Constraints Analysis [SENEX-CORP-EN-PRC-019] (the Environmental Constraints Protocol) will be implemented when selecting sites for infrastructure (detailed in Section 4.2.1).

Infrastructure will be located preferentially in predisturbed areas of land. RoWs widths will be minimised; for gathering RoWs, the width is generally being

designed to be 18 metres. Infrastructure will preferentially avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts on native

vegetation or areas of ecological value. Clearing of mature or hollow bearing trees will be avoided where reasonably

practicable, and otherwise undertaken in accordance with the Project Atlas Environmental Management Plan.

A Nature Conservation Act Species Management Program will be implemented for the project.

8.3.3 Significant Residual Impact to MSES

Confirmation of the gas field layout, and hence impact on MSES will be an iterative process as the development layout progresses. As a result, the area of prescribed vegetation or habitat will be progressively quantified.

There are four MSES within the Project Area:

Prescribed Regional Ecosystem (endangered)

Prescribed Regional Ecosystem (of concern)

Prescribed Regional Ecosystem (defined distance to a watercourse)

Protected Wildlife Habitat.

Each of these matters have been considered for a significant residual impact in accordance with the Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy Significant Residual Impact Guideline (DEHP 2014) (DEHP Guideline) with the outcomes provided in Table 8-2. The assessment of significant residual impacts is based upon an indicative Project Atlas footprint, as described in Section 4.4.





Table 8-2: Significant Residual Impact Assessment Summary

Matter Significant Residual Impact Test

Prescribed Regional Ecosystem

Prescribed regional ecosystems (Endangered – VM status)

There is 238.5 ha of Endangered (VM Act) remnant RE 11.9.5 mid-dense structure category vegetation within the Project area. An estimated 4.4 ha of RE 11.9.5 is proposed to be disturbed, based on the indicative Atlas gasfield footprint.

A significant residual impact is likely if:

- clearing for linear infrastructure greater than 10 m wide in a dense to mid-dense (structural category) regional ecosystem.

- clearing other than clearing for linear infrastructure, an area greater than 0.5 ha where in a dense to mid-dense (structural category) regional ecosystem.

The gathering line easement will be up to 18 m wide and well pads will be constructed in an area of up to 100 m x 100 m. Therefore, based on the current indicative Atlas gasfield footprint, there will be a significant residual impact for this matter.

Prescribed regional ecosystems (Of concern – VM status)

There is 48.9 ha of Of Concern (VM Act) remnant vegetation within the Project area. No Of Concern prescribed regional ecosystems will be impacted through strategic placement of the Atlas gasfield footprint, consequently, no significant residual impact is likely for this matter.

Prescribed regional ecosystem (within defined distance of watercourse)

Prescribed regional ecosystem within a defined distance of a watercourse will be disturbed by gathering lines at two locations, based on the indicative Atlas gasfield footprint :

- Crossing 1 - RE 11.9.9 (Sparse) & RE 11.9.5 (Mid-dense) – Stream Order 1

- Crossing 2 - RE 11.5.1 (Mid-dense) – Stream Order 1

Defined distance is outlined in the Environmental Offsets Policy for non-coastal bioregions (including the Brigalow Belt):

• 25 m from stream order 1 or 2

A significant residual impact is likely if:

- clearing for linear infrastructure greater than 20 m wide in a sparse (structural category) regional ecosystem; and

- clearing is within 5 m of the defining bank. - or - clearing for linear infrastructure greater than 10 m wide in a dense to

mid-dense (structural category) regional ecosystem; and - clearing is within 5 m of the defining bank.

Clearing of RE 11.9.9 within 25m of the watercourse (0.1 ha) is not considered a significant residual impact as 11.9.9 is a sparse structure category RE and the disturbance will be less than 20m (gathering lines will involve disturbance up to 18m wide).

Clearing of RE 11.9.5 within 25m of the watercourse (0.1ha) is considered significant residual impact as 11.9.5 is a mid-dense structure category RE and the disturbance will be greater than 10m (gathering will involve disturbance up to 18m wide).

Clearing of RE 11.5.1 within 25m of the watercourse (0.2ha) is considered significant residual impact as 11.5.1 is a mid-dense structure category RE and the disturbance will be greater than 10m (gathering will involve disturbance up to 18m wide).





Matter Significant Residual Impact Test

Protected Wildlife Habitat

Protected wildlife habitat (E, V)- flora

The area of potential habitat for protected wildlife within the Project area and area within the indicative Atlas gasfield footprint (in brackets) is:

- Belson’s panic – 319.4 (4.4) ha - Ooline - 242.7 (4.4) ha

As outlined in Section 6.3.4, targeted surveys within areas of potential habitat will be undertaken for Belson’s Panic and Ooline, so that disturbance can be avoided, if they are found to occur.

As Ooline is a distinctive species, it is considered that any occurrences that may exist can be successfully avoided.

Where disturbance to Belson’s panic is unavoidable, impacts will be managed through the Nature Conservation Protected Plant assessment and approval process. Where the plant is found and requires removal, a NCA protected plant permit will be applied for, and it will be offset through that process.

Significance assessment against the DEHP Guideline has been undertaken (refer Annex F of Appendix F - Project Atlas Production Area Ecological Assessment Report (ERM, 2018)) and found that no significant residual impact is likely.

Protected wildlife habitat (E, V, SCL) - fauna

The area of potential habitat for protected wildlife within the Petroleum Lease and area within the indicative Atlas gasfield footprint (in brackets) is:

- Glossy black cockatoo - 507.7 (10.5) - Koala – 245.0 (1.4) - Short-beaked echidna - 685.1 (10.6) - Dulacca woodland snail – 262.1 (5.2).

As outlined in Section 6.3.4, habitat assessment will be undertaken for threatened fauna where infrastructure is proposed and habitat may be present, so that disturbance can be avoided, if they are found to occur.

Significance assessment against the DEHP Guideline has been undertaken (refer Annex F of Appendix F - Project Atlas Production Area Ecological Assessment Report (ERM, 2018)) and found that:

- No significant residual impact to Koala or Short-beaked echidna is considered likely.

- Senex has undertaken significant targeted field surveys for the Dulacca woodland snail throughout the identified potential habitat on the PL. The surveys did not result in any populations being found to occur. To ensure there is no significant impact to populations of the species, Senex has committed to targeted searches for the species prior to activities involving significant disturbance being undertaken. If found to occur, this will enable appropriate avoidance measures to be undertaken. Therefore no significant residual impact is considered likely.

- There is likely to be a significant residual impact to the vulnerable glossy black cockatoo due to disruption of feeding habitat.

Potential habitat identified within the project area for the Glossy black cockatoo is illustrated on Figure 29.





Figure 29 : Potential Glossy Black Cockatoo Habitat





8.3.4 Proposed Offsets

Senex propose to provide offsets for significant residual impacts as outlined in Table 8-3.

Table 8-3 : Significant Residual Impacts

Prescribed Environmental Matter Maximum Extent of Impact

Prescribed Regional Ecosystem

Prescribed regional ecosystems (Endangered – VM status)

RE 11.9.5

5 ha

Prescribed regional ecosystem (within defined distance of watercourse)

RE 11.5.1, 11.9.5

1.0 ha

Protected Wildlife Habitat

Habitat for Wildlife that is Vulnerable Animal

Glossy black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami)

11 ha

As discussed in previous sections, the extent of significant residual impact is based on an indicative Project Atlas footprint, which is considered to be a conservative estimate (refer to Section 4.4). Refer to the Project Atlas Offset Strategy provided in Appendix J for additional details.





9. REFERENCES

ANZECC & ARMCANZ. 2000. ‘Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality’. Prepared by the Australian and New Zealand Conservation Council (ANZECC) and the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ). https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/53cda9ea-7ec2-49d4-af29-d1dde09e96ef/files/nwqms-guidelines-4-vol1.pdf.

BOM. 2017a. ‘Bureau of Meteorology Climate Zones’. Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology. http://www.bom.gov.au/iwk/climate_zones/map_2.shtml.

BOM. 2018. ‘Climate Statistics for Miles Constance Street, Site Number 042112’. Bureau of Meteorology. 2018. http://www.bom.gov.au/.

Commonwealth of Australia. 2017. ‘Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code; Legislation Act 2003’.

DEHP. 2011. Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009. Dawson River Sub-Basin Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives Basin No. 130 (Part), Including All Waters of the Dawson River Sub-Basin except the Callide Creek Catchment.

DEHP. 2013. ‘WQ1308 - Upper Dawson River Sub-Basin - Part of Basin 130.’ Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009. Central Queensland Map Series. State of Queensland, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/water/policy/pdf/plans/upper_dawson_plan_300811.pdf.

DES. 2016a. ‘Manual for Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures. Version 5.01’. ESR/2016/1933. State of Queensland, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Prepared by: Resource Sector Regulation and Support. https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/assets/documents/regulation/era-mn-assessing-consequence-hydraulic-performance.pdf.

DES. 2016b. ‘Streamlined Model Conditions for Petroleum Activities: Guideline, Environmental Protection Act 1994’. ESR/2016/1989, Version 2.02. State of Queensland, Department of Environment and Science.

DES. 2017a. ‘Baseline Assessments: Guideline, Version 3.02’. ESR/2016/1999. State of Queensland, Department of Environment and Science.

DES. 2018. ‘Queensland Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems and Potential GDE Aquifer Mapping, Version 1.5’. State of Queensland, Department of Environment and Science. https://wetlandinfo.ehp.qld.gov.au/wetlands/ecology/aquatic-ecosystems-natural/groundwater-dependent/.

DNRM. 2013. ‘Queensland Floodplain Assessment Overlay’. State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines. https://data.qld.gov.au/dataset/queensland-floodplain-assessment-overlay Accessed 22/06/2017

DNRM. 2015. ‘Fitzroy Basin Resource Operation Plan’. State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

DNRM. 2017a. ‘Ordered Drainage - Queensland’. State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines. http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/search.page?q=%22Ordered drainage 100K - Queensland - by area of interest%22.

DNRM 2017b. ‘Queensland Globe, Flood Mapping’. State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines.





DNRM. 2017c. ‘Queensland Groundwater Database - October 2017’. State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

DNRME. 2018. ‘Streamflow Data: 130344A Juandah Creek at Windermere; Water Monitoring Information Portal’. State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy. https://water-monitoring.information.qld.gov.au/.

2018b. ‘Code of Practice for the Construction and Abandonment of Coal Seam Gas and Petroleum Wells, and Associated Bores in Queensland - Version 1’. State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy. https://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/119666/code-of-practice-csg-wells-and-bores.pdf.

DSITI. 2015. ‘Queensland Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems and Potential GDE Aquifer Mapping, Version 1.4’. State of Queensland, Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation. https://data.qld.gov.au/dataset/queensland-groundwater-dependent-ecosystems-and-potential-gde-aquifer-mapping/.

Eamus, D, R Froend, R Loomes, G Hose, and B Murray. 2006. ‘A Functional Methodology for Determining the Groundwater Regime Needed to Maintain the Health of Groundwater-Dependent Vegetation’. Australian Journal of Botany 54:97–114.

ERM, 2018. Project Atlas Ecological Assessment Report. Prepared for Senex Energy. Brisbane.

Exon, NF. 1976. ‘Geology of the Surat Basin, Queensland’. Bulletin 166. Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics.

Green, P. 1997. ‘The Surat and Bowen Basins, South-East Queensland’. Queensland Department of Mines and Energy.

Habermehl, MA. 1980. ‘The Great Artesian Basin, Australia’. BMR Journal of Australian Geology and Geophysics, 5:9–38.

KCB. 2016. ‘Hydrogeological Assessment of the Great Artesian Basin: Characterisation of Aquifer Groups - Surat Basin’. Prepared for the Queensland Government Department of Natural Resources and Mines. Brisbane: Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd.

KCB. 2018. ‘Project Atlas Surface and Groundwater Assessment Reprt’. Prepared for Senex Energy. Brisbane: Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd.

Kellett, JR, TR Ransley, J Coram, J Jaycock, D Barclay, G McMahon, L Foster, and J Hillier. 2003. ‘Groundwater Recharge in the Great Artesian Basin Intake Beds, Queensland’. NHT Project# 982713. Bureau of Rural Science, Natural Resources and Mines, Queensland.

Martin, KR. 1981. ‘Deposition of the Precipice Sandstone and the Evolution of the Surat Basin in the Early Jurassic’. The APEA Journal, no. 21:16–23.

Milligan et al, 1972. Queensland Geological Maps Roma Sheet SG55-12, 1:250 000 Geological Map Series First Edition 1972, 1:250 000 Geological Series.

NHMRC. 2011. ‘Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (2011)’. National Health and Medical Research Council. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/eh52.

OGIA 2016a. ‘Underground Water Impact Report for the Surat Cumulative Management Area’. Brisbane: State of Queensland, The Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment, Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

OGIA. 2016b. ‘Hydrogeological Conceptualisation Report for the Surat Cumulative Management Area’. State of Queensland, The Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment, Department of Natural Resources and Mines.





OGIA. 2016c. ‘Groundwater Modelling Report for the Surat Cumulative Management Area’. Brisbane: State of Queensland, The Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment, Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

OGIA. 2017a. ‘Identification of Gaining Streams in the Surat Cumulative Management Area; Hydrogeological Investigation Report’. State of Queensland, The Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment, Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

OGIA. 2017b. ‘Surat CMA Geological Model’. State of Queensland, The Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment, Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

OGIA. 2017c. ‘Surat CMA Aquifer Attribution and Water Use Estimate (Senex_WU_Formations_23032017.Xlsx)’. State of Queensland, The Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment, Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

OGIA. 2017d. ‘Annual Report 2017 for the Surat CMA Underground Water Impact Report 2016’. State of Queensland, The Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment, Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

Richardson, E, E Irvine, R Froend, P Book, S Barber, and B Bonneville. 2011. ‘Australian Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Toolbox Part 2: Assessment Tools’. Canberra: National Water Commission.

Serov, P, L Kuginis, and JP Williams. 2012. ‘Risk Assessment Guidelines for Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems, Volume 1 – The Conceptual Framework’. Sydney: NSW Department of Primary Industries, Office of Water.

SLR. 2018. Project Atlas Gasfield Noise Impacts Assessment Report. Prepared for Senex Energy. Brisbane. SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd.

Smerdon, BD, TR Ransley, BM Radke, and JR Kellett. 2012. ‘Water Resource Assessment for the Great Artesian Basin: A Report for the Australian Government from the CSIRO Great Artesian Basin Water Resource Assessment’.

State of Queensland. 2016a. Environmental Protection Act 1994.

State of Queensland. 2016b. Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009, Environmental Protection Act 1994.

State of Queensland. 2017a. Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004.

State of Queensland. 2017b. Water Act 2000.

Swarbrick, CFJ. 1973. ‘Stratigraphy and Economic Potential of the Injune Creek Group in the Surat Basin’. Report 79. Geological Survey of Queensland.

Telfer, D. 1995. ‘State of the Rivers: Dawson River and Major Tributaries’. State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

Documents

Project Atlas – PL 1037 Environmental Authority Amendment ... · SENEX-ATLS-EN-APA-010 Revision 0 5/12/2018 Page 1 of 160 UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED Project Atlas – PL 1037 Environmental