Post on 08-Jul-2019
transcript
Callide Infrastructure Corridor Study
Investigation Report
FINAL | AUGUST 2009
The following document was prepared by RLMS
On behalf of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning
RLMS (Resource and Land Management Services) is an independent consultancy
established in 1990, focusing on the energy, transport, communications and
exploration sectors Australia wide. RLMS specialises in tenure management, land
negotiation and acquisition, route corridor selection, environmental approvals,
mapping, and gas market analysis.
Page i
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYDuring the 2009 State Election, Premier Anna Bligh committed to securing a land corridor for a gas ‘super-highway’ which will accommodate gas pipelines transporting Coal Seam Gas (CSG) to the western boundary of the Gladstone State Development Area (GSDA) for processing into Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). The commitment was to acquire a 200m wide corridor between Callide and the GSDA.
The Queensland LNG industry, centred on CSG reserves in the Surat and Bowen basins, has the potential to create thousands of jobs in the Warrego/Maranoa and Central Coalfields regions and Gladstone. It is a multi-billion dollar export industry.As a new industry for Queensland, the State Government has been working with the proponents to establish an appropriate planning regime, including establishing pipeline corridors in the Gladstone region.
The purpose of this investigation is to define a multi-user Callide Infrastructure Corridor (CIC) in sufficient detail to enable the State Government to commence securing the land. Potential route options were developed using a staged approach as follows:
1. Desktop studies and constraints mapping of the Investigations Study Area. Constraints on the design and construction of gas pipelines were developed from corridor selection criteria including:
Maximise potential for co-location of pipelines into corridor
Maximise ease of access for construction and operations
Minimise construction constraints such as significant slopes, multiple bends, soil stability and erodability, extent of rock, number of watercourse crossings, working in third party easements
Minimise disturbance to existing landholders and land use
Minimise disturbance to areas of known ecological and heritage value
Minimise corridor length;
2. Broad field reconnaissance;
3. Discussions with potential users of the CIC and development of corridor route options;
4. Landholder engagement and field refinement of short-listed options; and
5. Selection of preferred route option.
The preferred CIC (Revision G) commences in the Calliope Range and has a main corridor 44km in length. The western lateral corridor is 5.1km long and joins the main CIC approximately 4km from its start. The bifurcation at the start of the CIC is necessary to accommodate the differing routes the potential users of the CIC are expected to take through the Callide and Calliope Ranges. The Callide Range in particular presented a challenge to co-location of gas pipelines due to significant terrain and construction constraints and was not included in the preferred CIC.
Approximately 90% of the CIC tracks through freehold properties, with the remainder consisting of two leasehold properties, one camping and water reserve, 17 road reserve crossings and four drainage reserve crossings.
Recommendations for the management of the CIC are provided including provision of access to the corridor during construction and operations, timing of construction activities, and environmental considerations such as weed management.
Page ii
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
1. Introduction ............................................................................. 11.1 Background .......................................................................................11.2 Purpose of the investigation ..............................................................1
2. Infrastructure Corridor Context ................................................ 32.1.1 Background........................................................................................ 32.1.2 Proposed Gas Hub for LNG CSG....................................................... 42.1.3 Strategic pipeline corridor................................................................... 52.1.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 5
2.2 Traversing the Callide Range ............................................................62.2.1 Broad corridor investigation of the Callide Range............................... 62.2.2 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 6
2.3 Infrastructure corridors in the GSDA..................................................62.3.1 Review of Curtis Island Infrastructure Corridor ................................... 62.3.2 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 7
3. Methodology of the Corridor Investigation ...............................83.1 Government objectives......................................................................83.2 Route options ....................................................................................93.3 Data sources ...................................................................................103.4 Limitations .......................................................................................11
4. Corridor Parameters.............................................................. 124.1 Corridor selection criteria.................................................................124.2 Constraints to selecting a corridor route ..........................................134.3 Landholders and land use ...............................................................134.4 Potential corridor users....................................................................13
5. Corridor Options.................................................................... 165.1 Identification of broad corridor options.............................................16
5.1.1 Scope............................................................................................... 165.1.2 Broad corridor options...................................................................... 16
5.2 Assessment of broad route options .................................................175.3 Further investigations on short listed options...................................21
5.3.1 Route investigation in the Callide Range.......................................... 215.3.2 Refinement of the Preliminary CIC ................................................... 21
5.5 Refinement of corridor route with constructability assessment ........256. Recommended Corridor ........................................................ 26
6.1 Key statistics of recommended CIC route........................................266.2 Detailed description of recommended CIC route .............................28
6.2.1 Bifurcation – KP000 to KP004 and KP000L to KP005L .................... 286.2.2 Calliope River – KP004 to KP018..................................................... 306.2.3 Alarm Creek – KP018 to KP030 ....................................................... 316.2.4 Mount Alma Road – KP030 to KP044 .............................................. 32
7. Corridor Management Issues ................................................ 347.1 Easements/licences within the CIC .................................................347.2 Access to CIC..................................................................................357.3 Timing of construction......................................................................367.4 Reinstatement of corridor ................................................................367.5 Operational activities .......................................................................377.6 Cathodic protection and marker signs .............................................377.7 Environmental management of the corridor.....................................387.8 Cultural heritage management of the corridor .................................39
Page iii
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
7.9 Summary of corridor management issues .......................................398. References............................................................................ 41Appendix A – Study Area Features and Constraints....................A1
Land .......................................................................................................... A1Tenure.............................................................................................................A1Land use .........................................................................................................A2Regional councils ............................................................................................A2Infrastructure ...................................................................................................A3Native title........................................................................................................A4
Environment .............................................................................................. A5Queensland protected areas ...........................................................................A5Protected vegetation and essential habitat ......................................................A5Regional ecosystems and remnant vegetation ................................................A5Fauna habitat ..................................................................................................A6Weed management .........................................................................................A6Matters of National Environmental Significance...............................................A7
Topography ............................................................................................... A8Geology and soils...................................................................................... A8
Geology...........................................................................................................A8Soils ................................................................................................................A9
Water......................................................................................................... A9Cultural heritage ...................................................................................... A10
Appendix B – CIC route refinement from landholder engagement....................................................................................................B1
Landholder 1 ............................................................................................. B1Landholders 2 and 3.................................................................................. B2Landholder 4 ............................................................................................. B2Landholder 5 ............................................................................................. B3
Appendix C – CIC route refinement from constructability fieldassessment................................................................................ C1Appendix D – Meeting records ................................................... D1
Figure 1-1 Study AreaFigure 2-1 Rationale for Gas Hub and Strategic Pipeline CorridorFigure 3-1 Corridor JustificationFigure 5-1 Broad Corridor OptionsFigure 5-2 Potential Corridor through Callide RangeFigure 5-3A Corridor Revisions 0 to DFigure 5-3B Corridor Revisions 0 to DFigure 5-4A Comparison of Proponents’ Route and Rev D CICFigure 5-4B Comparison of Proponents’ Route and Rev D CICFigure 5-5A Corridor Revisions D to FFigure 5-5B Corridor Revisions D to FFigure 6-1 Preferred CIC (Rev G)Figure 6-2 Bifurcation (KP000-KP004 & KP000L-KP005L)Figure 6-3 Calliope River (KP004-KP018)Figure 6-4 Alarm Creek (KP018-KP030)Figure 6-5 Mount Alma Road (KP030-KP044)Figure 7-1 CIC Access and Crossing Points
Page 1
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BackgroundDuring the 2009 State Election, Premier Anna Bligh committed to securing a land corridor for a gas ‘super-highway’ which will accommodate gas pipelines transporting Coal Seam Gas (CSG) to the Gladstone State Development Area (GSDA) for processing into Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). The commitment was to acquire a 200m wide corridor between Callide and the GSDA.
The Queensland LNG industry, centred on CSG reserves in the Surat and Bowen basins, has the potential to create thousands of jobs in the Warrego/Maranoa and Central Coalfields regions and Gladstone. It is a multi-billion dollar export industry.
To date, seven separate LNG projects for the Gladstone region have been publicly announced:
GLNG: Santos and Petronas, maximum capacity 10 Million tonnes per annum (Mtpa);
Queensland Curtis LNG (QCLNG): BG Group, maximum capacity 12 Mtpa;
Australian Pacific LNG (APLNG): Origin and ConocoPhillips, maximum capacity 16 Mtpa;
Gladstone LNG: LNG Ltd, Golar LNG and Arrow Energy, maximum capacity 3 Mtpa;
SUN LNG: Sojitz Corporation, maximum capacity 1 Mtpa;
Southern Cross LNG (SCLNG): Southern Cross LNG Pty Ltd, maximum capacity 3.9 Mtpa; and
Shell Australia LNG Project: Shell CSG (Australia) Pty Ltd, maximum capacity 16 Mtpa.
All of these projects are proposed to be located at Gladstone, exporting LNG from the Port of Gladstone. As a new industry for Queensland, the State Government has been working with the proponents over a number of years to establish an appropriate planning regime, including establishing pipeline corridors in the Gladstone region.
1.2 Purpose of the investigationThe purpose of this investigation is to define a multi-user Callide Infrastructure Corridor (CIC) in sufficient detail to enable the State Government to commence securing the land. The CIC would provide a common pipeline corridor between the Calliope Range and the western boundary of the Gladstone State Development Area (GSDA).
The Department of Infrastructure and Planning commissioned Resource and Land Management Services (RLMS) to undertake a study of potential route options for the corridor and recommend a preferred CIC, in consultation with the State Government,potential users of the CIC (proponents) and the affected landholders.
The Government defined a potential study area for the CIC based on preferred routes provided by a number of the potential users of the corridor. However, the desktop study and constraints mapping undertaken by RLMS were undertaken for a larger study area (Investigations Study Area) to allow scope for deviations in route options if required (refer to Figure 1-1).
To provide context on the CIC investigation, a broad study was undertaken of the location of the CSG fields being developed in the Surat Basin, the pipeline routes
Page 2
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
from the gas fields to Callide already proposed, and the potential for co-location of the gas infrastructure to the GSDA. This is described in the next section.
Page 3
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
2. INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR CONTEXT
2.1 Infrastructure co-location west of the Ranges
2.1.1 Background
Historical development of gas infrastructure in Queensland
The first gas transmission pipeline from the Roma area to Brisbane was commissioned in 1969 to supply conventional gas to Brisbane and regional centres along the route (Queensland Department of Mines and Energy, 2009). Gathering lines brought the gas to a location at Wallumbilla, near Roma, where the water and condensate was removed before being transported in the Roma to Brisbane Pipeline (RBP).
In 1989, the Wallumbilla to Gladstone pipeline (Queensland Gas Pipeline (QGP)) commenced operation connecting the Surat Basin gas fields with the gas fields in the Denison Trough to supply industrial customers in Gladstone and Rockhampton. The South West Queensland Gas Pipeline from Ballera to Wallumbilla went into service in 1996 to connect the Cooper Basin to the RBP and the QGP. The development of these gas pipelines, and the necessary gathering lines slowly transformed Wallumbilla into a Gas Hub.
The pipeline from Ballera to Mount Isa was constructed in 1997. It transports gas from the Cooper Basin in south west Queensland to the North West Queensland Mineral Province where gas is supplied to the Mica Creek Power Station, Cannington Mine, Phosphate Hill Mine and a Fertilizer Plant.
In the last five years, a number of CSG fields have been commissioned and connected to the RBP and QGP through the Wallumbilla Gas Hub. The flow of gas in the Ballera to Wallumbilla pipeline has recently been reversed as gas production from the Cooper-Eromanga basins declines and gas produced in the eastern basins increases. This has allowed gas produced in the east to be transported to supply gas markets in the south and east of Australia such as Adelaide and Sydney.
Previous study on Surat to Gladstone infrastructure corridor
In 2008 the Department of Infrastructure and Planning commissioned an assessment of the viability of the Surat Basin Rail (SBR) corridor alignment (proposed by Surat Basin Rail Pty Ltd) as a Multi-User Linear Infrastructure and Services Corridor (MULISC). GHD Pty Ltd completed this assessment and concluded there was no immediate benefit for utilising the SBR as a multi-user corridor to co-locate other infrastructure. The Government then requested GHD to identify a potential alternative alignment for a MULISC from the Surat Basin through to the GSDA. That study was completed in February 2009 and was reviewed as part of this study.
The GHD study report assessed the gas pipeline routes proposed by the LNG proponents from Surat Basin to the Gladstone area. It looked at the potential for this infrastructure to be co-located with each other or an existing infrastructure network. The proposed conceptual routes allowed for division of the project area into three portions:
East of the SBR corridor;
West of the SBR corridor; and
Callide Range through to the western boundary of the GSDA.
Page 4
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
The GHD study found that there was potential for co-location of pipelines proposed by Arrow Energy, Queensland Gas Company (QGC) and Origin Energy into a multi-user corridor tracking east of the SBR corridor from a location north of Miles to south of the Callide Range. It was identified that a multi-user corridor could assist in minimising impacts to landholders who have already been subjected to negotiations from one or more proponents.
The Santos pipeline is proposed to run north through Santos owned tenements, then generally co-locate with the existing QGP through the Callide Range. This is currently the only pipeline proposed for west of the SBR corridor.
The GHD study identified that it was unlikely that gas pipelines could be co-located through the Callide and Calliope Ranges due to engineering and geographical constraints. However, north east of the ranges, it reports an opportunity exists to converge the pipeline separation, as the pipelines follow very similar routes, and co-locate them adjacent to the existing QGP easement.
An alternative proposal by Jemena is described in the GHD study. The Gas to Gladstone Pipeline (GTGP) is proposed to be owned and operated by Jemena as a multi-user gas pipeline. It would commence to the west of Dalby, tracking in a north westerly direction to pick up gas from tenements owned by Santos, Origin Energy, Arrow Energy and QGC and then follow the same route as the QGP to Gladstone. GHD concluded that for a number of reasons, it is unlikely that the LNG proponents would accept the proposal by Jemena and would proceed with progressing their own routes.
In summary, the GHD study concluded that there is opportunity to create a multi-user corridor as a mechanism for aiding co-location of the proposed gas for LNG infrastructure east of the SBR and from the Callide Range to the western boundary of the GSDA. It recommended widths of any corridor should provide flexibility for accommodating future infrastructure development.
2.1.2 Proposed Gas Hub for LNG CSG
Issues that have been identified from the rapid development of the CSG fields, proposed pipelines to Gladstone, and the export of CSG as LNG include the following:
Increased social impact from the construction and operation of up to four new gas pipelines, with potential to expand to eight pipelines;
Combined impact on future mining and the sterilisation of mineral resources and farming land;
Small explorers and operators of CSG acreage are sometimes hindered by decisions and actions of the larger operations such as dealings with landholders and government regulators; and
Domestic access to gas supplies could potentially become restricted.
In an attempt to reduce impacts from the development planned for the Surat/Bowen Basins and to facilitate good planning practice, the State Government sees merit in the co-location of infrastructure. As demonstrated at Wallumbilla, the establishment of a gas hub could be considered for CSG transported to Gladstone. An indicative investigation area between Taroom and Wandoan has been nominated as this presents the best location to aggregate gathering lines to collect CSG from the surrounding producing fields (refer to Figure 2-1). A gas hub in this location has the following advantages:
Strategically selected to provide a central location for all producing fields. The location would have to be planned to cater for long term production of CSG.
Page 5
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
New gas hub can be linked to the Wallumbilla Hub which provides access to South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and Victorian markets.
There is good access to road, rail, water, and power in this location which will better facilitate construction activities and provide a location for localised industry using natural gas such as fertilizer production.
Reduced impact on agricultural activities and landholders in general.
Co-location of gas facilities into a hub could reduce the number of landholders and other third parties that may be subject to greater influencefrom gas infrastructure.
May address single party monopoly issues and can provide open access to all operators depending on who owns and operates the facility.
State Government control of development of the hub minimises activities that have occurred at Wallumbilla such as purchase of land by entities with the objective of blocking others access.
Could provide infrastructure to bring in developing CSG from New South Wales, rather than it heading south.
In contrast, potential disadvantages of a gas hub in this location include the following:
Total pipeline length may be longer for some proponents than others.
Proposed Nathan Dam site is a constraint to optimising a route through to the Callide Range.
Standardised gas specifications not favoured by proponents of LNG facilities.
Timing may not suit all proponents.
Most of the existing pipeline route work and consultation is negated.
Affected landholders could have up to eight pipelines and other facilities on their land rather than one or two.
2.1.3 Strategic pipeline corridor
The establishment of a gas hub in the Taroom/Wandoan area then allows a strategic gas pipeline corridor to Gladstone to be nominated which provides the following:
Reduces the sterilisation of resources and land;
Allows better control of environmental and social impacts with a combined easement/corridor area;
Reduces potential damages to pipe from third party interference;
Reduced risk to third parties.
The issues of co-location of gas pipelines in this area have been adequately addressed in the second report from GHD and are summarised in section 2.1.1above.
2.1.4 Conclusion
In this area, the disadvantages outweigh the potential advantages of a new gas hub and strategic gas corridor. The proponents would find great difficulties in switching to a common corridor in this area at this late date as they have expended much time and considerable money on their existing pipeline alignments. Most proponents have or are very close to submitting their Environmental Impacts Statements and would find the delay of a change to a new corridor untenable.
Page 6
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
2.2 Traversing the Callide Range
2.2.1 Broad corridor investigation of the Callide Range
During the preliminary field investigation, it was evident that due to the terrain constraints through the Callide Range, the constructability of all proposed pipelines would be reduced as a result of the characteristics of the pipe and its inability to bend at large angles to follow contours. Therefore, to co-locate two or more proponents within a narrow corridor through the range would be extremely difficult.
There is potential for the pipeline routes selected by proponents to overlap and cross at times as each proponent selects their best route through the ranges. The preliminary investigation of the Callide Range undertaken for this study identified a corridor for more than two pipelines that is over 3km wide to accommodate the construction difficulties. A corridor of this width is considered impractical as it would have four differing routes of 50 metres wide within it.
2.2.2 Conclusion
It was agreed this study would focus on refining an infrastructure corridor route from the Calliope Range through to the western boundary of the GSDA. The Callide Range portion would not be included at this stage, however, if the proponents experience significant issues through the Callide Range, the Department of Infrastructure and Planning is prepared to revisit and refine the preliminary scoping work already completed.
2.3 Infrastructure corridors in the GSDA
2.3.1 Review of Curtis Island Infrastructure Corridor
Connell Wagner (now Aurecon) has been assisting the State Government with infrastructure issues within the GSDA. Most recently they have undertaken the Gladstone Land, Port, Rail and Road Infrastructure Study. One of the key drivers of Stage 2 of the study was the progression of projects to be located within the GSDA that needed access to infrastructure. Most notable were the LNG Proposals for Curtis Island.
Issues arising during Connell Wagner’s investigations into the Curtis Island Infrastructure Corridor included the following:
Potential development on Curtis Island;
Potential infrastructure within the Curtis Island Infrastructure Corridor;
Crossing locations from mainland to Curtis Island;
Connectivity of infrastructure corridor with existing infrastructure; and
Land use constraints such as oil shale resources, environmentally sensitive areas, and port development plans.
In relation to the proposed gas pipelines that may utilise the CIC, the Department of Infrastructure and Planning requested RLMS to review route options for a pipeline corridor connecting with the CIC, tracking through the GSDA, across the Narrows and over to the LNG Precinct on Curtis Island. RLMS worked in consultation with Aurecon to ensure that industrial land, residue storage areas and other infrastructure corridors already identified within the GSDA are not compromised by any new route options. The objective was to ensure a multi-user gas pipeline corridor was practical from the eastern side of the Callide Range, through the GSDA, to the LNG precinct on Curtis Island.
Concurrent to this, QER Limited, proponents of the Stuart Oil Shale Project, presented the State Government with a proposal which would allow infrastructure to
Page 7
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
cross the Stuart oil shale resource. The proposal minimised the volume of ore that would be sterilised by providing an infrastructure route through the resource, between two open pits.
The route options identified by Aurecon were able to be refined and a preferred route for the gas pipelines through the GSDA, across the oil shale resource, and over the Narrows to Curtis Island was developed.
2.3.2 Conclusion
A preliminary field review of the preferred route for the gas pipelines through the GSDA has been undertaken. Further consultation with proponents on their proposed method of construction across the Narrows is currently underway. In addition, advice is being sought from relevant State agencies on minimising potential impacts from construction of the gas pipelines. The investigation, methodology, route options considered, and results of consultation will be presented in a separate report to the Department of Infrastructure and Planning.
Page 8
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
3. METHODOLOGY OF THE CORRIDOR INVESTIGATION
3.1 Government objectivesGiven the number of LNG projects proposed for the Gladstone area, the State Government has recognised there is potential for cumulative impacts to occur, particularly to landholders. The Government has set up the LNG Industry Unit within the Department of Infrastructure and Planning to coordinate planning requirements inthe Gladstone region such as shipping and dredging of the Port of Gladstone. The LNG Industry Unit also facilitates working groups consisting of representatives of State Agencies, LNG project proponents, landholders, and other stakeholders to deal with all aspects of the development of the LNG industry, such as impacts from water produced during development of the CSG gas fields.
The proposed routes for the pipelines transporting the CSG to the LNG facility sites converge on Gladstone from various areas between the Surat Basin and southern Bowen Basin (refer to Figure 3-1).
The State Government sees merit in the co-location of infrastructure. As such, in 2008, it commissioned the Surat Basin to Gladstone Multi-user Linear Infrastructure and Services Corridor (MULISC) Investigation. That investigation found that co-locating gas pipelines with rail and power was not recommended as the induced current into the pipeline from the power lines and the varying current induction from rail line as electrified trains pass may have a negative impact on the pipeline’s cathodic protection system. It also concluded the Surat Basin rail line route was an indirect option for gas pipelines from the Surat Basin to Gladstone.
The second phase of the MULISC Investigation concluded there was opportunity for the QCLNG pipeline and SGP to co-locate and similarly opportunity for the GLNG pipeline and existing Queensland Gas Pipeline (QGP) to co-locate. It found that most of the proposed gas pipelines were coming within a few kilometers of each other over the Callide Range and through the Calliope River flood plain to Gladstone and there was an opportunity for all identified pipelines to co-locate adjacent to the existing QGP.
As a result of the MULISC investigations, the State Government accepted the benefits of managing a corridor for the multiple pipelines and commissioned this study to investigate a common route from the Callide Range to the GSDA. This study also provides a strategic assessment of the potential for co-locating the gas pipelines into a common corridor from the gas fields in the Surat and Surat/Bowen Basins north to Callide. This assessment is described in Section 2.
This study recommends a preferred route for the CIC and provides comment on how the pipelines coming from the south and west will connect to the CIC and the connection of the CIC into the GSDA.
In summary, the objectives of the Government in providing the CIC include:
Less disruption to landholders in both planning and construction phases of pipelines for the LNG projects;
Less segregation of land parcels and less impact on productivity of land; and
Fewer disturbances to areas of ecological and cultural value.
Page 9
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
3.2 Route optionsA staged approach was used to determine potential route options for the multi-user gas pipeline corridor between Callide and Gladstone. These stages were:
Desktop studies and constraints mapping;
Broad field reconnaissance;
Discussions with proponents and development of potential route options;
Landholder engagement and field refinement; and
Selection of preferred route option.
Desktop studies were carried out on the Investigations Study Area defined in Figure 1-1. Constraints to the design and construction of the proposed gas pipelines were identified and mapped including:
Topography;
Environmental constraints (e.g. Queensland protected estate, such as national parks and state forests; endangered and of concern regional ecosystems; and essential habitat);
Third party infrastructure;
Land tenure and land use constraints;
Mining and petroleum tenure; and
Geology and soils.
A number of broad route options were developed at desktop level and investigated further during the field reconnaissance stage. The constraints mapping was used during the broad field reconnaissance to indicate areas to avoid, or areas that needed to be investigated further. The field reconnaissance was undertaken from 11 to 14 May 2009. No private land was accessed during this field review. The field work concentrated on the Callide Range as this was where most of the constraints existed. A preliminary corridor route was determined in the field (Revision 0).
Assembled data was displayed on constraint maps for the relevant preliminary corridor and meetings were held with gas pipeline proponents who would potentially use the corridor to review the preliminary corridor.
Following the meeting with proponents a revised corridor route was mapped (Revision A) and a more detailed field review was undertaken on 26 May 2009 to consider issues associated with the major watercourse crossings and crossings of third party infrastructure.
A preferred corridor route was selected (Revision B) and presented to:
The Department of Infrastructure and Planning;
A meeting of relevant State Government Agencies; and
A joint meeting of potential corridor users.
Revision C adjusted the width of the corridor at relevant locations to accommodate construction needs. The current proponents worked together to agree on a proposed corridor that was presented on 19 July 2009 for consideration by the Department of Infrastructure and Planning. Revision D incorporated those elements of the potential users proposed corridor considered satisfactory.
The Revision D route was subject to review after landholder engagement(undertaken in the week commencing 6 July 2009) during which information on land use, location of owner infrastructure and any proposed future land use was provided by the landholders. A number of route deviations were considered. Revision F of the
Page 10
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
CIC was subject to a constructability field assessment on 17 and 18 August 2009with representatives from all proponents. Small refinements to the CIC were made and the preferred route (Revision G) was finalised on 19 August 2009.
Appendix D provides a record of all meetings held with respect to this study.
3.3 Data sourcesThe primary sources of digital data for the desktop review, GIS mapping and corridor recommendations include:
Department of Infrastructure and Planning:
Broadhectare Study, 2008;
Good Quality Agricultural Land, date unknown;
Dawson Highway upgrade alignment, date unknown;
Electricity transmission network (Ergon, Powerlink), date unknown;
Land use, 2004;
Bushfire risk areas, 2009;
Queensland Heritage Register places, 2009;
Registered and notified Indigenous Land Use Agreements, 2009;
Department of Environment and Resource Management:
Digital Cadastral Database, 2009;
1:25,000 contours (10m interval), date unknown;
Spot5 Imagery, 2006;
Biogeographic regions, 2006;
Nature refuges and coordinated conservation areas, 2009;
Protected areas of Queensland estate, 2008;
Ramsar wetland sites, 2009;
Essential habitat V2.1 (Vegetation Management Act), 2009;
Directory of Important Wetlands, 2002;
Remnant vegetation (pre-clearing and V5), 2003;
World Heritage areas, 2008;
WildNet database, 2004, (data extracted 2009);
Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) database:
Protected Flora, Fauna, Ecological Communities, Heritage Places, sites of international significance such as World Heritage and Ramsar Wetlands), Protected Matter report 4 June 2009;
National Native Title Tribunal: Native title claim areas;
Geological Survey of Queensland: 1:100,000 scale geological maps, 2004;
Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation:
Weed washdown facilities, 2009;
Petroleum and mining tenements, restricted areas, 2009;
RLMS: Industry and Infrastructure database; 2009.
Non-digital data references used in the preparation of this report are listed in Section 8.
Page 11
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
3.4 LimitationsThis investigation was based largely on information publicly available together with confidential information supplied by proponents of the gas pipelines. Much of the study area was inaccessible by vehicle during the field reviews. A helicopter survey was not carried out due to the potential to impact on landholders and land use such as cattle management.
It is important to note that additional constraints may exist in areas where only limited desktop and field investigations were completed. The size and scale of identified constraints may also expand into areas not previously examined in detail.
A detailed assessment of environmental impacts was not undertaken as part of this study. Each proponent using the CIC will be required to address the potential impacts in detail in order to obtain the relevant approvals.
Page 12
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
4. CORRIDOR PARAMETERS
4.1 Corridor selection criteriaA range of corridor selection criteria were developed in consultation with Department of Infrastructure and Planning. These are based on RLMS route selection experience and have been developed over a number of projects. They are listed in Table 4-1together with the rationale behind the criteria.
Table 4-1 : Corridor Selection Criteria
Criteria Rationale
Maximise the potential to co-locate gas pipelines within the corridor.
There are four currently proposed pipeline projects with potential for consolidation of a number of these, and potential for others to be planned. The CIC should allow looping (duplication) of pipelines and addition of others while minimising its width.
Minimise the terrain constraint on the route.
A corridor which contains significant slopes or multiple bends has the potential to limit the diameter of a gas pipeline and increase the costs of construction.
Maximise ease of access for construction and operations.
Providing a route with easy access for construction and operations can assist in minimising construction costs, logistical issues and impacts during construction and operations.
Minimise construction constraints such as:
Areas subject to inundation; Soil stability and erodability; Extent of rock; Number of watercourse
crossings; Number of infrastructure
crossings; Working in third party
easements.
Minimising construction constraints in route selection will assist in minimising the extent of disturbance required for construction, the duration of construction, the scale of impacts and ultimately the costs of construction.
Minimise disturbance to existing landholders and land use.
A corridor that is able to avoid high density residential areas and land uses that would be adversely impacted by the construction and operation of the pipelines would result in less disturbance during construction and may assist in obtaining landholder acceptance of the proposal.
Minimise disturbance to areas of known ecological value.
It is preferable to avoid areas of known ecological value during corridor selection in order to minimise the potential impacts during construction and operation of the pipelines. Avoidance of areas of high ecological value will also assist in ensuring that users of the corridor will be able to obtain the necessary permits to enable construction.
Minimise disturbance to known It is preferable to locate the corridor to avoid known sites, where data is available, which will assist in
Page 13
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Criteria Rationale
heritage values. minimising adverse impacts to heritage values.
Minimise corridor length. Minimising the overall length of a potential gas pipeline can provide significant economic benefits to a project(e.g. construction cost is approximately $1-2M per km).
Minimise disturbance to and potential interference from existing third party infrastructure.
Minimising the need to cross existing infrastructure will assist in minimising construction constraint. Minimising proximity to sources of high voltage electricity (e.g. electrified rail and transmission lines) will minimise potential conflicts associated with induced current and cathodic protection of the gas pipelines within the corridor.
4.2 Constraints to selecting a corridor routeAppendix A contains a description of the features and characteristics of the Investigations Study Area. Potential constraints within the Study Area, that relate to the selection criteria above are identified in Appendix A and include:
Topography;
Land tenure;
Land use;
Existing infrastructure;
Environmentally sensitive areas such as remnant vegetation, protected areas, essential habitat and matters of national environmental significance;
Watercourses and dams;
Geology and soils; and
Known cultural heritage areas.
4.3 Landholders and land useA key objective of an infrastructure corridor is to minimise the impacts on landholders by co-locating infrastructure within the one specified area rather than allowing each project proponent to take out separate easements over property. The co-location of infrastructure within one easement substantially reduces disturbance to landholders, their land use and activities, and the environment.
As a result of the importance the Department of Infrastructure and Planning places on landholder engagement, Rowland was engaged to develop and carry out the landholder communication strategy. A separate report has been completed by Rowland for the Department on this aspect of the CIC study.
4.4 Potential corridor usersSeven LNG Projects have been announced for the Gladstone Region. All projects are planning to source gas from the Surat and/or Bowen Basins in Queensland:
The SUN LNG Project propose to use gas transported in the existing QGP to the Gladstone City Gas Gate. SUN LNG proposed to construct a short pipeline (3.5km) within the GSDA from the Gladstone City Gas Gate to the LNG site on Fisherman’s Landing Wharf. Therefore this project would not be a potential user of the CIC.
Page 14
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
No information is available for the open access pipeline proposed by Southern Cross Pty Ltd, however, given the location of CSG reserves in Queensland, it is possible that SCLNG will be a future user of the CIC.
Gladstone LNG will be located at Fisherman’s Landing Wharf. Surat Gladstone Pipeline Pty Ltd (SGP), a wholly owned subsidiary of Arrow Energy, is proposing to develop a 470km underground pipeline that will deliver CSG from Arrow’s Surat Basin gas fields (Kogan North Central Gas Processing Facility) to the Gladstone LNG facility. SGP is a potential user of the CIC between Callide and the GSDA.
The Shell Australia LNG Project is proposed by Shell CSG (Australia) Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell PLC. The Project would ultimately have the capacity to produce 16 Mtpa from up to four liquefaction trains located on Curtis Island. The CSG would be supplied from jointly owned (with Arrow Energy) petroleum acreage in both the Surat and Bowen Basins. While this project includes a gas pipeline from the Gladstone City Gas Gate to the plant on Curtis Island, the feed CSG would be delivered to the Gas Gate by the SGP and/or the approved (but yet to be constructed) Central Queensland Gas Pipeline. Therefore, this project itself would not be a potential user of the CIC.
GLNG is a Joint Venture between Santos (60%) and Petronas (40%). The proposed 435km underground gas pipeline will deliver CSG from Santos’ Surat and Bowen gas fields to an initial 3-4 Mtpa single train LNG processing plant on Curtis Island. GLNG is considered a potential user of the CIC.
QCLNG is a project of QGC (a BG Group Business) to develop their CSG operations in the Surat Basin. A 380km underground pipeline is proposed to deliver the CSG to a liquefaction plant on Curtis Island. The LNG Plant will have an initial production capacity of 7.4 Mtpa LNG. QCLNG is a potential user of the CIC.
APLNG is a joint venture of Origin Energy and ConocoPhillips. The project involves the expansion of production of CSG from the Walloons gas fields. The CSG will be transported to Gladstone by a 400km underground gas pipeline. An initial 4 Mtpa liquefaction train is planned for the APLNG plant in Gladstone with a maximum capacity of 16 Mtpa. The gas pipeline component of this project could potentially be located within the CIC.
Table 4-2 lists the basic statistics for the gas pipelines that could potentially be located within the CIC. The information has been supplied by proponents and is subject to change.
Note that the APLNG project was announced after the other projects and there is less information available.
Page 15
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Table 4-2 : Potential Corridor Users and their Pipeline Requirements
Pipeline Statistics GLNG QCLNG APLNG SGP
Easement /LicenceWidth
50m 50m 50m 30m
Pipe Diameter 900mm (36”) 1070mm (42”) 1320 (52”) or 1070mm (42”)
600mm (24”)
Max Operating Pressure
15 MPa 15 MPa 10.2 MPa or 15 MPa
15 MPa
Capacity 170-220 PJ/yr NP NP 263 PJ/yr
Minimum cold bend radius per joint
8-9° 20° NP NP
Future looping proposed
Yes Yes No Yes
Main Line Valve in corridor
Yes Yes (2) NP No
NP: not provided
Page 16
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
5. CORRIDOR OPTIONSThe development of the corridor route options considered the following:
The selection criteria referred to in Section 4.1. Of these selection criteria,topographic constraints were given priority because it imposes significant technical difficulties for pipes of the diameter proposed in the CIC.
Individual routes developed by each pipeline proponent.
Existing easement for the QGP.
Consultation with landholders.
5.1 Identification of broad corridor options
5.1.1 Scope
The broad corridor route options were developed by considering the selection criteria outlined in Section 4 and constraints identified during the desktop investigation.These broad options are described in more detail below and shown on Figure 5-1. These options were briefly investigated in the field to either rule them out or include for further investigation.
The option for all proponents to utilise the one pipeline carrier has not been considered. The capacity required to deliver sufficient gas for all proposed LNG projects is prohibitive and a pipeline with a large enough diameter (or a duplicated pipeline) would be impractical to build. More than two pipelines would have to be built which therefore has the same issues as determining a corridor for the existing proponents, i.e. the major topographical constraint areas do not have enough room for more than one pipeline easement.
5.1.2 Broad corridor options
Option 1 – Generally follows the route chosen by a number of proponents through the Callide and Calliope Ranges, commencing east of Callide Dam. The route follows Coal Road north through several valleys, and comes off the Callide Range to the south east of the Dawson Highway. It tracks through the Calliope Range to the south of the Dawson Highway and then generally follows the existing Queensland Gas Pipeline route to the Larcom Creek Meter Station just west of the GSDA.
Option 2 – Follows a route chosen by a number of proponents, generally following the Dawson Highway through both the Callide and Calliope Ranges. It joins Option 1once east of the Calliope Range.
Option 3 – Commences to the east of Jambin, and runs north of Boundary Hill Coal Mine, tracking north of the Callide Timber Reserve. Option 3 then generally follows to the south of the Moura Short Line rail, then crosses the rail line to pass to the north of Mount Redshirt. The route tracks in an easterly direction through undulating cleared farm land and then turns north north-east, past Mount Alma township, to the Larcom Creek Meter Station.
Option 4 – is similar to Option 3, diverting to follow Back Creek upstream to the north of Mount Redshirt. It then rejoins Option 3 to the Larcom Creek Meter Station.
Option 5 – Tracks east through the Don River State Forest passing to the north of Mount Redshirt and joins the same route as Options 3 and 4 to the Larcom Creek Meter Station.
Page 17
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Option 6 – is a deviation that could be applied to Options 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 and gives an alternate location for entry to the GSDA. The route option tracks north and entersthe GSDA south of the Mount Larcom township.
Option 7 – is wholly outside the Investigations Study Area. This option follows a route through the Ulam Range which lies north of the Calliope Range. There is a similar length of rugged terrain to the Calliope Range, then the route follows gently undulating cleared farm land, crossing the Bruce Highway north west of the smalltownship of Ambrose.
5.2 Assessment of broad route optionsEach of the broad corridor route options was assessed in the field against the corridor selection criteria.
Table 5-1 summarises the assessment against the selection criteria. Where there is a major constraint which is very difficult to overcome for any of the broad route options, the option was ruled out. This is indicated in the Table by red shading of the table cell.
Option 1 route through the Callide Range will be difficult to accommodate more than two pipelines, however there appears to be no topographical constraints on the rest of the route. There is potential for some impact on a small number of environmentally sensitive areas and a timber plantation.
Option 2 has similar terrain constraints to Option 1 through the Callide Range, and then follows the same route as Option 1.
Option 3 was not considered viable as there were pinch points that would not allow multiple pipelines to be constructed in close proximity. It also increases the length of pipeline for all potential users. The same assessment was made for Option 4 and it was also ruled out.
Option 5 goes through the Don River State Forest and would also require all proponents to track much further north in order to join the corridor. Therefore, due to the significant increase in length and the subsequent increase in costs over Options 1 or 2, this option was discarded.
Option 6 provides an alternative entry point in to the GSDA for the gas pipelines, however it goes outside the Investigations Study Area. Also, it is constrained as it tracks between the East End mine site and associated infrastructure and Larcom Creek, and also passes through smaller land holdings, increasing the number of landholders affected.
Option 7 seeks an alternative to the Callide and Calliope Range crossing. It tracks a long way north in order to find a feasible route through the Ulam Range. The increase in length for proponents is not justified as the terrain in the Ulam Range is just as rough as that for Options 1 and 2. In addition, co-location of several pipelines is not possible due to the terrain constraints. Therefore this Option 7 was not considered further.
In summary, Options 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were discarded and Options 1 and 2 were short listed and are discussed further in the next section.
Pag
e 18
RLM
S |
CA
LLID
E IN
FR
AS
TR
UC
TU
RE
CO
RR
IDO
R S
TU
DY
Ι A
UG
US
T 2
009
Tab
le 5
-1 C
om
par
iso
n o
f b
road
co
rrid
or
op
tio
ns
wit
h s
elec
tio
n c
rite
ria
Cri
teri
aO
pti
on
1O
pti
on
2O
pti
on
3O
pti
on
4O
pti
on
5O
pti
on
6(d
evia
tio
n)
Op
tio
n 7
Max
imis
e p
ote
nti
al
to c
on
solid
ate
ga
s p
ipel
ines
in
corr
ido
r
Diff
icul
t for
four
pr
opon
ents
to
follo
w s
ame
rout
e th
roug
h C
allid
e R
ange
.
Diff
icul
t for
four
pr
opon
ents
to
follo
w s
ame
rout
e th
roug
h C
allid
e R
ang
e.
Diff
icul
t for
mor
e th
an o
ne
prop
onen
t to
co-
loca
te.
Diff
icul
t for
mor
e th
an o
ne
prop
onen
t to
co-
loca
te.
Unk
now
nN
ot a
pplic
able
Diff
icul
t for
four
pr
opon
ents
to
follo
w s
ame
rout
e th
roug
h U
lam
Ran
ge.
Min
imis
e te
rrai
n
con
stra
int
Nec
essi
tate
s di
verg
ing
from
co
-loca
tion
of
pipe
lines
to
pick
ing
own
rout
e th
roug
h ro
ugh
terr
ain
of C
allid
e an
d C
allio
pe
Ran
ges.
Res
t of
rout
e O
K.
Nec
essi
tate
s di
verg
ing
from
co
-loca
tion
of
pipe
lines
to
pick
ing
own
rout
e th
roug
h ro
ugh
terr
ain
of
Cal
lide
and
Cal
liope
R
ange
s. R
est o
f ro
ute
OK
.
Nec
essi
tate
s di
verg
ing
from
co
-loca
tion
of
pipe
lines
to
pick
ing
own
rout
e th
roug
h ro
ugh
terr
ain
of
Cal
lide
and
Cal
liope
R
ange
s. R
est o
f ro
ute
OK
.
Nec
essi
tate
s di
verg
ing
from
co
-loca
tion
of
pipe
lines
to
pick
ing
own
rout
e th
roug
h ro
ugh
terr
ain
of
Cal
lide
and
Cal
liope
R
ange
s. R
est o
f ro
ute
OK
.
Unk
now
nN
ot a
pplic
able
8-10
km o
f ro
ugh
terr
ain
thro
ugh
Ula
m
Ran
ge. R
est o
f ro
ute
OK
.
Max
imis
e ea
se o
f ac
cess
Acc
ess
good
al
ong
mos
t of
rout
e
Acc
ess
good
al
ong
mos
t of
rout
e
Acc
ess
fair
alon
g m
ost o
f ro
ute.
Acc
ess
fair
alon
g m
ost o
f ro
ute
exce
pt
alon
g B
ack
Cre
ek to
Mou
nt
Red
shirt
.
Acc
ess
very
di
fficu
lt fo
r m
ost
of r
oute
. Cou
ld
not a
cces
s b
y ve
hicl
e on
pub
lic
road
s to
in
vest
igat
e op
tion
fully
in
the
field
.
Goo
d ac
cess
av
aila
ble.
Acc
ess
diff
icul
t at
sta
rt n
ear
Ula
m R
ange
bu
t get
s be
tter
once
dow
n th
e ra
nge
into
farm
la
nd.
Min
imis
e co
nst
ruct
ion
R
ough
but
co
nstr
uctib
le.
Rou
gh b
ut
cons
truc
tible
Rou
gh b
ut
cons
truc
tible
Eas
ier
cons
truc
tion
Qui
te h
illy
thro
ugh
the
wes
t E
asy
cons
truc
tion.
Qui
te r
ough
th
roug
h an
d
Pag
e 19
RLM
S |
CA
LLID
E IN
FR
AS
TR
UC
TU
RE
CO
RR
IDO
R S
TU
DY
Ι A
UG
US
T 2
009
Cri
teri
aO
pti
on
1O
pti
on
2O
pti
on
3O
pti
on
4O
pti
on
5O
pti
on
6(d
evia
tio
n)
Op
tio
n 7
con
stra
ints
than
opt
ion
3.of
Don
Riv
er
Sta
te F
ores
t.w
est o
f the
U
lam
Ran
ge.
Min
imis
e d
istu
rban
ce t
oex
isti
ng
la
nd
ho
lder
s
Affe
cts
pulp
woo
d pl
antin
g.A
ffect
s pu
lpw
ood
plan
ting.
Affe
c ts
som
e pu
lpw
ood
plan
ting.
Affe
cts
som
e pu
lpw
ood
plan
ting.
Affe
cts
som
e pu
lpw
ood
plan
ting.
Sm
alle
r la
ndho
ldin
gs
affe
ctin
g m
ore
land
hold
ers.
Unk
now
n fo
r m
ost o
f the
ro
ute,
with
smal
ler
land
hold
ings
on
the
east
end
.
Min
imis
e d
istu
rban
ce t
o
area
s o
f kn
ow
n
eco
log
ical
val
ue
Som
e im
pact
po
ssib
le to
vu
lner
able
sp
ecie
s. S
mal
l pa
tche
s of
en
dang
ered
and
of
con
cern
RE
th
at c
ould
be
avoi
ded
if ne
eded
. A
num
ber
of a
reas
of
ess
entia
l ha
bita
t for
a
thre
aten
ed
spec
ies,
incl
udi
ng
at p
oint
whe
re
Opt
ion
2 jo
ins
Opt
ion
1. C
an b
e av
oide
d if
need
ed.
Som
e im
pact
po
ssib
le to
vu
lner
able
sp
ecie
s. S
mal
l pa
tche
s of
en
dang
ered
and
of
con
cern
RE
th
at c
ould
be
avoi
ded
if ne
eded
. A
num
ber
of a
reas
of
ess
entia
l ha
bita
t for
a
thre
aten
ed
spec
ies,
in
clud
ing
at
poin
t whe
re
Opt
ion
1 jo
ins
2.
Can
be
avoi
ded
if ne
eded
.
Som
e im
pact
po
ssib
le to
vu
lner
able
sp
ecie
s. S
mal
l pa
tche
s of
en
dang
ered
R
Es
that
cou
ld
be a
void
ed if
ne
eded
. One
is
also
a
thre
aten
ed
com
mun
ity
unde
r th
e E
PB
C
Act
.
Som
e im
pact
po
ssib
le to
vu
lner
able
sp
ecie
s. S
mal
l pa
tche
s of
en
dang
ered
R
Es
that
cou
ld
be a
void
ed if
ne
eded
. One
is
also
a
thre
aten
ed
com
mun
ity
unde
r th
e E
PB
C
Act
. Goe
s th
roug
h of
co
ncer
n R
E.
Goe
s th
roug
h O
f co
ncer
n (s
ub-
dom
inan
t)R
egio
nal
Eco
syst
em in
th
e D
on R
iver
S
tate
For
est.
Sm
all p
atch
of
enda
nger
ed R
E
that
cou
ld b
e av
oide
d.
Goe
s in
to la
rge
vege
tate
d ar
ea
how
ever
not
lis
ted
as
rem
nant
.
Pot
entia
l im
pact
on
thre
aten
ed
com
mun
ities
in
the
Ula
m
Ran
ge S
tate
F
ores
t and
cl
oser
to th
e B
ruce
Hig
hwa
y.
Min
imis
e P
oten
tial f
or
Pot
entia
l for
P
oten
tial f
or
Pot
entia
l for
P
oten
tial f
or
Pot
entia
l for
P
oten
tial f
or
Pag
e 20
RLM
S |
CA
LLID
E IN
FR
AS
TR
UC
TU
RE
CO
RR
IDO
R S
TU
DY
Ι A
UG
US
T 2
009
Cri
teri
aO
pti
on
1O
pti
on
2O
pti
on
3O
pti
on
4O
pti
on
5O
pti
on
6(d
evia
tio
n)
Op
tio
n 7
dis
turb
ance
to
ar
eas
of
kno
wn
h
erit
age
valu
e
dist
urba
nce
to
herit
age
valu
es.
dist
urba
nce
t o
herit
age
valu
es.
dist
urba
nce
to
herit
age
valu
es.
dist
urba
nce
to
herit
age
valu
es.
dist
urba
nce
to
herit
age
valu
es.
dist
urba
nce
to
herit
age
valu
es.
dist
urba
nce
to
herit
age
valu
es.
Min
imis
e co
rrid
or
len
gth
Ave
rage
A
vera
geLo
nger
than
O
ptio
n 4.
C
onne
ctio
n to
co
rrid
or r
oute
is
long
er fo
r po
tent
ial
prop
onen
ts.
Ave
rage
Con
nect
ion
to
corr
idor
rou
te is
lo
nger
for
pote
ntia
l pr
opon
ents
.
Pot
entia
lly
shor
ter
for
prop
onen
ts
head
ing
to
Cur
tis Is
land
, de
pend
ing
on
rout
e th
roug
h G
SD
A.
Dev
iate
s a
long
w
ay n
orth
to g
et
thro
ugh
the
rang
e.
Con
nect
ion
to
corr
idor
rou
te is
lo
nger
for
pote
ntia
l pr
opon
ents
.
Min
imis
e d
istu
rban
ce t
o a
nd
fr
om
th
ird
par
ty
infr
astr
uct
ure
Sm
all n
umbe
r of
cr
ossi
ngs.
Sm
all n
umbe
r of
cr
ossi
ngs.
Nec
essi
tate
s se
vera
l mor
e cr
ossi
ngs
of th
e M
oura
Sho
rt
Line
rai
l tha
n th
e ot
her
optio
ns.
Sm
all n
umbe
r of
cr
ossi
ngs.
Sm
all n
umbe
r of
cr
ossi
ngs.
Rou
te p
asse
s be
twee
n E
ast
End
Min
e an
d B
ruce
Hig
hwa
y an
d al
so n
eeds
to
cro
ss th
e lim
esto
ne s
lurr
y pi
pelin
e an
d R
ockh
ampt
on
Bra
nch
Line
(g
as p
ipel
ine)
.
Unk
now
n.
Ou
t o
f co
rrid
or
fact
ors
Not
app
licab
leG
oes
into
coa
l te
nem
ent
Goe
s in
to c
oal
tene
men
tG
oes
into
coa
l te
nem
ent
Not
app
licab
leP
lace
s pi
pelin
es
into
rou
gh
terr
ain
with
in th
e
GS
DA
.
Not
app
licab
le
Red
sha
ding
und
er a
n op
tion
indi
cate
s th
at a
spec
t has
rul
ed th
e op
tion
out.
Page 21
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
5.3 Further investigations on short listed optionsThe investigation into the short listed options was undertaken in two stages due to constructability constraints in the Callide Range. This is described in detail below.
5.3.1 Route investigation in the Callide Range
An advantage of Options 1 and 2 is that they follow one or more of the proponents’preferred pipeline routes. As discussed in Section 2, during the preliminary field investigation, it was evident that due to the terrain constraints through the Callide Range, the constructability of all proposed pipelines would be reduced as a result of the characteristics of the pipe and its inability to bend at large angles to follow contours. Therefore, to co-locate two or more proponents within a narrow corridor through the range would be extremely difficult. For the proponents proposing future duplicate pipelines, it may be necessary at the time of initial construction to pre-blast rock and lay looping pipe at pinch points in order to reduce future construction impact on the operating pipeline.
Following consideration by the Department of Infrastructure and Planning of issues relating to the range crossing, a possible split corridor route through the Callide Range was determined by desktop, using the proponents’ routes that were available at the time as a guide (CIC Bifurcation Revision 0). It accommodates the existing pipeline proposals, commencing at two locations west and south of the Callide Range (refer to Figure 5-2). It is expected that at least one of the proponents will join the corridor from the west and at least two from the south. The two arms of the proposed corridor through the range come together at the eastern base of the Callide Range. The corridor then tracks north east through the Calliope Range.
It was agreed between RLMS and the Department of Infrastructure and Planning to focus on refining a CIC route from the Calliope Range to the GSDA and not include the Callide Range at this stage, therefore this portion of the corridor is not discussed further.
5.3.2 Refinement of the Preliminary CIC
The common section of Options 1 and 2 was investigated and refined separately to the corridor options in the Ranges. A preliminary CIC (Revision 0) from Options 1 and 2 was defined by desktop.
Revision 0
Revision 0 crosses the Dawson Highway and then tracks north of the highway to cross the Moura Short Line Rail near Duck Holes Road. It then crosses Calliope River at a 45° angle, stays on the north of the river through open country, and crosses Harper Creek, and Alarm Creek. This route then crosses the QGP and Sandy Creek in close proximity and tracks north crossing Mount Alma Road a few times. It crosses Gravel and Larcom Creeks and ends next to the Mount Larcom Meter Station.
Figures 5-3A and 5-3B shows the refinement of the CIC through different revisions as described below.
Page 22
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Revision A
Revision 0 was refined slightly in a meeting with two of the proponents to become Revision A. The differences between Revision 0 and Revision A are the following:
The bifurcation through the Callide Range is not included.
The route changes between Harper Creek and Alarm Creek to pass to the north of a hill, bringing the route closer to Mount Alma Road.
Revision B
Revision A was then ground-truthed in the field on 26 May 2009 to become RevisionB. The changes made due to field observations include:
Commenced corridor at cadastre boundary on property next to the Dawson Highway road reserve. No route through the Callide or Calliope Range is included.
Ensured the route passed to the north of a cattle dip site found to be included in the Revision A corridor, in order to avoid potential contaminated soils.
Moved the crossing of the Moura Short Line rail approximately 200m to the east away from a cutting to minimise the depth of bore pits required to bore under the rail line.
Straightened the section between the Calliope River crossing and after Harper Creek crossing, bending before the Alarm Creek crossing, in order to minimise length of the corridor.
Slight directional change in the north-south section after the crossing of the QGP and Sandy Creek to minimise length of the corridor.
Crossing of Mount Alma Road changes to after the crossing of Gravel Creek and Larcom Creek, to minimise length of the corridor.
Corridor ends at Bruce Highway about 400m south of Revision A as there is a cultural heritage site within the GSDA which has to be avoided.
Between Harper Creek and Alarm Creek are pulpwood plantations owned by ITC. No consultation occurred with ITC, however, in the field, changing the corridor route to follow the fire breaks through the plantation was considered. Consequently, it was estimated that the increase in length of the pipelines would cost more than the compensation payable on the trees. Therefore the route goes through the plantation as originally proposed.
Revision C
Revision C resulted from recognizing that the corridor had to be widened at key locations, such as crossings, to accommodate certain construction issues. These construction issues are discussed in more detail in Section 7.2 and include widening the corridor to minimise interference between users of the corridor during construction activities and allowing more space for stockpiling of spoil.
Revision C has the same centerline as Revision B and the following changes in corridor width:
Approximately 1.2km wide section at the start of the corridor allows entry by all proponents into the corridor before the Calliope Range, at the boundary of the two local government authorities, at the boundary of the two native title claim areas, and at a cadastre boundary. (As discussed previously a common corridor through the Callide Range is not recommended).
600m width provided for the crossing of the Moura Short Line Rail.
500m length of the Calliope River provided for crossings.
Page 23
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
500m crossing point of Harper Creek provided and 300m crossing of Alarm Creek provided.
Larger area, considering cadastre boundaries and dissection of properties has been allowed at the location where the route bends to the north and requires the pipelines to cross the QGP and Sandy Creek.
300m crossing of Larcom Creek provided.
300m crossing of Bruce Highway provided.
Revision D
All proponents of pipelines that could potentially use the CIC came together to consider the proposed CIC route, based on Revision C. A proposed route for the CIC agreed between all proponents was presented to the Government on 19 June 2009. This is shown on Figures 5-4A and 5-4B as proponent corridor (revision G).
The proposal by the proponents was considered and the following conclusions made:
The western arm of the corridor was widened to 200m to accommodate more than one pipe. The eastern arm was also widened to 200m to allow some construction area coming down the Calliope Range. The proponents proposed three pipelines within this area.
Accept the widening of the eastern arm as it crosses the existing QGP and the Dawson Highway.
Accept lengthening the corridor at the rail crossing to allow construction area for the pipe to be pulled through the thrust bore under the rail. A slightly widened area to the cadastre boundary is provided as cathodic protection mitigation will be required at the rail crossing and requires additional area between pipelines.
Accept the Calliope River crossing as proposed as it reduces the area allowed for in Revision C for construction purposes. A slight adjustment to the cadastre boundary was made.
Accept the Harper Creek crossing as proposed as it allows a better angle of approach to the creek crossing.
Accept the pipelines have to spread out to cross the QGP, however after turning north, do not agree that the pipelines have to remain apart with some following Mt Alma Road and some deviating between the road and the QGP. Sufficient area for pipelines to pass either side of existing dam has been allowed, then the pipelines have been brought together to a single 200m wide corridor before it crosses Mount Alma Road.
Do not accept the deviations out of the 200m corridor at Wycheproof Road. The corridor has been slightly widened to allow some movement of pipeline alignment over small hill.
Accept slight widening at Larcom Creek crossing.
Accept corridor abutting the QGP easement at the Bruce Highway. However the cultural heritage site within the GSDA must be noted by users when aligning their pipeline. Corridor widens to approximately 500m at the Bruce Highway crossing.
The changes above were developed into Revision D as illustrated on Figures 5-4A and 5-4B for comparison with the proponents’ corridor.
Page 24
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
5.4 Refinement of corridor route with landholder engagementLandholder engagement commenced with Revision D as the base case. Representatives of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, RLMS and Rowland visited affected landholders to discuss the proposed CIC corridor route Revision D. A number of landholders were visited a second time to clarify issues and to refine the route.
In summary, issues that were raised by landholders included:
Potential impact on existing and future farm activities and farm activities during construction within the corridor. This was of particular concern where the corridor traverses through the middle of land parcels.
Understanding construction activities and reasons for widening corridor at certain locations such as rocky areas and some rail, road and watercourse crossings.
Impact of corridor on future potential subdivision for lifestyle blocks.
These issues and landholder requests were investigated as refinement options and were revised into Revisions E1 and E2. Further detail on landholder concerns and reassessment of the corridor route alignment is provided in Appendix B.
In summary, Revision F of the CIC route resulted from the following considerations:
Where landholder alternatives involved additional watercourse or road crossings, or greater number of bends in the alignment, these were considered disadvantages due to increased construction difficulty and additional area of land impacted.
Where alternatives involved diverting around the boundary of a land parcel, rather than through the middle, the benefits to the landholder’s farm management practices were weighed against the increased length of pipe and additional bends, which increase construction costs.
Opportunities for improved access were taken by aligning the corridor adjacent to a road reserve.
Potential adverse impact on the integrity of a permanent waterhole and potential cultural heritage issues were avoided by a realignment to another crossing location over Harper Creek.
It was noted that in certain areas, the overall impact from construction activities can be reduced by allowing more width in the corridor, rather than requiring difficult construction in a constrained area.
Realignment of roads was not considered desirable.
The progression from Revision D through to Revision F is shown on Figures 5-5A and 5-5B.
Page 25
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
5.5 Refinement of corridor route with constructability assessment
A constructability field assessment was undertaken with representatives of the pipeline proponents. The shape of the corridor was refined at three locations as follows:
Start of main CIC in Calliope Range: Entry widened to allow pipelines to enter from varying directions. Encompasses difficult terrain for construction so additional area provided over the Calliope Range to ensure construction options (such as directional drilling) are able to be achieved within the corridor. Crossing of first gully remains the same.
Moura Short Line crossing: Exit from Moura Short Line crossing moved to the north to avoid a small drainage gully on the southern side. Width remains much the same. Location of Duck Holes Road and Calliope River crossings remain unchanged.
Mount Alma Road section: Corridor was shifted to the west to avoid side slope construction. Change takes the corridor to the boundary of the property adjacent Mount Alma Road further south than the previous option. Corridor slightly wider to provide additional area to accommodate side slope construction.
Figures illustrating these refinements are included in Appendix C.
The final refinements are incorporated into Revision G which is the preferred CIC route alignment.
Page 26
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
6. RECOMMENDED CORRIDORThe recommended route for the Callide Infrastructure Corridor is Revision G. This recommended route was selected and refined based on the criteria discussed in Section 4 and the comparative analysis of route options provided in Section 5. This section of the report provides a detailed description of the recommended CIC route and map series.
6.1 Key statistics of recommended CIC routeFigure 6-1 shows the overall alignment of the preferred corridor and includes the centre line and kilometre posts for easy identification of locations within the CIC.
Table 6-1 presents in more detail the key statistics for the recommended CIC route.Many of the attributes are reported by length of corridor. For example, 43.7km of the total CIC length passes through freehold land, while 0.9km of the CIC passes through reserve land.
Table 6-1 : Key Statistics for Preferred CIC Revision G
Attribute Value
Length Main CIC 44.0km
Western lateral 5.1km
Total 49.1km
Width Nominal 200m
Land Parcels (total) 54
Cadastral Information
Freehold - By length 43.7km
Freehold - By number of parcels 30
Leasehold - By length 3.3km
Leasehold - By number of parcels 2
Reserves – By length 0.9km
Reserves – By number of parcels 1
Road reserves – By number of parcels 17 (crossings only)
Drainage reserves – By number of parcels 4 (crossings only)
Land Use
Production from relatively natural environments –By length
49.1km
Restricted areas – By length 20.0km
(proposed Castlehope dam site on
Page 27
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Attribute Value
Calliope River, Rockhampton Branch Gas Pipeline)
Native Title
No. of Claims intersected 1
Coverage of NT Claims – By length 49.1km
Mineral and Petroleum Exploration and Mining
Petroleum Tenements – By length 0km
Mining Leases – By length 0km
Mining Development Leases – By length 0km
Exploration Permit Coal – By length 5.1km (EPC1507)
Crossings
Registered Easements 6 easements (including electricity transmission lines and QGP easements)
Infrastructure:
Pipelines
Power lines
Roads
Railway
QGP x 2
Double 275kV x 1
Single 275kV x 1
Sealed Principal Roads x 2
(Dawson Hwy, Bruce Hwy)
Unsealed Minor Roads x 5
Tracks x 2
1
Watercourses Major x 1 (Calliope River)
Minor x 5 (Harper Ck, Alarm Ck, Sandy Ck, Gravel Ck, Larcom Ck)
Unnamed minor x 12
Environmental
Protected Areas (e.g. National Parks) – By length 0km
Endangered REs – By length 0km
Of concern REs – By length 0.2km plus 0.5km on edge of corridor
Essential habitat – By length 1.7km (Cycas megacarpa)
Page 28
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
6.2 Detailed description of recommended CIC routeThis section provides a description of Revision G of the CIC. A map series illustrating the route is provided.
6.2.1 Bifurcation – KP000 to KP004 and KP000L to KP005L
This is the entry section to the CIC (refer to Figure 6-2). The eastern entry is considered the main CIC and the Kilometre Post numbering (KPs) reflect this. Up to three of the potential users of the CIC have nominated to enter using this 4km section of the CIC. The main CIC starts off approximately 500m wide to allow potential users to enter from varying directions. It commences at the Local Government boundary and immediately traverses the Calliope Range. It crosses a gully and skirts to the east of the Wyalla Homestead before crossing the Dawson Highway and Queensland Gas Pipeline. The western entry lateral joins the main CIC at this point. The western lateral also commences at the Local Government boundary and crosses the Calliope Range within one kilometre of its commencement. GLNG intend to use the western entry to the CIC.
Bifurcation: KP000 – KP004 and KP000L – KP005L
Land tenure Main CIC is all freehold except Dawson Highway road reservecrossing. 1.3km main CIC in coal exploration permit area. First 3.2km of western lateral is in leasehold and 3.8km of lateral length in the coal exploration permit.
Topographic features Initial 500m of main CIC in Calliope Range then becomes undulating terrain. Lateral has approx 3.5km in rugged terrain before becoming quite flat land.
Vegetation 500m of main CIC (within the Calliope Range) vegetated of which all is nominated essential habitat for the endangered Cycas megacarpa. 100m is of concern dominant (75%) regional ecosystem. 3.2km of the western lateral is vegetated with approx. 1km essential habitat (Cycas megacarpa) and of concern regional ecosystem.
Infrastructure crossings QGP and Dawson Highway at KP003.5 on main CIC.
Plate 1 Cycas megacarpa (ref: Scott Maclean, Palm & Cycad Societies of Australia)
Page 29
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) and the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) have advised that the area of the Calliope Range crossed by the main CIC is being negotiated as an offset commitment under the Nature Conservation Act 1992. DTMR has identified the area as an offset because individual plants of the endangered Cycas megacarpa species will have to be removed and/or transplanted for the proposed Dawson Highway upgrade.
As noted in the summary table above, a portion of the main CIC and the western lateral are located within Of Concern regional ecosystem and essential habitat for the Cycas megacarpa species. This portion of the Calliope Range is also one of very few crossing points for infrastructure (road, rail and pipelines) from central west Queensland, through the ranges to the coastal plains and to the Port of Gladstone. All proponents have previously indentified routes through the Calliope Range in this vicinity.
It is recommended the Department of Infrastructure and Planning lead further consultation between DTMR, DERM and the individual proponents with the objective of coordinating negotiation and acquisition of suitable Cycas megacarpa habitat for conservation, in areas which do not compromise logical crossing points of the Calliope Range.
Plate 2 – Calliope Range, commencement of the CIC
Page 30
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
6.2.2 Calliope River – KP004 to KP018
This section of the CIC trends generally in a north easterly direction through cleared grazing land (refer to Figure 6-3). It passes through a camping and water reserve and runs adjacent the Dawson Highway to KP010. The CIC crosses the Moura Short Line Rail at KP011, Duck Holes Road at KP012.6 and the Calliope River at KP013.2.The alignment bends to the north to generally follow the Mount Alma Road.
Calliope River : KP004 – KP018
Land tenure Moura Short Line on leasehold property, Camping and water reserve at KP006.1 to KP007.1. Rest freehold.
Topographic features Relatively flat some gently undulating terrain, major watercourse crossing at Calliope River and a number of drainage lines.
Vegetation Significant riparian vegetation on Calliope River, some riparian vegetation on other drainage/creek lines, majority of corridor is through cleared grazing country.
Infrastructure crossings Single 275kV power line crossed at KP005.8, Moura Short Line rail crossed at KP011.
Plate 3 – Moura Short Line within CIC
Page 31
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
6.2.3 Alarm Creek – KP018 to KP030
In this section, the CIC leaves the Mount Alma Road to cross Harper Creek (refer toFigure 6-4). It crosses Harper Creek at KP021.2. The CIC is within the ITC Alarm Creek timber plantation from approximately KP021.2 to the Alarm Creek crossing at KP025.6. The CIC crosses Mount Alma Road at KP026.7, then crosses the QGP at KP029.1 and Sandy Creek at KP029.3. Immediately after the Sandy Creek crossing, the CIC turns almost due north following on the western side of Mount Alma Road. A number of the pipelines within the CIC may have to cross Mount Alma Road a couple of times in the vicinity of Sandy Creek due to the alignment of the road.
Alarm Creek : KP018 – KP030
Land tenure Freehold (except road reserves crossed).
Topographic features Undulating hills then hilly terrain between KP026.5 & KP030. Harper, Alarm and Sandy Creeks & minor drainage lines are crossed.
Vegetation ITC Alarm Creek Timber Plantation between KP021.2 & KP025.6, riparian vegetation on Harper Creek, mostly open grassland.
Infrastructure crossings Several unsealed road crossings, QGP crossing at KP029.1.
Plate 4 – Sandy Creek crossing
Page 32
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
6.2.4 Mount Alma Road – KP030 to KP044
In this section, the CIC heads north and north north-east (refer to Figure 6-5). At approximately KP033 the CIC passes within 110m of a residence with two more residences across the Mount Alma Road within 550m. It crosses to the east side of Mount Alma Road at KP031.7. The crossing of Gravel Creek occurs at KP036.6 and Larcom Creek is crossed at KP039. Mount Alma Road is crossed once more as the CIC heads towards the Larcom Creek Meter Station at KP043.8. The Bruce Highway is the last crossing before the CIC joins the GSDA at KP044.
Mount Alma Road : KP030 – KP044
Land tenure Freehold (except road reserves crossed).
Topographic features Hilly terrain KP030 to KP034 & KP040 to KP042, rest undulating. Number of drainage lines to be crossed.
Vegetation Significant of concern regional ecosystem vegetation on Larcom Creek, vegetated road verge on Bruce Highway, majority cleared.
Infrastructure crossings
Double 275kV power lines crossed at KP038.3, Mount Alma Road x 2.
Note the CIC crosses the catchment of the proposed Castlehope Dam and crosses the inundation area at the maximum full supply level.
Plate 5 – Constrained area between hilly topography and Mount Alma Road (KP032.8)
Page 33
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
The proposed Castlehope Dam Site (the dam) is located on the Calliope River. The Gladstone Area Water Board has ranked the proposed dam low on the list of primary water supply options for the Gladstone region for residential and industrial uses. In addition, the Calliope River is not identified in the Central Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy as an option for meeting the regions water needs.
At the minimum full supply level (FSL) for the proposed dam the CIC is not inundated. At the maximum (FSL) proposed for the dam, approximately 4km of the CIC is affected. At maximum FSL, existing infrastructure, including the QGP, and parts of the Bruce and Dawson Highways are also affected. In addition, it is understood the Moura Link – Aldoga Rail project’s preferred option traverses the inundation area, although an alternative option which is less impacted by the proposed dam is also nominated.
The inundation area of a dam (at FSL) can impact on gas pipelines if the pipelines are not designed to accommodate this. Therefore, gas pipelines should either avoid inundated areas, be designed having regard to potential future impacts, or take measures at a later date to effect appropriate negative buoyancy allowing pipelines to safely operate in inundated areas.
Due to the uncertainty of the future of the Castlehope Dam site, it is recommended potential users of the CIC have due regard to the possibility a dam could be located on the Calliope River, however, it should be noted the FSL may or may not impact on the pipelines depending on the FSL chosen. The decision on how to accommodate this should be left to the individual proponents.
Page 34
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
7. CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT ISSUESManagement of the corridor must consider:
the type of infrastructure located within it (in this case gas pipelines);
the landowner needs and obligations;
the acquisition procedure used;
activities that may be undertaken at different phases of the pipeline’s life; and
the management of landholder and user relationships.
The phases for gas pipelines are pre-construction, construction and commissioning, operations and maintenance, expansion and decommissioning. The phases may be undertaken by different entities for the one pipeline and this should be considered in developing a management regime for the corridor.
This section discusses relevant corridor management issues in more detail in order to assist the Department of Infrastructure and Planning to identify issues that may need to be addressed through regulation (e.g. statutory planning processes), commercial arrangements or other means. A summary table is provided in Section 7.9.
7.1 Easements/licences within the CIC
Issue
The process that will be adopted to acquire the corridor and allow its use by third parties will be decided by the State Government. The options would be for the State Government to gazette a State Development Area over the CIC, acquire an easement for the CIC and then licence proponents as users or for users to berequired to acquire there own easement within the State Development Area. In general, the nominal 200m wide corridor will be split into narrower licensed corridorsfor each user.
Recommended action
It is recommended that the State Government consider all potential users whengranting an approval to build and operate a pipeline within the CIC. The width of each user easement should be regulated to ensure excessive area is not allocated to one user over another and that any rights are non-exclusive (i.e. rights to cross, place material on each others area etc, are not prohibited).
Further detail
The proponents have agreed on nominal positions within the CIC. The aim of nominating and agreeing positions is to minimise the number of times the pipelines cross each other. This issue becomes more important when entering the constrained infrastructure corridors of the GSDA. In addition to positions, the proponents have also nominated separation distances between their own pipes (each proponent isproposing duplicate pipes to increase capacity in the future) and neighbouring pipes.
50 20305050
132413132413 1481313 24 8
Nominal 200m
GLNG QCLNG APLNG SGP
Callide Infrastructure Corridor
Spare
Page 35
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
7.2 Access to CIC
Issue
Access to the pipelines within the corridor is needed in all phases of the pipeline’slife. Access across the pipelines for other pipeline owners and the property owner needs to be considered. Third party access to the corridor must be limited.
Recommended action
Suitable dedicated access routes to the CIC should be nominated by the State Government to allow access from public roads to the CIC. It is recommended that users of the CIC be required to use the nominated access routes through appropriate licence conditions.
Further detail
During the pre-construction phase for any pipeline in the corridor, access will be needed for land survey, geotechnical studies, environmental survey and cultural heritage survey. These activities are usually carried out by light vehicle or on foot.
During the construction phase, access is required for additional survey, the actual construction (clear/grade, trenching, pipe delivery/stringing/welding, backfilling, cleanup), commissioning, and re-instatement. During construction, it is sometimes necessary to turn vehicles and equipment including large trucks delivering pipe. Access points to the CIC need to be close enough such that large vehicles and heavy machinery do not need to turn around within the corridor areas. That is, they can enter at one location and exit at another that is not too far away, minimising the turn around and backtrack required. Also, temporary access to the CIC will be required close to the watercourse on both sides when constructing the crossing.
Temporary access to the CIC for construction activities is available where the CIC crosses an existing road (KP003.5; KP012.6; KP026.8; KP029.5; KP031.8; KP034.6; KP042), or is adjacent an existing road (KP001; KP006-KP010; KP016.4-KP018; KP030-KP031.5; KP035; KP037-KP042; KP044). Crossings of gazetted but not formed roads could also provide temporary access as necessary.
The following additional temporary access points may be needed during construction of crossings: Moura Short Rail crossing – access along rail service road from Duck Holes Road; Harper Creek crossing – access from Mount Alma Road to CIC at KP022; Gravel Creek crossing – access from Mount Alma Road to CIC at KP036.7. These are shown on Figure 7-1. Proponents may wish to acquire these temporary access points themselves.
In the operations and maintenance phase, most of the activities are carried out by light vehicle or on foot. Very infrequently, when the pipeline needs to be exposed for maintenance purpose, similar equipment to that used during construction will require access to facilities in the corridor. Access provided by the public roads should be sufficient during operations.
One method of pipeline expansion is looping. Looping is laying a second pipeline parallel to the first. This requires the same level of access and the same type of equipment as during original construction. At this time, due to the existing pipeline and potentially other pipelines in the corridor, this equipment should only enter and leave the corridor at pre-determined engineered access locations and at public roadcrossings.
Page 36
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
7.3 Timing of construction
Issue
It is probable that each pipeline will be constructed at different times within the CICover a number of years. Arrangements will have to be made for access over other user’s easements, and each pipeline will have to be designed with this in mind.
Recommended action
It is recommended that conditions of use for the CIC be such that access over another user’s licensed area is regulated to specific locations.
Further detail
The various users’ pipelines and expansion loops will be constructed over a number of years as their LNG plants are constructed and expanded. Each user will be allocated a certain width of licence area within the corridor, and construction for each pipeline and any looping will be contained within this area. Certain access routes to the CIC will be designated as discussed above. In this way, interference between users of the corridor during construction activities will be minimised.
Some of the equipment used during construction is heavy and may require special arrangements at pre-determined locations when crossing existing pipelines in the corridor. These arrangements may include increasing the depth of soil above the existing pipe for protection, by mounding or trenching deeper, or providing a concrete cap over the pipe.
The preferred CIC route widens at certain points such as some watercourse crossings, some road and rail crossings, some sharper bends and at some pinch points that could require side hill construction. This allows more space during construction for the stockpiling of spoil, because at these locations, the pipelines must be buried deeper. If the construction method is by boring, a deep long pit is necessary to accommodate the boring machine. Stockpiling of spoil, onto another user’s easement within the CIC should be allowed with consultation, provided it is not over an operating gas pipeline.
Figure 7-1 shows recommended crossing points where the pipelines using the CIC would need to be designed to allow other users of the CIC to cross their pipeline with heavy machinery and equipment. These are indicative only as the proponents will have to coordinate their pipeline designs to accommodate the crossing points and ensure all risk assessment requirements of the Australian Standard AS 2885 are satisfied.
7.4 Reinstatement of corridor
Issue
After disturbance during the construction phase, land within the CIC needs to be reinstated appropriately to minimise erosion and subsequent impact on activities by the landholder and other users of the CIC.
Recommended action
Conditions requiring a certain level of reinstatement of land disturbed as a result of activities undertaken within the CIC, and regular monitoring of reinstatement, should be included to ensure complaints and disputes are minimised, and that long term responsibility for the rehabilitation of the CIC rests with the proponents.
Page 37
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Further detail
Reinstatement of the land affected by the construction usually starts as soon as construction in the area is complete. This includes grading back, as close as possible, to the original contour, installing erosion control measures, seeding and spreading of brush for establishment of groundcover, and installation of marker signs. In most areas this reinstatement works very well. However, if there is an extraordinary amount of rain or other unforseen circumstances, some erosion may occur. Exposure of the pipe to third party interference or damage through erosion or other mechanisms is not desired because integrity of the pipe is paramount for safety and operational reasons. If this happens, similar earthmoving equipment as used during construction will be brought in to repair the damage and install additional erosion control measures.
7.5 Operational activities
Issue
For operational and safety reasons certain things are not allowed over a pipeline.
Recommended action
It is recommended that the State Government, through regulation of the CIC, prohibit permanent structures, impoundment of water and tree growth within the CIC.
Further detail
Most operational activities of pipelines in the corridor are for inspection, cathodic protection (CP) potential assessments or maintenance of CP test posts and signage. All of these activities require the ability to move along the corridor over the pipeline. Also in the case of emergency, access along the pipeline is required. In addition, activities on the pipeline that may damage the pipeline need to be restricted. Given the above needs, certain uses, developments and activities should not be permitted over pipelines. These include:
Permanent structures;
Impoundment of water;
Deep ripping or ploughing;
Fencing without gates; and
Tree growth.
The trees currently being farmed for pulpwood along the CIC preferred route will be removed as each pipeline is constructed. Ultimately the corridor may become a firebreak for the timber lot operators and some present firebreaks may be planted in the next cycle.
7.6 Cathodic protection and marker signs
Issue
Australian Standard 2885 provides standards for the safe design, construction and operation of gas pipelines. All pipelines using the CIC must be in compliance with this Australian Standard.
Recommended action
It is recommended that the State Government ensures potential CIC users are in compliance with AS2885 to ensure safe construction and operations. Particular issues include consideration of other users in the design of their CP systems. Any
Page 38
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
right to use the corridor should also include an obligation for cooperative CP systems.
Further detail
All pipelines require cathodic protection to keep pipeline steel from corroding. When pipelines are in close proximity their CP systems can interfere with each other. Wires for common test points and possibly cross bonds will need to be accommodated. Normally the pipeline designers select the locations of these points. These points would normally be located approximately every two kilometres along the corridor. In most locations these test points can be located with the location marker signs required by AS2885 or within fence lines. Consultation between pipeline operators is required to ensure CP systems don’t conflict.
AS2885 requires that pipelines be marked (or signed) to prevent damage from third parties. The signs should be installed at:
Both sides of road and rail crossings;
Both sides of significant watercourse crossings;
All fence lines;
All utility crossings;
Significant bends;
All above ground facilities; and
As otherwise required to be visible at any point along the pipeline.
7.7 Environmental management of the corridor
Issue
Appropriate management of activities within the CIC is required to minimise impacts to the environment and to minimise disruption to affected landholders.
Recommended action
It is recommended that the State Government ensure (through conditioning or other means) that the Environmental Management Plans required of the CIC users be prepared considering the principles of the APIA Code of Environmental Practice. The Environmental Management Plan must include implementation of effective weed control measures on all properties.
Further detail
The Australian Pipeline Industry Association (APIA) recently developed a second revision of its Code of Environmental Practice. The Code is intended to encapsulate the best techniques and methods presently available to mitigate or to eliminate the environmental impact of the pipeline industry’s activities (APIA, 2009). It includes options for action to be selected depending on the particular issues of each individual pipeline project. With the adoption of continual improvement, the highest standards of environmental protection will be ensured.
Of particular concern to landholders affected by the CIC is management of weeds. The APIA Code of Environmental Practice includes provisions for weed managementincluding completing an inventory of noxious and declared weeds along the easement, and developing and implementing effective weed control measures.
Page 39
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
7.8 Cultural heritage management of the corridor
Issue
Cultural heritage issues within the CIC or potentially impacted on by activities undertaken within the CIC need to be managed.
Recommended action
It is recommended that the State Government ensure users of the CIC appropriately engage Traditional Owners as required by provisions of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003.
Further detail
The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 states that it is the responsibility of the person carrying out an activity to ensure that the activity does not harm Aboriginal cultural heritage. Further, because all potential users of the CIC are undertaking Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) processes to obtain their approvals, the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 requires a Cultural Heritage Management Plan to be the primary process for managing Aboriginal cultural heritage.
7.9 Summary of corridor management issuesTable 7-1 provides a summary of the corridor management issues and recommendations associated with the issues.
Table 7-1 : Summary of corridor management issues
Corridor Management Issue Recommended Action
Location of users’ easements within the CIC. Ensure the location of users relative to each other and the width of easement requested is appropriate.
Temporary access during construction and permanent access during operations to the CIC is required by users.
Nominate suitable access points to the CIC. Users should be required to use nominated access points through licence conditions.
Access over other users easements will be required at times throughout the life of activities within the CIC.
Ensure access or crossing points of other users easements are nominated such that pipelines can be designed to accommodate it.
Land disturbed by activities within the CIC will need to be reinstated to an appropriate standard.
Conditions of user agreements should require an appropriate level of reinstatement of land disturbed. Regular monitoring should also be required as described in the APIA Code.
Certain activities such as permanent structures, impoundment of water and tree growth should be prohibited within the CIC due to potential for interference with integrity of the pipelines.
Ensure inappropriate activities are not permitted within the CIC by easement conditions, user licence conditions and by regulating land use under the development scheme and planning schemes.
Design, construction and operational standards need to be met by users of the CIC.
Ensure pipelines to be located within the CIC are designed, constructed and operated in accordance with AS2885.
Page 40
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Corridor Management Issue Recommended Action
Impacts to environmental and cultural heritage values from activities associated with CIC use should be minimised.
Ensure appropriate environmental management plans and cultural heritage management plans are prepared and implemented by users of the CIC.
Page 41
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
8. REFERENCESABRS Flora of Australia Online Search, www.anbg.gov.au/abrs/online-resources/flora, June 2009
Australia Pacific LNG Limited, Australia Pacific LNG Project – Initial Advice Statement, March 2009
Australian Pipeline Industry Association, Code of Environmental Practice – Onshore Pipelines, 2009
Banana Shire, Introducing Banana Shire and Profile of Banana Shire, website www.banana.qld.gov.au, accessed June 2009.
BG International Limited and Queensland Gas Company Limited, Queensland Curtis LNG Project – Initial Advice Statement, June 2008
Bligh, A., Gas Superhighway clears the way for LNG jobs, Election 2009 Media Release, 2009.
Connell Wagner, Environmental Assessment LNG - Production and Export Facility Site Selection Study for Department of Infrastructure, 18 March 2008.
Connell Wagner, Summary Report – Gladstone Land, Port, Rail & Road Infrastructure Study 2007, 16 May 2008
Day, RW, Whitaker, WG, Murray, CG, Wilson, IH and Grimes, KG, Queensland Geology – A companion volume to the 1:2,500,000 scale geological map (1975), Geological Survey of Queensland Publication 383, 1983.
Dept Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Approved Conservation Advice for Cossinia australiana (Cossinia), Dec 2008.
Dept Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Approved Conservation Advice for Quassia bidwillii (Quassia), July 2008.
Dept Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Brigalow Belt South bioregion profile brochure, undated.
Futureye Pty Ltd, The Gladstone Region 2028 Community Visioning Project –Community Profile, 25 January 2008.
GHD Pty Ltd, Surat Basin to Gladstone Multi-User Linear Infrastructure and Services Corridor Investigation – Report 1 – The Surat Basin Rail Corridor, December 2008.
GHD Pty Ltd, Surat Basin to Gladstone Multi-User Linear Infrastructure and Services Corridor Investigation – Report 2 – Infrastructure Co-location Opportunities, February 2009.
Gladstone LNG Pty Ltd, Gladstone LNG Project – Fisherman’s Landing – Initial Advice Statement, January 2008
ITC Limited, Queensland Profile, undated
Palm & Cycad Societies of Australia, Cycas megacarpa profile, http://www.pacsoa.org.au/cycads/Cycas/megacarpa.html, website accessed 29 June 2009.
Queensland Department of Mines and Energy, Queensland’s Petroleum –Exploration and development potential, January 2009.
Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Giant rats tail grass –Invasive plants and animals fact sheet, 2007
Page 42
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Mother-of-millions –Invasive plants and animals fact sheet, 2008
Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Parthenium weed –Invasive plants and animals fact sheet, 2007
Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Rubber Vine – Invasive plants and animals fact sheet, 2007
Queensland State Government, Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003
RLMS, Rockhampton to Gladstone Corridor – Infrastructure Corridor Investigation, prepared for the Coordinator-General, June 2006.
Santos Ltd, Gladstone Liquefied Natural Gas Initial Advice Statement, July 2007
Santos Ltd, GLNG Project – Environmental Impact Statement, June 2009.
Shell CSG (Australia) Pty Ltd, Initial Advice Statement - Shell Australia LNG Project, May 2009
Sunshine Gas Limited and Sojitz Corporation, Project Sun LNG Project, Gladstone –Initial Advice Statement, January 2008
Page A1
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
APPENDIX A – STUDY AREA FEATURES AND CONSTRAINTSThis section of the report describes the study area in terms of those aspects that may influence the corridor investigations, such as topography, soils, land tenure and environmentally and culturally sensitive areas. Unless otherwise stated, the regional constraints are described for the Investigations Study Area outlined in Figure 1-1.
Land
Tenure
There is a total of 767 land parcels within the Investigations Study Area. The majority of the south western end of the study area is leasehold or timber reserve (Callide Range). The remainder of the corridor study area is freehold with small areas allocated as reserves to protect remnant vegetation (refer to Figure A-1).
Mining tenure
Anglo Coal’s Callide Mine is located in the central western area of the Investigations Study Area (refer to Figure A-2). There are three major mining areas (Dunn Creek, Trap Gully and The Hut) contained within the following mining leases:
ML 5654
ML 80118
ML 6993
ML 80030
ML 80122
ML5653
ML5662
ML80117
Anglo Coal’s Boundary Hill Mine (ML5655, ML6994, ML80107, ML80115, ML80121, ML80151) is located in the north west of the Investigations Study Area. Mineral Development Leases 241 and 203 are also within the south western end of the study area.
An application for ML80156, part of the East End Mine development located to the south of the Mount Larcom township, is within the Investigations Study Area.
There are no petroleum tenures (Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004) within the Study Area.
Exploration tenure
The following exploration tenure, granted under the Mineral Resources Act 1989, are located within the Investigations Study Area (refer to Figure A-2).
EPM 15941, ACN Mining;
EPM 15671 and small portion of EPM 16411, Economite Pty Ltd;
EPC 1507, application by Clean Global Energy Pty Ltd;
EPM 17355, China Australia Mining P/L;
MDL 313, Neil Francis Stuart;
EPM 12778, Energy Minerals Pty Ltd;
Page A2
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
EPC 188, renewal lodged, Anglo Coal (Callide) Pty Ltd;
EPM 15705, Kelaray Pty Ltd;
EPC 909, EPC 1248, Linc Energy Ltd;
EPM 16849, EPM 16850, Rio Tinto Exploration Pty Ltd; and
EPM 13575, Cement Australia
Restricted areas
There are several restricted areas to mining (as defined under the Mineral Resources Act 1989) within the study area as listed below and shown on Figure A-3.
Callide Dam Ponded Area (223)
Callide Dam Catchment Area (217)
Proposed Castlehope Dam Site on the Calliope River (18)
Potential impact of constraint
Mines are a major constraint to selection of a corridor route. The mining lease often covers a larger area than that required to extract the resource and consultation should be undertaken with the holders of the tenements should any route options include mining areas.
Restricted areas and other tenure types have been identified to highlight potential constraint areas that should be considered during the route selection of a corridor for gas pipelines.
Land use
Figure A-4A illustrates the primary land uses in the Investigations Study Area, while Figure A-4B shows the Good Quality Agricultural Land Classifications. Soils west of the Callide Range include Class A and B Good Quality Agricultural Land. Dryland cropping and irrigation cropping are the major land uses in this area. The north eastern portion of the Study Area is mostly pasture land with some areas rated Class C1 Good Quality Agricultural Land (i.e. suitable for improved pastures). The land use in the majority of the study area is production from relatively natural environments. This involves beef cattle grazing and fattening.
The intensive uses highlighted on Figure A-4A in the south western portion of the Study Area correspond to the Callide and Boundary Hill Mining Areas, and the Callide Power Stations and cooling ponds. The Callide Power Stations produce approximately 20% of Queensland’s electricity. There is an Energy Park Industrial Area being developed adjacent to the Callide C Power Station.
ITC Limited has several pulpwood plantations in the Investigations Study Area. Different species of Eucalyptus and Corymbia are being grown for export to Japan as hardwood woodchips for the use in the production of premium high quality paper.
Potential impact of constraint
It would be preferable to minimise the length of corridor that intersects Good Quality Agricultural Land. However any impact would be temporary with the majority of agricultural activity able to continue post construction. It should be noted that the farming of trees (i.e. the pulpwood plantations) over the corridor would not be possible, due to the potential risk to the integrity of the pipelines.
Regional councils
The local government boundaries are shown on Figure 1-1 in Section 1. The south western portion of the Investigations Study Area falls within the Banana Shire
Page A3
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Council area and the north eastern portion falls within the Gladstone Regional Council area.
Banana Shire has an area of 28,577 square kilometres and a population of 15,626. The main population centre is the town of Biloela with Moura and Taroom the other urban centres in the Shire. The Shire has a mix of larger service centres, rural villages and farms.
Biloela is the administration centre for Banana Shire. The Callide A, B and C Power Stations, Callide and Boundary Hill Coal Mines and Teys Bros Meatworks (third largest in Queensland) are located in the vicinity of Biloela. Moura serves the mining and rural industries and is home to the second largest Grain Depot in Queensland. Located close by is the Moura Coal Mine, Queensland Cotton Gin, and Queensland Nitrates Ammonium Nitrate Plant.
The Shire supports numerous facilities including public and private primary schools, secondary schools, a TAFE, hospitals, churches and various recreational and sporting groups. It has many natural attractions such as national parks, rivers and gorges. Major industries of the shire include coal mining, beef production, power generation, and cropping. It is rich in natural resources with newly developed coal mines in the Theodore and Baralaba areas.
The Nathan Dam Project is a future major development for the Banana Shire and is expected to generate over 1000 permanent jobs.
The Gladstone Regional Council area includes the major city of Gladstone and urban centres of Tannum Sands, Boyne Island, Calliope, Miriam Vale and Agnes Water. Major industrial facilities dominate Gladstone and Boyne Island however the region also features coastal towns and rural farming areas.
The population of Gladstone Regional Council area is 51,520. There is a variety of community organisations and facilities in the Gladstone Region. The region is a major centre for minerals processing and exports and supports the world-class Port of Gladstone. Existing major industries include one of the world’s largest alumina refineries - Queensland Alumina Ltd, Rio Tinto Aluminium’s Boyne Island and Yarwun facilities, Queensland Cement Ltd cement works, Orica ammonia nitrate plant, Transpacific Industries waste management and recovery facility, and NRG Power Station. Primary production such as beef cattle and timber production, tropical fruit, macadamia and flower crops are present in the greater Gladstone region. Tourism is becoming more important with a wide range of natural attractions located in the region. Significant development is likely to occur in the Gladstone region over the next 20 years.
To the north of Gladstone the State has identified a large area for major industrial development (GSDA). This dedicated area includes land on Curtis Island proposed for LNG plants.
Infrastructure
Major infrastructure within the Investigations Study Area are listed in Table A-1 and illustrated in Figure A-5.
Page A4
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Table A-1 : Existing Infrastructure
Existing Infrastructure Constraints
Rail – Moura Short Line Rail crossings must be thrust bored. Electrified rail can result in cathodic protection issues which must be mitigated. Additional engineering controls are required near a rail line to protect the integrity of the pipeline.
Pipelines –
Rockhampton Branch Gas Lateral Queensland Gas Pipeline (QGP) Callide Power Station Raw Water
Pipeline
Crossings of underground pipelines must be thrust bored. Minimise pipeline crossings to minimise construction costs and interference to the operation of third party infrastructure.
Electricity –
Callide Power Stations B and C Callide A substation, Calvale
substation 7 x 132kV transmission lines 6 x 275kV transmission lines Domestic low voltage network.
Power stations and substations may have unique construction constraints due to their potential to interfere with cathodic protection and due to safety concerns. Presence of high voltage transmission lines can also result in cathodic protection issues. It is recommended that pipelines avoid paralleling high voltage transmission lines for significant distances to minimiseinterference to the pipelines from existing third party infrastructure. No cathodic protection constraints are associated with domestic distribution lines.
Telecommunication – Domestic Telstra land lines and fibre optic cables.
These are not major constraints to the alignment of a pipeline but they need to be located accurately to protect their integrity. They require specialist teams to locate and hand-expose the underground cables during construction.
Roads – Bruce Highway, Dawson Highway
Numerous local roads both sealed and unsealed
Realignment of the Dawson Highway was identified as a future consideration for route selection. Crossings of sealed roads must be thrust bored while unsealed roads could potentially be trenched depending on the volume of traffic they carry. Minimise the number of crossings of roads to minimiseconstruction costs.
Potential impact of constraint
Infrastructure crossings should be minimised in corridor selection to minimise constraints to pipeline construction.
Native title
The Investigations Study Area includes the claim areas for the following registered Native Title Claimants:
The Port Curtis Coral Coast Native Title Claim Group (QC01/29); and
Gangulu Claim Group (QC97/036) (QUD6144/98).
Page A5
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Figure A-6 shows the extent of the Native Title claims.
It should be noted that a number of the water courses in the Investigations Study Area (including the Calliope River) are boundary creeks which may have Native Title implications. Native title rights and interests are extinguished on certain land such as freehold property. There has been no detailed examination of land tenure history or an assessment of native title implications. This is a matter for the State Government once a preferred corridor is selected.
Environment
Queensland protected areas
Calliope Range State Forest and Callide Timber Reserve are protected areas located within the Investigations Study Area (refer to Figure A-7).
Potential impact of constraint
State Forests are a constraint and should be avoided where possible to minimize disturbance to areas of known ecological value. The timber reserve should be avoided where possible to prevent conflict with development of the timber resource.
Protected vegetation and essential habitat
A Wildnet database search identified 14 sightings of protected flora species that have been recorded within the Investigations Study Area. Table A-2 describes the seven individual plant species these sightings represent and their biodiversity status.
Essential habitat are areas identified by the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management as essential habitat for species of wildlife listed as Endangered, Vulnerable, or Rare under the Nature Conservation Act 1992. Data on the locations of essential habitat within the Investigations Study Area was obtained from the Department. The essential habitat occurs within the Callide and Calliope Ranges which is also the area in which the recorded protected species sightings are located (refer to Figure A-7).
Table A-3 provides a list of protected plant species for which essential habitat has been identified.
Potential impact of constraint
A detailed field study would have to be completed to determine if the protected flora species listed in Tables A-2 and A-3 are actually present within any preferred corridor identified as part of this investigation.
Regional ecosystems and remnant vegetation
There are 45 regional ecosystems (RE) within the Investigations Study Area. Twenty two of these are listed as No Concern at Present, 13 as Of Concern, and 10 as Endangered (refer to Figure A-7). In this study, biodiversity status of the REs is used as it is based on an assessment by the Queensland Herbarium of the condition of remnant vegetation, in addition to the pre-clearing and remnant extent used in the Vegetation Management Act 1999. All REs present in the Investigations Study Area are described in Table A-4.
The majority of the Endangered REs are small patches in the southern-most portion of the Investigations Study Area, around Mount Sugarloaf and surrounding hilly areas (11.9.5, 11.8.13, 11.9.4a, 11.11.14). A large patch of Endangered RE is contained in rugged vegetation to the south east of Callide Dam. The large area of dominant Endangered RE in the Mount Alma Range in the north eastern portion of the Study
Page A6
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Area consists of 11.11.18. Other small isolated patches of Endangered REs are found around Anglo Coal’s mining areas and in the middle of the Study Area.
There are some larger areas of dominant and sub-dominant Of Concern RE within the Study Area. Many of the smaller patches are found along creek lines.
The majority of the mapped “No Concern at Present” REs are found through the Callide and Calliope Ranges, with more in the north eastern portion in the Mount Alma Range.
Potential impact of constraint
Clearing of remnant vegetation should be minimised to avoid disturbances to areas of known ecological value. Endangered and Of Concern REs are a major environmental constraint and should be avoided where possible.
Fauna habitat
A search of the Wildnet database identified five protected fauna species recorded in the Investigations Study Area (refer to Table A-5).
Table A-5 : Protected Fauna Species recorded in Investigations Study Area
Protected Flora Species Description Status
Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus Black-necked stork. Rare, NC Act
Accipiter novaehollandiae Grey goshawk Rare, NC Act
Dasyurus maculatus maculatus
Spotted-tailed quoll (southern subspecies)
Vulnerable, NC Act; Endangered, EPBC Act
Chalinolobus picatus Little pied bat Rare, NC Act
Nettapus coromandelianus Cotton pygmy-goose Rare, NC Act
Essential habitat has been identified for the Little Pied Bat (Chalinolobus picatus) within the Callide Range.
Potential impact of constraint
Fauna habitats will generally coincide with areas of remnant vegetation however detailed field studies will have to be completed to be able to assess if any critical habitat will be impacted on by the planned gas pipeline corridor.
Weed management
Of particular concern to landholders is the introduction and spread of weeds. A desktop study identified four weeds that are common in the Investigations Study Area:
Rats Tail Grass – data shows this weed is common in the north eastern corner of the Study Area. It is an aggressive grass that can reduce the productivity of pasture and cause significant degradation of natural area. It is a declared Class 2 species under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002. Control measures include maintaining vigorous dense pastures and cleaning machinery and vehicles thoroughly after working in infested areas.
Rubber Vine – invades waterways and smothers riparian vegetation, decreasing biodiversity and impeding movement of stock and native fauna to
Page A7
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
and from waterways. Data shows Rubber Vine is common in the north east corner and far western corner of the Study Area and occasionally occurs throughout the rest of the Study Area. It is a declared Class 2 species under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 and also a Weed of National Significance. Control of declared pests is required by landholders, and measures include a combined approach of different biological and chemical control methods integrated with land management practices.
Mother of Millions – this weed is highly toxic to stock, is adaptable to dry conditions and establishes if pastures are run down. It is a declared Class 2 species under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 and is controlled with physical removal, fire and chemical methods combined with land management practices. The data indicates this weed is common in the north east corner and the far western corner of the Study Area and occurs occasionally throughout the rest of the Study Area.
Parthenium weed – A declared Class 2 species under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 and a Weed of National Significance. Parthenium invades pastures and other disturbed areas such as heavily stocked areas, and along roadsides. It reduces pasture production. Data suggests parthenium weed is abundant in the north east corner and common through to the south west of the Study Area and is recorded as occasional in the far western corner. The recommended control measures are a combination of chemical, biological, mechanical and herbicide methods integrated with land management practices.
Potential impact of constraint
Weed management and control measures will have to be considered in areas identified as having weed problems. Areas of high weed occurrence should be avoided.
Matters of National Environmental Significance
The Commonwealth Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts’ (DEWHA) protected matters search tool was used to determine whether matters of national environmental significance or other matters protected by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) are likely to occur in the Investigations Study Area. The database search, completed on 4 June 2009, identified three threatened ecological communities, 28 threatened species and 15 migratory species as potentially occurring. It also noted the study area is within the same catchment as the Shoalwater and Corio Bays Ramsar site. Figure A-8 maps the locations of the threatened ecological communities, based on the relevant REs associated with them, and shows threatened species listed under the EPBC Act that have been recorded in the Wildnet database.
Threatened ecological communities
The three threatened ecological communities identified in the protected matters search include the following:
Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant); listed endangered under the EPBC Act; community known to occur within area;
Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and Nandewar Bioregions; listed endangered under the EPBC Act; community likely to occur within area; and
Weeping Myall woodlands; listed endangered under the EPBC Act;
Page A8
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
community likely to occur within area.
The REs associated with these threatened ecological communities are listed in Table A-6.
Threatened and migratory species
The protected matters search identified the threatened species and migratory species listed in Table A-7 and A-8 respectively as species or species habitat that may occur in the Investigations Study Area.
Other matters protected by the EPBC Act
The protected matters search identified one heritage place listed on the Register of the National Estate (Kilbirnie Homestead, also on the State Heritage Register) (refer to Figure A-8). It also identified 17 listed marine species (these are not listed in the report).
Potential impact of constraint
The potential to significantly impact on a matter of national environmental significance depends on the final location of the CIC. It is unlikely that impacts such as erosion and sedimentation that occurs in watercourses as a result of activities within the CIC will significantly impact the identified Ramsar site, due to the distance involved.
Potential users of the CIC should do their own determination as to whether a referral to the DEWHA is required to determine any necessary further assessment under the EPBC Act.
TopographyThe Investigations Study Area contains a number of major mountain ranges including the Callide Range, Calliope Range, and the Mount Alma Range.
Mount Kroombit and Mount Sugarloaf are located in the south western corner of the Investigations Study Area (refer to Figure A-9). The southern and far western portion of the Investigations Study Area is generally hilly with the Callide and Calliope Ranges running generally north west to south east through the western half of the Investigations Study Area. The middle portion of the Study Area is gently undulating to hilly through which the Calliope River and tributaries run. Mount Alma Range and Mount Harper encroach on the Study Area near Mount Alma, while the north eastern portion of the Study Area is relatively gently undulating to the Bruce Highway.
Potential impact of constraint
The topography of the Investigations Study Area is such that the ranges and mountains present significant constructability constraints to the development of gas pipelines of the size proposed. Specialised construction techniques that may be required add a significant cost to the capital expenditure for any project.
Geology and soils
Geology
Figure A-10 shows the principal tectonic elements and the geological units that occur in the Investigations Study Area. The Investigations Study Area falls within the Yarrol Province. The Gogango Overfolded Zone, where previously deposited sediments of andesite and basalts have been intensively deformed during the Permian, lies to the west of the Study Area and to the east is the Wandilla Province.
Page A9
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
In the Yarrol Province, Late Devonian and Early Carboniferous deposition on the Yarrol Shelf was dominated by volcaniclastic sediments derived from the Connors-Auburn arc to the west, interbedded with varying proportions of primary volcanics. Oolitic limestone deposition formed in the Early Carboniferous on shallow banks. In comparison, Late Carboniferous sedimentation was very restricted. Late Carboniferous sediments contain more quartz and less volcanic detritus than the earlier deposits, and lack calcareous oolites. The Middle Permian tectonism affected the Yarrol block, with deformation characterised by open to moderately tight folding along north-northwest axes and high angle reverse faulting.
Table A-9 provides a detailed description of the geological units present in the Investigations Study Area.
Potential impact of constraint
Surface geology is usually noted during field reviews and geological constraints such as rocky outcrops are considered when assessing potential corridor route options. Geological constraints, such as the igneous and volcanic rock within the Investigations Study Area, will increase the difficulty and time to complete construction for the underground gas pipelines and are generally avoided if possible. Further detailed construction and geotechnical assessment will need to be completed by potential users of the corridor prior to construction.
Soils
Soils from the Digital Atlas of Australian Soils are mapped on Figure A-11. This soil mapping is at a relatively gross scale and is based on the Northcote Factual Key. The Investigations Study Area is dominated by yellow duplex soils and medium texture loams. To the west of the Callide Range are mainly cracking and non-cracking clays, some massive earths and small portions of red duplex soils. Table A-10 provides a description of the soil types within the Investigations Study Area.
Potential impact of constraint
No attempt has been made in this study to review previous regional soil surveys or other land management studies if available. The erodability of the soils in the Investigations Study Area has not been assessed, neither at a desktop level nor field level. This aspect is important as highly erosive areas can be both a construction and an environmental constraint due to potential for sedimentation of watercourses. Erosive soils are avoided if possible or appropriate erosion controls and rehabilitation measures are implemented during construction of pipelines.
WaterThere are no Ramsar wetlands within the Study Area. However the Study Area is within the same catchment as the Shoalwater and Corio Bays Area Ramsar site. The Study Area is in the same catchment as Port Curtis which is on the Directory of Important Wetlands.
Figure A-12 shows the watercourses within the Investigations Study Area. The western portion of the Investigations Study Area is within the Fitzroy River catchment while the eastern portion is within the Calliope River catchment.
Kroombit Creek, Callide Creek, Bell Creek and the Don River are major tributaries of the Fitzroy River in the Investigations Study Area. Callide Dam is located on Callide Creek and supplies water to the Callide Power Stations.
The Calliope River and its tributaries run through the eastern half of the study area. These tributaries include Alma Creek, Maxwelton Creek, Lost Spring Creek, Oaky Creek, Harper Creek, Paddock Creek, Alarm Creek, Sandy Creek, Boundary Creek,
Page A10
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Gravel Creek, and Larcom Creek. Flooding events on major water courses have the potential to expose and damage buried pipelines. However, no information is available on the 100 year flood level of the Calliope River which is the major watercourse in the Investigations Study Area. Therefore the flood constraints withinthe Study Area have not been assessed.
Potential impact of constraint
Watercourse crossings are constraints to the construction of gas pipelines, therefore selection of crossing points and crossing methods are important considerations in terms of impact to environment and construction costs.
Cultural heritageA search of the Department of Environment and Resource Management’s Cultural Heritage Database was undertaken. Figure A-13 shows the results of the search. In summary, within the Investigations Study Area there is recorded:
Artefacts: general – 56; grindstone/muller – 1; isolated find – 5; tree – 1;
Isolated finds – 19;
Cultural – 2;
Cultural Land feature – 1;
Land feature – 2;
Painting/Engraving – 1;
Quarry – 1;
Quarry artefact – 5; and
Storyplace – 1.
These records have been identified as a result of previous investigations. The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 establishes a duty of care for ensuring any person carrying out an activity (such as pipeline construction) undertakes such measures to ensure the activity does not harm Aboriginal cultural heritage. Consultation with the relevant traditional owners will be required to determine the extent of cultural heritage sites within the selected corridor. Until further investigations are carried out specifically within the corridor, it is not possible to know the extent of cultural heritage sites.
Kilbirnie Homestead (located on Figure A-13) is listed on the Queensland Heritage Register in addition to the Register of National Estate.
Potential impact of constraint
The purpose of identifying and listing cultural and heritage values is to preserve them for future generations. Known cultural heritage sites should be avoided in the selection of the CIC route.
Page A11
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Table A-2 : Protected Flora Species recorded in Investigations Study Area
Protected Flora Species Description Status
Acacia pedleyi Endemic to the Callide and Calliope Ranges. Grows in red loamy soil on slopes and ridge tops, in open eucalypt forest or woodland.
Rare, NC Act
Grevillea hockingsii Grows in shrubby understorey in eucalypt woodland or open forest. Known to occur in three disjunct areas in Queensland: Coomingbah State Forest, Callide Range and Razor Back Range.
Vulnerable, NC Act
Cossinia australiana Known from fragmented relict patches of Araucarian vineforests or vine thickets on fertile soils in central and southern Queensland.
Endangered, NC Act and EPBC Act
Acacia pubicosta Confined to rocky slopes. Rare, NC Act
Quassia bidwillii Endemic to Queensland, commonly in lowland rainforest or on rainforest margins. Known to occur in several localities between Mackay and Gympie. Found in areas adjacent to both temporary and permanent watercourses in locations up to 510m altitude.
Vulnerable, NC Act and EPBC Act
Eucalyptus decolor Also known as Castletower ironbark, found in open forest to woodland.
Rare, NC Act
Polianthion minutiflorum Also known as Trymalium minutiflorum
Vulnerable, NC Act
EPBC Act – Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth)
NC Act – Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Queensland)
Page A12
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Table A-3 : Identified Essential Habitat for Protected Flora Species
Essential HabitatSpecies
Description Status
Desmodium macrocarpum Large-podded trefoil, known from Poplar Box woodland with sparse shrub layer.
Rare, NC Act
Cycas megacarpa A medium sized, aborescent cycad to 6m tall with a relatively narrow stem. Found in hilly areas from near Mount Morgan south to near Goomeri in central Queensland, usually in eucalypt or rainforests.
Endangered, NC Act andEPBC Act
Cerbera dumicola Shrub or small tree growing on ridge tops in lateritic soil.
Rare, NC Act
Acacia pedleyi Refer Table A-2 Rare, NC Act
Acacia pubicosta Refer Table A-2 Rare, NC Act
Alyxia sharpei Grows in araucarian microphyll vine forest on dark brown soil or complex notophyll vine forest on alluvium adjacent to mangrove swamps.
Rare, NC Act
Grevillea hockingsii Refer Table A-2 Vulnerable, NC Act
Polianthion minutiflorum Refer Table A-2 Vulnerable, NC Act
Melaleuca groveana Paperbark small tree to 5m tall. Widespread scattered populations growing in heath and shrubland, often in exposed sites at high elevations and in dry woodlands.
Rare, NC Act
Quassia bidwillii Refer Table A-2 Vulnerable, NC Act and EPBC Act
Cossinia australiana Refer Table A-2 Endangered, NC Act and EPBC Act
Page A13
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Table A-4 : Regional Ecosystems (RE) present in the Investigations Study Area
RE Biodiversity Status
Vegetation Management
Status
Description
11.3.1 Endangered Endangered Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristataopen forest on alluvial plains
11.3.2 Of concern Of concern Eucalyptus populnea woodland on alluvial plains
11.3.4 Of concern Of concern Eucalyptus tereticornis and/or Eucalyptus spp. tall woodland on alluvial plains
11.3.6 Of concern Not of concern
Eucalyptus melanophloia woodland on alluvial plains
11.3.11 Endangered Endangered Semi-evergreen vine thicket on alluvial plains
11.3.25 Of concern Not of concern
Eucalyptus tereticornis or E. camaldulensiswoodland fringing drainage lines
11.3.26 No concern at present
Not of concern
Eucalyptus moluccana or E. microcarpawoodland to open forest on margins of alluvial plains
11.4.2 Of concern Of concern Eucalyptus spp. and/or Corymbia spp. grassy or shrubby woodland on Cainozoic clay plains
11.4.3 Endangered Endangered Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristatashrubby open forest on Cainozoic clay plains
11.4.8 Endangered Endangered Eucalyptus cambageana woodland to open forest with Acacia harpophylla or A. argyrodendron on Cainozoic clay plains
11.7.2 No concern at present
Not of concern
Acacia spp. woodland on Cainozoic lateritic duricrust. Scarp retreat zone
11.7.4 No concern at present
Not of concern
Eucalyptus decorticans and/or Eucalyptus spp., Corymbia spp., Acacia spp., Lysicarpus angustifolius on Cainozoic lateritic duricrust
11.8.3 Of concern Not of concern
Semi-evergreen vine thicket on Cainozoic igneous rocks.
11.8.4 No concern at present
Not of concern
Eucalyptus melanophloia woodland on Cainozoic igneous rocks. Hillsides
11.8.9 Of concern Of concern Callitris spp. ± vine thicket on Cainozoic igneous rocks.
11.8.13 Endangered Endangered Semi-evergreen vine thicket and microphyll vine forest on Cainozoic igneous rocks.
11.9.1 Endangered Endangered Acacia harpophylla-Eucalyptus cambageanaopen forest to woodland on fine-grained
Page A14
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
RE Biodiversity Status
Vegetation Management
Status
Description
sedimentary rocks
11.9.4a Endangered Endangered Semi-evergreen vine thicket generally dominated by a low tree layer (5-10m) which is floristically diverse. Vines are frequent. Occurs on steep slopes where heavy clay soils have formed.
11.9.5 Endangered Endangered Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristataopen forest on fine-grained sedimentary rocks
11.9.7 Of concern Of concern Eucalyptus populnea, Eremophila mitchelliishrubby woodland on fine-grained sedimentary rocks
11.9.9 No concern at present
Not of concern
Eucalyptus crebra woodland on fine-grained sedimentary rocks
11.9.13 Of concern Of concern Eucalyptus moluccana or E. microcarpa open forest on fine-grained sedimentary rocks
11.10.1 No concernat present
Not of concern
Corymbia citriodora open forest on coarse-grained sedimentary rocks
11.10.4 No concern at present
Not of concern
Eucalyptus decorticans, Lysicarpus angustifolius ± Eucalyptus spp., Corymbia spp., Acacia spp. woodland on coarse-grained sedimentary rocks.
11.10.7 No concern at present
Not of concern
Eucalyptus crebra woodland on coarse-grained sedimentary rocks
11.10.8 Of concern Of concern Semi-evergreen vine thicket in sheltered habitats on medium to coarse-grained sedimentary rocks
11.10.13 No concern at present
Not of concern
Eucalyptus spp. and/or Corymbia spp. open forest on scarps and sandstone tablelands
11.11.1 No concern at present
Not of concern
Eucalyptus crebra ± Acacia rhodoxylonwoodland on old sedimentary rocks with varying degrees of metamorphism and folding
11.11.3 No concern at present
Not of concern
Corymbia citriodora, Eucalyptus crebra, E. acmenoides open forest on old sedimentary rocks with varying degrees of metamorphism and folding. Coastal ranges
11.11.4 No concern at present
Not of concern
Eucalyptus crebra woodland on old sedimentary rocks with varying degrees of metamorphism and folding. Coastal ranges
11.11.5 No concern Not of Microphyll vine forest ± Araucaria cunninghamii on old sedimentary rocks with
Page A15
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
RE Biodiversity Status
Vegetation Management
Status
Description
at present concern varying degrees of metamorphism and folding
11.11.9 No concern at present
Not of concern
Eucalyptus populnea or E. brownii woodland on deformed and metamorphosed sediments and interbedded volcanics
11.11.10 Of concern Of concern Eucalyptus melanophloia woodland on deformed and metamorphosed sediments and interbedded volcanics
11.11.14 Endangered Endangered Acacia harpophylla open forest on deformed and metamorphosed sediments and interbedded volcanics
11.11.15 No concern at present
Not of concern
Eucalyptus crebra woodland on deformed and metamorphosed sediments and interbedded volcanics.
11.11.16 Of concern Of concern Eucalyptus cambageana, Acacia harpophyllawoodland on old sedimentary rocks with varying degrees of metamorphism and folding. Lowlands
11.11.18 Endangered Endangered Semi-evergreen vine thicket on old sedimentary rocks with varying degrees of metamorphism and folding.
11.12.1 No concern at present
Not of concern
Eucalyptus crebra woodland on igneous rocks
11.12.2 No concern at present
Not of concern
Eucalyptus melanophloia woodland on igneous rocks
11.12.3 Of concern Not of concern
Eucalyptus crebra, E. tereticornis, Angophora leiocarpa woodland on igneous rocks especially granite
11.12.4 No concern at present
Not of concern
Semi-evergreen vine thicket and microphyll vine forest on igneous rocks
11.12.6 No concern at present
Not of concern
Corymbia citriodora open forest on igneous rocks (granite)
11.12.17 Endangered Endangered Eucalyptus populnea woodland on igneous rocks. Colluvial lower slopes
12.5.1 No concern at present
Not of concern
Open forest complex with Corymbia citriodoraon sub coastal remnant Tertiary surfaces. Usually deep red soils
12.11.6 No concern at present
Not of concern
Corymbia citriodora, Eucalyptus crebra open forest on metamorphics ± interbedded volcanics
Page A16
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
RE Biodiversity Status
Vegetation Management
Status
Description
12.12.5 No concern at present
Not of concern
Corymbia citriodora, Eucalyptus crebra open forest on Mesozoic to Proterozoic igneous rocks
Table A-6 : Description of Threatened Ecological Communities present in Investigations Study Area
Threatened Ecological Community
Description Status
Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant)
RE 6.4.2 - Casuarina cristata ± Acacia harpophylla open forest on clay plains,
RE 11.3.1 - Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata open forest on alluvial plains,
RE 11.4.3 - Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata shrubby open forest on Cainozoic clay plains,
RE 11.4.7 - Open forest of Eucalyptus populnea with Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata on Cainozoic clay plains,
RE 11.4.8 - Eucalyptus cambageana open forest with Acacia harpophylla or A. argyrodendron on Cainozoic clay plains,
RE 11.4.9 - Acacia harpophylla shrubby open forest with Terminalia oblongata on Cainozoic clay plains,
RE 11.4.10 - Eucalyptus populnea or E. pilligaensis, Acacia harpophylla, Casuarina cristata open forest on margins of Cainozoic clay plains,
RE 11.5.16 - Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata open forest in depressions on Cainozoic sand plains/remnant surfaces,
RE 11.9.1 - Acacia harpophylla-Eucalyptus cambageana open forest on Cainozoic fine-grained sedimentary rocks,
RE 11.9.5 - Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata open forest on Cainozoic fine-grained sedimentary rocks,
RE 11.9.6 - Acacia melvillei ± A. harpophyllaopen forest on Cainozoic fine-grained sedimentary rocks,
Endangered, EPBC Act
Page A17
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Threatened Ecological Community
Description Status
RE 11.11.14 - Acacia harpophylla open forest on deformed and metamorphosed sediments and interbedded volcanics,
RE 11.12.21 - Acacia harpophylla open forest on igneous rocks; colluvial lower slopes,
RE 12.8.23 - Acacia harpophylla open forest on Cainozoic igneous rocks,
RE 12.9-10.6 - Acacia harpophylla open forest on sedimentary rocks, and
RE 12.12.26 - Acacia harpophylla open forest on Mesozoic to Proterozoic igneous rocks.
Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and Nandewar Bioregions
RE 11.2.3 - Microphyll vine forest ("beach scrub") on sandy beach ridges
RE 11.3.11 - Semi-evergreen vine thicket on alluvial plains
RE 11.4.1 - Semi-evergreen vine thicket ± Casuarina cristata on Cainozoic clay plains
RE 11.5.15 - Semi-evergreen vine thicket on Cainozoic sand plains/remnant surfaces
RE 11.8.3 - Semi-evergreen vine thicket on Cainozoic igneous rocks
RE 11.8.6 - Macropteranthes leichhardtiithicket on Cainozoic igneous rocks
RE 11.8.13 - Semi-evergreen vine thicket and microphyll vine forest on Cainozoic igneous rocks
RE 11.9.4 - Semi-evergreen vine thicket on Cainozoic fine-grained sedimentary rocks
RE 11.9.8 - Macropteranthes leichhardtiithicket on Cainozoic fine-grained sedimentary rocks
RE 11.11.18 - Semi-evergreen vine thicket on old sedimentary rocks with varying degrees of metamorphism and folding.
Endangered, EPBC Act
Weeping Myall woodlands
RE 11.3.2 – Eucalyptus populnea woodland on alluvial plains
RE 11.3.28 – Casuarina cristata ± Eucalyptus coolabah open woodland on allu+vial plains.
Endangered, EPBC Act
Page A18
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Table A-7 : Threatened species listed under the EPBC Act
Threatened Species Status Type of Presence
Birds
Erythrotriorchis radiatus Red Goshawk
Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Geophaps scripta scriptaSquatter Pigeon (southern)
Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Neochmia ruficauda ruficaudaStar Finch (eastern), Star Finch (southern)
Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Rostratula australis Australian Painted Snipe
Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area
Turnix melanogaster Black-breasted Button-quail
Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Mammals
Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat, Large Pied Bat
Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area
Dasyurus hallucatus Northern Quoll
Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area
Hipposideros semoni Semon's Leaf-nosed Bat, Greater Wart-nosed Horseshoe-bat
Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area
Nyctophilus timoriensis (South-eastern form) Eastern Long-eared Bat
Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area
Reptiles
Denisonia maculata Ornamental Snake
Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Egernia rugosa Yakka Skink
Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Furina dunmalli Dunmall's Snake
Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area
Paradelma orientalis Brigalow Scaly-foot
Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Rheodytes leukops Fitzroy River Turtle, Fitzroy Tortoise, Fitzroy Turtle
Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area
Plants
Page A19
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Threatened Species Status Type of Presence
Acacia grandifolia Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Bosistoa selwynii Heart-leaved Bosistoa
Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Bosistoa transversa Three-leaved Bosistoa
Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Bulbophyllum globuliforme Miniature Moss-orchid
Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Cadellia pentastylis Ooline
Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Cossinia australiana Cossinia
Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Cupaniopsis shirleyana Wedge-leaf Tuckeroo
Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Cycas megacarpa Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area
Dichanthium queenslandicum King Blue-grass
Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Digitaria porrecta Finger Panic Grass
Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Leucopogon cuspidatus Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Polianthion minutiflorum Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Quassia bidwillii Quassia
Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Taeniophyllum muelleri Minute Orchid, Ribbon-root Orchid
Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area
Table A-8 : Migratory species listed under the EPBC Act
Migratory Species Status Type of Presence
Migratory Terrestrial Bird Species
Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle
Migratory Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail
Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within area
Page A20
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009
Migratory Species Status Type of Presence
Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow
Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within area
Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater
Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within area
Monarcha melanopsis Black-faced Monarch
Migratory Breeding may occur within area
Monarcha trivirgatus Spectacled Monarch
Migratory Breeding likely to occur within area
Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher
Migratory Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail
Migratory Breeding may occur within area
Migratory Wetland Bird Species
Ardea alba Great Egret, White Egret
Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within area
Ardea ibis Cattle Egret
Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within area
Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe
Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within area
Nettapus coromandelianus albipennisAustralian Cotton Pygmy-goose
Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within area
Numenius minutus Little Curlew, Little Whimbrel
Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within area
Rostratula benghalensis s. lat. Painted Snipe
Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within area
Migratory Marine Bird Species
Ardea alba Great Egret, White Egret
Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within area
Ardea ibis Cattle Egret
Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within area
Migratory Marine Reptile Species
Crocodylus porosusEstuarine Crocodile, Salt-water Crocodile
Migratory Species or species habitat likely to occur within area
RLM
S |
CA
LLID
E IN
FR
AS
TR
UC
TU
RE
CO
RR
IDO
R S
TU
DY
Ι A
UG
US
T 2
009
Pag
e A
21
Tab
le A
-9:
Geo
log
ical
Un
it D
escr
ipti
on
s (G
eosc
ien
ce A
ust
ralia
)
Map
Sym
bo
lU
nit
Nam
eG
eolo
gic
al d
escr
ipti
on
Qa,
Qrc
, Qs
Und
iffer
entia
ted
qu
ater
nary
sed
imen
tsC
hann
el a
nd f
lood
pla
in a
lluvi
um; g
rave
l, sa
nd,
silt
, cla
y. C
ollu
vium
and
/or
resi
dual
dep
osits
, tal
us, s
cree
, she
et
was
h; b
ould
er,
grav
el, s
and
; ma
y in
clud
e m
inor
allu
vial
or
sand
pla
in d
epos
its
Czb
Maf
ic v
olca
nic
rock
s V
olca
nic
rock
s, p
redo
min
antly
maf
ic; b
asal
t, tr
achy
te,
trac
hyba
salt,
trac
hya
ndes
ite, l
euci
tite,
bas
ani
te,
neph
elin
ite, l
imbu
rgite
, rh
yolit
e, tu
ff an
d hi
gh le
vel i
ntru
sive
s; r
are
vol
cani
clas
tic s
edim
ents
Czl
Fer
rugi
nous
dur
icru
st
Fer
rugi
nous
dur
icru
st, l
ater
ite; m
ay
incl
ude
mas
sive
to p
isol
itic
ferr
ugin
ous
subs
oil,
mot
tled
clay
s
Czs
Und
iffer
entia
ted
C
aino
zoic
sed
imen
tsS
and
plai
n, m
ay in
clud
e so
me
resi
dual
allu
vium
; san
d do
min
ant,
grav
el, c
lay
Czo
biB
iloel
a F
orm
atio
nM
udst
one,
silt
sto
ne, o
il sh
ale,
sa
ndst
one,
min
or li
gnite
, coa
l and
lim
esto
ne
Jspr
Pre
cipi
ce S
ands
tone
Thi
ck-b
edde
d, c
ross
-bed
ded,
peb
bly
quar
tzos
e sa
ndst
one,
min
or li
thic
sub
labi
le s
ands
tone
, silt
sto
ne,
mud
ston
e
Pgg
bB
ocoo
lima
Gra
nodi
orite
Dee
ply
wea
ther
ed,
gre
y m
ediu
m-g
rain
ed b
iotit
e-ho
rnbl
ende
gra
nod
iorit
e
Pgg
dD
umgr
ee T
onal
iteP
ale
gre
y m
ediu
m-g
rain
ed le
ucoc
ratic
bio
tite-
horn
ble
nde
tona
lite;
gre
y m
ediu
m-g
rain
ed h
ornb
lend
e qu
artz
di
orite
Pgg
rR
ocky
Poi
nt
Gra
nodi
orite
Gre
y to
pin
kish
gre
y m
ediu
m-g
rain
ed b
iotit
e-ho
rnbl
ende
gra
nod
iorit
e, lo
cally
with
poi
kilit
ic K
feld
spar
Pgg
sR
edsh
irt G
rani
teP
ink
med
ium
to c
oars
e-gr
aine
d ho
rnbl
ende
-bio
tite
gran
ite w
ith m
inor
tour
mal
ine
pegm
atite
Pgg
wW
yalla
Gra
nite
Pin
k m
ediu
m-g
rain
ed b
iotit
e gr
anite
RLM
S |
CA
LLID
E IN
FR
AS
TR
UC
TU
RE
CO
RR
IDO
R S
TU
DY
Ι A
UG
US
T 2
009
Pag
e A
22
Map
Sym
bo
lU
nit
Nam
eG
eolo
gic
al d
escr
ipti
on
Pgm
aM
anne
rsle
y G
rano
dior
iteP
ink
to g
rey
porp
hyrit
ic b
iotit
e-ho
rnbl
ende
qua
rtz
mic
rodi
orite
with
abu
ndan
t sec
ond
ary
biot
ite a
long
join
ts
Pgm
zZ
ig Z
ag T
onal
iteP
ale
gre
y m
ediu
m-g
rain
ed h
ornb
len
de-b
iotit
e to
nal
ite, l
ocal
ly w
ith p
atch
es o
f epi
dot
e al
tera
tion
P-R
gfe
lsic
intr
usiv
es
Fel
sic
intr
usiv
e ro
cks;
incl
udin
g to
nalit
e, d
iorit
e, g
rano
dior
ite, g
rani
te, m
onzo
gran
ite, r
hyo
lite,
mic
rogr
anod
iorit
e
-Rgv
oV
oew
ood
Gra
nite
Pal
e pi
nk to
gre
y m
ediu
m-g
rain
ed b
iotit
e gr
anite
, loc
ally
with
pyr
ite a
long
join
t pla
nes
-Roc
lC
allid
e C
oal M
eas
ures
Poo
rly s
orte
d po
lym
ictic
pe
bble
to b
ould
er c
ongl
omer
ate,
san
dsto
ne, s
iltst
one,
co
al s
eam
s, fe
lsic
tuff
Pw
smS
mok
y be
dsA
ndes
itic
cong
lom
erat
e an
d sa
ndst
one,
mud
ston
e, m
inor
and
esite
lava
Pw
yoY
oula
mbi
e C
ongl
omer
ate
Gra
nule
to b
ould
er p
olym
ictic
con
glo
mer
ate
com
mon
ly w
ith a
bund
ant g
rani
te a
nd r
hyo
lite
clas
ts, f
elsi
c vo
lcan
icla
stic
san
dsto
ne, t
uffa
ceou
s an
d ca
rbon
aceo
us s
iltst
one
and
mud
ston
e, d
aciti
c to
rhy
oliti
c ig
nim
brite
, br
ecci
a, m
inor
coa
l
Pai
nIn
vern
ess
Vol
can
ics
Dar
k gr
ey tr
achy
te to
dac
ite, v
olca
nic
brec
cia;
num
erou
s sm
all h
ornb
lend
e qu
artz
mon
zodi
orite
intr
usio
ns
Psy
rY
arro
l For
mat
ion
San
dsto
ne, s
iltst
one,
lim
esto
ne, c
hert
, min
or a
ndes
ite
Csr
Roc
kham
pton
Gro
upD
ark
grey
mud
ston
e, s
iltst
one,
fels
ic v
olca
nicl
astic
sa
ndst
one,
po
lym
ictic
con
glo
mer
ate,
ooi
d-be
arin
g sa
ndst
one
and
cong
lom
erat
e w
ith m
udst
one
rip-u
p cl
asts
; ool
itic
and
pis
oliti
c lim
esto
ne a
nd m
inor
ske
leta
l lim
esto
ne; r
are
rhyo
litic
igni
mbr
ite
Dsa
mM
ount
Alm
a F
orm
atio
nT
hinl
y in
terb
edd
ed fi
ne-g
rain
ed s
ands
ton
e an
d si
ltsto
ne a
nd th
ick
beds
of
cong
lom
erat
e w
ith a
ndes
itic
to
daci
tic c
last
s an
d si
ltsto
ne r
ip-u
p-cl
asts
Dw
tmT
hree
Moo
n C
ongl
omer
ate
Gre
en-g
rey
to p
urp
le, g
ranu
le to
cob
ble
ande
sitic
to b
asal
tic p
oly
mic
tic c
ong
lom
erat
e, li
thof
elds
path
ic to
fe
ldsp
atho
lith
ic s
ands
tone
, si
ltsto
ne, m
udst
one,
and
esite
, min
or f
elsi
c tu
ff, f
ossi
lifer
ous
limes
tone
; rar
e b
asal
tic
pillo
w la
va a
nd
hyal
ocla
stite
RLM
S |
CA
LLID
E IN
FR
AS
TR
UC
TU
RE
CO
RR
IDO
R S
TU
DY
Ι A
UG
US
T 2
009
Pag
e A
23
Map
Sym
bo
lU
nit
Nam
eG
eolo
gic
al d
escr
ipti
on
SD
fer
Ere
bus
beds
Dac
itic
to r
hyo
litic
vol
cani
clas
tic s
ands
tone
and
co
nglo
mer
ate,
min
or s
iltst
one,
foss
ilife
rous
lim
esto
ne a
nd
mar
ble
Dw
mw
Mar
ble
Wat
erho
le
beds
Gra
nule
to c
obb
le a
ndes
itic
brec
cia,
fine
to m
ediu
m q
uart
z-be
arin
g lit
hof
elds
path
ic s
ands
tone
, silt
ston
e, m
inor
fe
lsic
igni
mbr
ite; g
ranu
le to
peb
ble
poly
mic
tic li
mes
tone
-bea
ring
brec
cia;
loca
lly p
orph
yriti
c a
nd a
myg
dalo
idal
an
desi
te; s
ome
limes
tone
Dw
loLo
chen
bar
beds
Gre
en-g
rey
to p
urp
le g
ranu
le to
cob
ble
and
esiti
c br
ecci
a an
d le
sser
con
glom
erat
e, fi
ne to
med
ium
-gra
ined
fe
ldsp
atho
lith
ic s
ands
tone
, fin
e to
med
ium
loc
ally
am
ygda
loid
al lo
cally
por
phyr
itic
ande
site
, silt
ston
e
Tab
le A
-10
: D
escr
ipti
on
of
So
ils in
Inve
stig
atio
ns
Stu
dy
Are
a u
sin
g N
ort
hco
te F
actu
al K
ey.
Map
Un
itS
ho
rt
des
crip
tio
nD
etai
led
so
il u
nit
des
crip
tio
n
CB
5C
rack
ing
clay
Gen
tle to
mod
erat
ely
undu
latin
g an
d ro
lling
land
s w
ith s
ome
broa
d pl
ains
and
low
hill
s an
d ri
dges
: ch
ief s
oils
are
gre
y cl
ays
with
loca
lly im
port
ant a
reas
of d
ark
clay
s or
bro
wn
cla
ys. S
ome
gilg
ai m
icro
relie
f may
be
pres
ent a
nd a
lso
som
e lo
cal a
ccum
ulat
ions
of s
ilcre
te (
bill
y) g
rave
l may
occ
ur. D
eep
er g
rey
and
brow
n cl
ays
occu
r on
the
broa
der
pla
ins.
V
ario
us lo
amy
dupl
ex s
oils
are
pre
sent
loca
lly.
CC
22C
rack
ing
clay
Gen
tly u
ndul
atin
g pl
ains
: dom
inan
t soi
ls a
re d
eep
cla
ys w
ith a
mod
erat
e (1
-2 ft
) gi
lgai
mic
rore
lief.
Chi
ef f
orm
s ar
e gr
ey c
lays
with
less
er b
row
n cl
ays
. Clo
sely
ass
ocia
ted
are
non-
gilg
aied
are
as w
ith lo
amy-
surf
aced
dup
lex
soils
. T
hese
occ
ur e
ither
on
slig
htly
hig
her
land
scap
e si
tes
or
as s
mal
l allu
vial
pla
ins
frin
ging
dra
inag
e lin
es. A
lso
occu
rrin
g ar
e sm
all a
reas
of f
riabl
e ea
rths
and
occ
asio
nal a
reas
of l
oam
y re
d ea
rths
.
Fz1
0Lo
ams
Ste
ep h
illy
to m
ount
aino
us c
ount
ry w
ith s
ome
smal
l pla
teau
rem
nant
s an
d na
rrow
va
lleys
. Chi
ef s
oils
are
sha
llow
lo
ams
with
man
y ro
ck o
utcr
ops.
RLM
S |
CA
LLID
E IN
FR
AS
TR
UC
TU
RE
CO
RR
IDO
R S
TU
DY
Ι A
UG
US
T 2
009
Pag
e A
24
Map
Un
itS
ho
rt
des
crip
tio
nD
etai
led
so
il u
nit
des
crip
tio
n
Fz1
1Lo
ams
Ste
ep r
idge
s w
ith s
ome
flat c
rest
s; a
den
se d
rain
age
pat
tern
with
mod
erat
e ar
eas
of lo
w s
purs
. Chi
ef s
oils
are
sh
allo
w lo
ams
with
roc
k ou
tcro
ps.
HG
4B
lack
dup
lex
Allu
vial
pla
ins:
the
chi
ef s
oils
are
har
d al
kalin
e da
rk s
oils
.
Ii4N
on-c
rack
ing
clay
Gen
tly u
ndul
atin
g pl
ains
: dom
inan
t soi
ls a
re v
ery
deep
cla
ys, o
ccas
ion
ally
with
line
ar g
ilgai
on
slop
es. O
ccas
iona
l ar
eas
of v
ery
deep
bro
wn
cla
ys m
ay o
ccur
, and
als
o sh
allo
w h
ighl
y ca
lcar
eous
so
ils. N
ear
the
mar
gin
of th
e un
it lo
amy
dupl
ex s
oils
occ
ur.
Kb1
4C
rack
ing
clay
Rol
ling
to lo
w h
illy
basa
ltic
upla
nds
with
som
e st
ony
rises
, low
sto
ny s
carp
s ab
ove
long
gen
tle s
lope
s to
nar
row
dr
aina
ge f
lats
: chi
ef s
oils
are
sha
llow
dar
k cl
ays
in a
lluvi
al d
epre
ssio
ns.
Mm
11M
assi
ve e
arth
sR
ollin
g to
rou
nde
d lo
w h
illy
plat
eaux
on
deep
ly w
eath
ered
mix
ed p
aren
t roc
ks in
clud
ing
lithi
c sa
ndst
one
s an
d ba
salts
; so
me
low
hill
y di
ssec
ted
area
s w
ith s
mal
l mes
as a
djac
ent t
o h
ighe
r la
terit
ic p
late
aux:
dom
inan
t soi
ls a
re a
lkal
ine
dark
fr
iabl
e ea
rths
with
neu
tral
and
aci
dic
red
fria
ble
eart
hs.
Ass
ocia
ted
are
dar
k, b
row
n, a
nd g
rey
crac
king
cla
ys.
Mo1
4M
assi
ve e
arth
sR
ollin
g to
hill
y co
untr
y: c
hie
f soi
ls s
eem
to b
e ne
utra
l fria
ble
eart
hs.
Mp1
3M
assi
ve e
arth
sS
tron
gly
to m
oder
atel
y hi
lly c
ount
ry o
n m
ixed
and
var
iabl
e ba
sic
to a
cidi
c ro
cks;
slo
pes
are
stee
p to
mod
erat
e an
d cr
ests
rou
nded
; som
e m
argi
nal r
idge
s: c
hief
soi
ls a
re a
cidi
c re
d fr
iabl
e ea
rths
.
Mz5
Mas
sive
ear
ths
Und
ulat
ing
to g
ently
und
ulat
ing
elev
ated
pla
ins
ofte
n b
ound
ed b
y st
eep
late
ritic
sca
rps,
sm
alle
r re
sidu
al o
ccur
renc
es
of th
e un
it of
ten
occu
r as
sca
rp-b
orde
red
low
mes
as: d
omin
ant s
oils
are
slig
htly
aci
d lo
amy
red
ear
ths
whi
ch m
ay
occa
sion
ally
con
tain
nod
ular
gra
vels
. Ass
ocia
ted
are
smal
ler
area
s of
loam
y ye
llow
ear
ths
cont
aini
ng n
odul
ar g
rave
ls.
The
late
ritic
sca
rps
have
a r
ange
of s
hallo
w s
ton
y so
ils. I
n br
oad
valle
y flo
ors
and
on
som
e lo
wer
slo
pes
loam
y m
ottle
d du
plex
soi
ls o
ccur
. S
mal
l str
eam
floo
d-pl
ains
als
o ha
ve lo
amy
dupl
ex s
oils
.
Qa6
Red
dup
lex
Low
hill
y to
gen
tly r
ollin
g co
untr
y w
ith v
ery
narr
ow v
alle
y pl
ains
: har
d n
eutr
al r
ed s
oils
occ
ur in
ass
ocia
tion
with
cr
acki
ng c
lays
sho
win
g lin
ear
gilg
ai fo
rmat
ion.
RLM
S |
CA
LLID
E IN
FR
AS
TR
UC
TU
RE
CO
RR
IDO
R S
TU
DY
Ι A
UG
US
T 2
009
Pag
e A
25
Map
Un
itS
ho
rt
des
crip
tio
nD
etai
led
so
il u
nit
des
crip
tio
n
Qa7
Red
dup
lex
Mod
erat
ely
high
hill
s w
ith r
ound
ed c
rest
s an
d st
raig
ht o
ften
gen
tle s
ide
slo
pes;
nar
row
val
ley
plai
ns:
the
hard
neu
tra
l re
d so
ils c
over
ing
the
hills
are
dom
inan
t.
Tb1
08Y
ello
w d
uple
xLo
w h
illy
to r
ollin
g to
pogr
aph
y w
ith n
arro
w to
mod
erat
ely
wid
e va
lleys
: har
d ac
idic
yel
low
mot
tled
soils
on
the
wid
er
plai
ns a
re a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith v
ario
us c
rack
ing
clay
s on
hill
slo
pes
and
red
eart
h so
ils o
n th
e ar
eas
of r
ollin
g re
lief.
Dat
a ar
e lim
ited
for
this
div
erse
are
a.
Tb8
8Y
ello
w d
uple
xS
teep
hill
y to
mou
ntai
nous
cou
ntry
on
met
ased
imen
ts:
chie
f soi
ls a
re h
ard
acid
ic y
ello
w m
ottle
d so
ils w
ith h
ard
aci
dic
red
soils
all
ofte
n s
ton
y. A
ssoc
iate
d ar
e sh
allo
w lo
ams
on th
e st
eepe
r sl
opes
.
Tb9
0Y
ello
w d
uple
xLo
w r
ound
ed h
ills:
chi
ef s
oils
are
har
d ac
idic
yel
low
mot
tled
soils
with
har
d ac
idic
red
soi
ls o
n m
etas
edim
ents
.
Tb9
1Y
ello
w d
uple
xG
ently
rol
ling
gran
itic
terr
ain
with
slo
pes
not
exc
eedi
ng
6 de
g (e
tch
basi
ns in
gra
nite
): c
hie
f soi
ls a
re h
ard
acid
ic
yello
w m
ottle
d so
ils.
Tb9
2Y
ello
w d
uple
xT
erra
ced
valle
y pl
ains
: chi
ef s
oils
are
har
d ac
idic
yel
low
mot
tled
soils
whi
ch o
ccur
on
the
third
terr
ace.
Ub7
0Y
ello
w d
uple
xG
ener
ally
low
hill
y co
untr
y on
gra
nitic
roc
ks w
ith lo
ng m
oder
ate
to g
entle
slo
pes
to d
rain
age
lines
, som
e ge
ntle
low
er
slop
es; n
arro
w r
idge
cre
sts
with
roc
k ou
tcro
ps: c
hief
soi
ls a
re h
ard
neu
tral
yel
low
mot
tled
soils
.
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009Page B1
APPENDIX B – CIC ROUTE REFINEMENT FROMLANDHOLDER ENGAGEMENTLandholder engagement commenced using Revision D as the base case. Refinements requested by landowners were considered as discussed below.
Landholder 1After crossing the Calliope River, the CIC passes centrally through large property blocks, owned by one landholder. This land is used for raising cattle and the CIC dissects the paddocks. The impacts of construction on farm activities were discussed and the landholder held a view that the corridor would have to be fenced to protect his stock. The landholder offered two alternative routes which skirted his land, rather than running through the centre. These are shown on Figure B-1. In the landholder’s opinion, the alternative routes reduced the impact as the CIC activity was near the boundary of his land holding. In addition, access could be gained from the external public road (Mount Alma Road) without a requirement for travel across his land. The landholder would still require the corridor to be fenced, however, rather than a fenced corridor through his property, the alternatives would require a single fence along the inside boundary of the CIC on his property.
Alternative Option 1
Alternative Option 1 veers to the east after crossing the Calliope River and crosses the river again before turning to the northeast to track between the Calliope River and the Dawson Highway. This option then crosses the Calliope River again to rejoin the CIC Revision D route just before the Harper Creek crossing.
The benefits of this option are that it addresses the landholder’s concerns about going through the centre of his land and it potentially provides better access from the Dawson Highway. However, it adds approximately 2km to the length of the CIC, which increases the construction cost of each pipe to be located within the CIC. Also, two Calliope River crossings and one creek crossing are added, increasing potential impact on riparian vegetation and water quality. This option may result in impacts to a larger area of land due to the construction limitations and the need to spread the pipelines apart from each other at the additional watercourse crossings and two additional direction changes in the alignment.
Note that it is not practical to hug the road easement as requested by the landholder as the road easement has minor direction changes not readily followed by the pipelines. The width of the CIC would become much greater than 200 metres.
Alternative Option 2
Alternative Option 2 veers to the north after the Calliope River crossing, meets the Mount Alma Road and tracks a similar line to the Mount Alma Road until it rejoins CIC Revision D prior to the Harper Creek crossing.
The benefits of this option are that it takes the CIC alignment away from the centre of the land holding and it has more direct access from Mount Alma Road. The construction conditions are similar to the CIC Revision D alignment, however it is approximately 1km longer, potentially adding to the construction costs. Two additional direction changes will be required for this option, increasing the area of land that may be impacted on.
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009Page B2
Assessment and conclusion
Option 2 is preferred over Option 1 as a viable alternative for the CIC alignment between the Calliope River crossing and the Harper Creek crossing (Revision E1). Although the landholder requested the alignment to follow the Mount Alma Road, it can only track close to it due to constructability issues with the pipeline designs. Option 1 is not practicable owing to three additional watercourse crossings, additional length and its proximity to the Calliope River in general.
Further consultation with the landholder revealed that the location where CIC Revision D crosses Harper Creek was a permanent waterhole. Construction within a 200m wide corridor at this location could significantly impact on the permanent waterhole and its ability to retain water. Also, there is potential for cultural heritage issues at this location. Therefore, Alternative Option 2 was realigned to generally follow Mount Alma Road, with a Harper Creek crossing point upstream of the original. This realignment will be adopted as Revision F.
Landholders 2 and 3The landholders questioned the width of the corridor in the vicinity of Sandy Creek, where the CIC has a direction change and tracks north (refer to Figure B-2). The CIC was widened in this location to allow for the direction change, the crossing of the existing Queensland Gas Pipeline and the crossing of Sandy Creek, which occur within a few hundred metres of corridor length. The approximate 500m width was maintained after the direction change to allow potential pipelines to track either side of the large farm dam located to the west of Mount Alma Road. The CIC was brought back to the 200m width prior to crossing the Mount Alma Road again.
Landholders requested the Government consider bringing the CIC back to 200m width within 250m of the direction change, and to keep the CIC to the west of the farm dam, with the aim of decreasing the impact to the land and property activities. A realignment of Mount Alma Road, as shown on Figure B-2, was suggested at this location to negate the need for two crossings within a short length of corridor.
This refinement was considered not feasible due to the need for the pipelines to have additional construction area to negotiate the crossings and direction change. In addition, it appears the ground conditions are not favourable for construction due to the presence of rock. If the pipelines were brought together into a 200m wide CIC soon after the Sandy Creek crossing, there is potential for the construction impact to be higher on these properties than if the wider CIC was adopted and allowed a little flexibility in the pipe alignment through this area.
Realignment of Mount Alma Road is not necessary as the pipeline construction across it is not difficult. A slight change was made to not include the Mount Alma Road road reserve in the CIC boundary. This change is adopted into Revision F.
Landholder 4The Landholder to the immediate south of Larcom Creek raised concerns about the CIC Revision D alignment impacting on future potential subdivision for lifestyle blocks. The Landholder noted the QGP has this impact on land west of Mount Alma Road and he would like to avoid similar constraints on land to the east of Mount Alma Road.
Original route selection and refinement for the CIC attempted to follow the QGP through this area, however Mount Alma Road parallels the QGP easement within 90m and therefore a 200m wide CIC could not be allocated. Realigning Mount Alma Road in two locations would allow the CIC to follow the QGP for 9.5km rather than
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009Page B3
cross Mount Alma Road to an alternative route (Revision E2). This would affect the landholder to the north of Larcom Creek also.
One of the benefits of the CIC realignment option shown on Figure B-3 is that the CIC follows the QGP easement for approximately 9.5km, keeping together all gas pipelines, both existing and future. This is the case on two landholdings both to the north and south of Larcom Creek.
A constraint on the option is the realignment of the Mount Alma Road in two locations to allow the CIC to be aligned with the QGP. The same landholders own the land on either side of Mount Alma Road, therefore the road realignment will not affect other landholders. The road is a formed gravel road maintained by the Gladstone Regional Council and further consultation with the local authority will be required. In addition, it involves two significant bends to cross Mount Alma Road which are major construction design issues.
Considering both the positives and negatives of this option, it is recommended that the original Revision D alignment be adopted into Revision F.
Landholder 5During assessment of re-alignments requested by landholders, the Department of Infrastructure and Planning recognized that there may be an opportunity to realign the CIC between the Dawson Highway crossing and the Moura Short Line rail crossing (refer Figure B-4). An alignment adjacent to the Dawson Highway was assessed in an attempt to minimise the impact on farm activities by construction.
This realignment keeps the CIC away from the unnamed creek and closer to Dawson Highway. It also provides direct access from Duck Holes Road near the rail crossing, and potentially the Dawson Highway, rather than gaining access via the rail service road. However, it shifts the rail crossing area to land which has a significant drainage gully running through it and under the rail line through culverts. A safe minimum working distance needs to be maintained at the rail crossing for all pipelines (Revision E1).
The presence of an old cattle dip on Lot 4 on CTN406 needs to be considered in this section of the corridor. The option described above was slightly realigned to keep the corridor between the Dawson Highway road reserve and the disused cattle dip and yards. This realignment reduces the impact of the corridor on farm activities however careful management of construction in the vicinity of the cattle dip will be required. This will be adopted into Revision F.
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009Page C1
APPENDIX C – CIC ROUTE REFINEMENT FROM CONSTRUCTABILITY FIELD ASSESSMENT
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009Page C2
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009Page D1
APPENDIX D – MEETING RECORDS
Date Meeting subject Attendees
17 April 2009 Project briefing/scoping meeting DIP, RLMS, Rowland
28 April 2009 Discuss RLMS proposal DIP internal meeting
15 May 2009 Information briefing with Surat Gladstone Pipeline (SGP) Pty Ltd (Arrow Energy)
DIP, RLMS, SGP
18 May 2009 Information briefing with Australia Pacific LNG Project
DIP, RLMS, Origin Energy
20 May 2009 Joint LNG proponent meeting to discuss CIC and issues
DIP, RLMS, SGP, GLNG, GHD
20 May 2009 Information briefing with Queensland Curtis LNG Project
DIP, RLMS, BG Group
2 June 2009 Update on preferred CIC route and selection criteria used
DIP, RLMS
2 June 2009 Information briefing with Jemena DIP, RLMS, Jemena
3 June 2009 Information briefing for Brisbane-based State Agencies
DIP (State Development Areas), RLMS, Dept Premier & Cabinet, Qld Treasury, DERM, DEEDI (Industry & Development), DEEDI (Mines & Energy), DEEDI (Qld Primary Industries & Fisheries), DIP (LNG Industry Unit), Dept Transport & Main Roads.
5 June 2009 Project update meeting DIP, RLMS, Rowland
9 June 2009 Discussion on corridor acquisition strategies
DIP, RLMS
10 June 2009 CIC update and selection criteria briefing to LNG proponents
DIP, RLMS, SGP, BG Group (incorporating QGC), Origin Energy, GLNG
11 June 2009 Draft report DIP, RLMS
12 June 2009 Follow up meeting regarding land acquisition issues and landholder consultation
DIP, RLMS, Rowland,
17 June 2009 Briefing to Coordinator-General on preferred CIC route and selection criteria
DIP, RLMS, Coordinator-General
RLMS | CALLIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR STUDY Ι AUGUST 2009Page D2
Date Meeting subject Attendees
19 June 2009 Update on CIC route and issues with LNG proponents. Proponent-derived route presented.
DIP, RLMS, SGP, GLNG, BG/QGC,Origin Energy
23 June 2009 Discussion on merits of proponent-derived CIC route
DIP, RLMS
30 June 2009 Preparation for landholder consultation visit to Gladstone
DIP (State Development Areas and Land Acquisition), RLMS, Rowland
6-10 July 2009 Consultation with affected landholders (see Rowland report for further information)
DIP, RLMS, Rowland
8 July 2009 Information briefing for region-based State Agencies
DIP, RLMS, DERM, Qld Rail, DEEDI (Qld Primary Industries & Fisheries), DEEDI (Mines & Energy)
15 July 2009 Follow up meeting with LNG proponents regarding landholder feedback and CIC realignment options
DIP, RLMS, SGP, GLNG, BG/QGC, Origin Energy
27-28 July 2009
Further engagement with affected landholders
DIP, RLMS, Rowland
30 July 2009 Pipeline corridors within the GSDA with update on CIC field work by RLMS and landholder consultation.
DIP, RLMS, QER Limited, Aurecon, Origin Energy, Shell Australia, Coffey Environmental, SGP, BG/QGC, GLNG
17-18 August 2009
Field survey of affected properties for CIC.
DIP, RLMS, Origin Energy, SGP, BG/QGC, GLNG
DIP – Department of Infrastructure and Planning
SGP – Surat Gladstone Pipeline Pty Ltd
GLNG – LNG Project proponent for Santos
DERM – Department of Environment and Resource Management
DEEDI – Department of Employment, Economic Development & Innovation