dam the mary river? save the mary river! · mary river turtle, through decreased water quality,...

Dam the Mary River? Save the Mary River!

Save the Mary River Coordinating Group Support and Information Centre, Kandanga Railway, Ph: 5488 4800

http://www.savethemaryriver.com/ [email protected]

20th Sept 2008

The Secretary Senate Standing Committee on Environment Communications and the Arts PO Box 6100 Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600

Email address [email protected]

RE: Submission to the Senate Inquiry into the operation of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Dear Sir/Madam

The Save the Mary River Coordinating Group Inc (STMRCG) is a community-based group formed two days after the Queensland Government’s surprise announcement in April 2006, that it intended to dam the Mary River at Traveston Crossing. It has a committee comprised of landholders that live in the Mary River catchment, a membership of over 300 members and has attracted very substantial community support for its legitimacy and its actions. It has members from a wide range of professional backgrounds possessing expertise relevant to this submission.

We welcome the opportunity to provide our views to the Senate Inquiry into the operation of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) based on our experience with the approvals process of the Northern Pipeline Inter connector (NPI) stage 1 and 2, Traveston Crossing dam, sand and gravel extraction in the Mary Valley, and the auditing of EPBC mitigation conditions of Paradise Dam.

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.savethemaryriver.com/

Our contribution concerns the operation of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and other natural resource protection programmes, with particular reference to:

lessons learnt from the first 10 years of operation of the EPBC Act in relation to the protection of critical habitats of threatened species and ecological communities, and potential for measures to improve their recovery;

the cumulative impacts of EPBC Act approvals on threatened species and ecological communities, for example by the Paradise Dam;

the effectiveness of responses to key threats identified within the EPBC Act, including land-clearing, climate change and invasive species, and potential for future measures to build environmental resilience and facilitate adaptation within a changing climate; and

the impact of programme changes and cuts in funding on the decline or extinction of flora�

and fauna.�

Shortcomings in the assessment of the EPBC Act process we have experienced include: 1. Lack of confidence in the bilateral agreement being an appropriate assessment method when the State is trying to undertake an independent environmental assessment on the Traveston Crossing dam project where the proponent QWIPL has advised us that it has only one $1 shareholder (a State Government employee – the Premier of Queensland ) and five of the six Directors are Queensland Government employees. Further, QWIPL has been granted State Government powers to progress the proposal and is therefore not an independent company.

2. Lack of standard methodology in assessing impacts on species and risk of extinction. Although there is an appalling lack of data about the endangered flora and fauna and the QWI admitting in the supplementary EIS: “We do not have basic population and life history information for most species, and this is certainly the case for the suite of threatened species recorded from the study area", the mitigation strategies proposed are largely untried , unproven or unsuccessful (eg. artificial breeding – husbandry, turtle ramp, fishways for lung-fish, relocating turtle nesting banks). There are no Population Viability Analyses(PVA) or Population and Habitat Viability Assessments for endemic and/or threatened species or habitats– the excuse given is the lack of data and problems with reliability of some PVAs, but these are not valid excuses providing sufficient time and effort are made to adequately assess risks to threatened species. Such time and effort are actually required in the Terms of Reference.

3. Lack of enforcement of EPBC approval conditions: The delay in auditing (over 6 months between auditing date and final report release) and lack of enforcement of EPBC approval conditions is of concern at Paradise Dam. This is the last dam built in Qld and which was audited under the EPBC act to be partially compliant for the fishway and showing a number of other shortcomings in meeting EPBC conditions. Appendix A lists some of our comments about the lack of rigor in the Audit of Burnett Water Pty Ltd, QLD, Burnett River Dam, EPBC 2001/422. In particular there has been no prosecution by the Federal government of the Queensland government for its breach of EPBC conditions on the Paradise Dam even though the downstream fishlock has never worked. and the upstream fishlift has operated insufficient times to gather enough monitoring data to

assess its effectiveness. There also has to be suitable habitat on either side of the fishway for the fish to survive, thrive and reproduce... a surface covered in the aquatic weed salvinia in the dam, and lack of suitable spawning grounds (for lungfish) and very little water released downstream could hardly constitute to be suitable habitat. Similarly there has to be suitable water quality. Fish kills in Paradise dam during 2006 and 2007 are evidence that water quality has been a problem that would have put more of the fish population at risk. The following link provides additional information and images of Paradise Dam -

http://picasaweb.google.com.au/glendap5/Paradise?authkey=fcnPkxsYv6Q

We would recommend that this auditing process at Paradise Dam be compared to the process that would be carried out on a non-governmental corporation.

4. Lack of aquatic macro invertebrate listings: It is well known that the scientific task to describe, name and map Australia’s invertebrate fauna is still in its infancy, and that the identification of all significant species (high biodiversity value) is even further down the track, as is the designation process of a much needed conservation status under the EPBC Act (1999) and the IUCN (Red List) for many species (e.g. Clarke & Spier- Ashcroft 2001. Aquatic macro invertebrates are practically absent from the EPBC list (www.environment.gov.au/epbc/index.html).(www.ento.csiro.au/conservation/actionplan.html).

Our current lack of knowledge must not be mistaken as a license to destroy ecosystems that cannot go back to their former state (should we become wiser one day and try to rehabilitate) and will be forever lost. .The Mary River catchment in its current (though impacted) state is one of SEQ’s most valuable stream ecosystems with its unique pool, riffle and sandbar sequence.

5. Lack of application of the Principles of Ecological Sustainable Development: Within Australian State and Commonwealth legislation and policy, Ecological Sustainable Development (ESD) is specifically defined with reference to five principles as outlined, for example, in Section 3A of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999:

1. Decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations.

2. If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

3. The principle of inter-generational equity—that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations.

4. The conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making.

5. Improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be promoted.

http://picasaweb.google.com.au/glendap5/Paradise?authkey=fcnPkxsYv6Q

www.environment.gov.au/epbc/index.html).(www.ento.csiro.au/conservation/actionplan.html

The EIS for stage1 of the proposed Traveston Crossing and the NPI has failed at the most basic level to consider impacts and alternatives within the ESD framework. Taking water from the Mary catchment (plans to take 5 times more water than currently taken and thats not including evaporation losses from the proposed dam) is not equitable or sustainable when there is far more water that falls on the Moreton catchment than is used. Social impacts have been devastating on our community and poorly recorded in the EIS. No value has been assigned to environmental services or social impact costs in the decision-making process. No consideration made to look at the costs to future generations for decommissioning costs, high risk of irreversible environmental damage through erosion, salinity or health risks. Inadequate involvement of downstream stakeholders who will be impacted through lack of water security, water quality, lack of flushing flows, impacts on tourism or fisheries. Poor documentation and detail when comparing alternatives makes it difficult to evaluate costings and risk of various options.

6. Lack of appropriate assessment of cumulative impacts is another shortfall of the EIS process under the EPBC Act for the proposed NPI stage 1, stage 2, the Traveston crossing dam, and increasing number of sand and gravel extraction on the Mary River floodplain and the risks posed to matters of national significance..

The lack of fresh water flows to Hervey Bay and the Great Sandy Straits Ramsar wetlands from the cumulative impacts from extensive dams, weirs and barrages in the Burnett and Mary River systems is now showing up as hyper salinity in Hervey Bay. Yet the EIS continues to use average stream flows to justify that there will be no impact on fresh water flows downstream.

A significant body of newly published research on the links between freshwater flows from the Mary River and the hydrography of Hervey Bay and the Great Sandy Strait. A brief description of this work can be found at http://www.bmrg.org.au/information.php/2/55/237. The abstract and an e-print copy of the report by Principal researcher and oceanographer Associate Professor Joachim Ribbe can be downloaded from http://eprints.usq.edu.au/4351/

Another example of cumulative impact not being adequately addressed concerns water quality and excessive sediment. Fine sediment most likely contributed to death of seagrass and impacted on fisheries, dugong and marine turtles in the Great Sandy Straits after the 1992 floods (McLeod 1996). The extent of the Mary River flood plume of the smaller flood of 1999 flood (Feb 12th 1999) is illustrated in Map 1 (McKenzine et.al.2000). CSIRO research (De Rose et. al, 2002) has already showed that riverbank erosion can contribute upwards of 87% of end-of-valley sediments in the Mary River Catchment.

There is also a high risk of dispersive clays being removed from siltation ponds during flood plain flooding of gravel extraction pits which are expanding rapidly since the announcement to dam the Mary River at Traveston Crossing. Numerous potential sand and gravel borrow pits have been identified in the EIS. Photo 1 and 2 illustrate the highly dispersive nature of the clays within the sand and gravels in the Mary river catchment at a sand and gravel quarry at Traveston crossing..

http://eprints.usq.edu.au/4351/

http://www.bmrg.org.au/information.php/2/55/237

Photo 1: Sand and Gravel extraction at Traveston Crossing Aug 2008�

This poses a risk in the floodplain during high flood events which is highly likely increase the river’s turbidity downstream and directly affect the health of the Mary River Cod, Queensland Lungfish and Mary River Turtle, through decreased water quality, decreased native submerged aquatic plant growth and infilling of habitat pools. Mary River Cod is at the top of the food chain of the Mary River system. Any adverse impacts on fisheries directly affect the recovery plan of this species (Simpson & Jackson, 1996, The Mary River Cod Research and Recovery Plan).

Also increases in the volume and frequency of sediment load (and particularly dispersive clays) within the river is also likely to impact on the seagrass beds within the Great Sandy Straits. Migratory marine mammals, Dugong dugong (dugong), Caretta caretta (loggerhead turtle), and Chelonia mydas (green turtle) are all known to feed on these seagrass beds. Studies have shown sea grass death and impacts on dugong in Hervey Bay from sediment blocking the light for sea grasses after the 1992 flood (Preen et al 1995). Lenthalls dam was just built on the Burrum River and inundation of highly dispersive soils and subsequent dispersion would have contributed to the pattern of death shown in sea grass around the mouth of the Burrum River (P Dutton pers com).

Therefore dispersive clays from sand and grave extraction will likely have significant impacts on the habitat and populations of Dugong by:

• Decreasing breeding areas • Decreasing habitat areas for occupancy • Decreasing population levels and • Isolating the population leading to reduced genetic integrity and possible genetic depression

Photo 2: Closer view of highly dispersive silts in settling ponds in the flood plain at Traveston Crossing. There exists a high risk that these will be breached during a high flood event. Aug 2008.

There is a high risk of increasing erosion of riverbanks in an area already known to show instability of river channel below the proposed Traveston crossing dam wall location. This again would be a cumulative impact in increase turbidity of downstream waters that is not being seriously considered in the EIS process.

There is documented evidence of river bank instability having adverse impacts on Great Sandy Strait Ramsar Wetlands. After the 1992 floods, many properties had bad stream bank erosion on the Mary River around the Conondale area. This type of bank slippages, slip circle bank failures, and undercut banks were extensive in the catchment and particularly bad when the banks became saturated. Photo 3 shows an example of stream bank erosion below Kandanga ck junction with the Mary River and Photo 4 shows its regeneration after 9 years when protected from grazing and native species enhanced planted amongst the native regeneration of sheoak and bottle brush. Photos 5 and 6 shows more examples of similar regeneration after the 92 flood where banks were badly eroded.. Poor regeneration occurs if stock are not excluded (Photo 7). Extensive restoration work has been carried out in the Mary catchment by landholders over the last 15 years and much more is required.

Photo 3: Badly eroded Mary River Banks after the 1992 flood�

Photo 4: Riverbanks in 2001 (9 years later - and a big flood in 1999) recovering after fencing off and some enhancement planting/seeding

Photo 5: Riverbanks fenced off for 14 years along the Mary River– over a kilometer of well vegetated, stable riverbank downstream of the junction of Kandanga Ck and the Mary River.

Photo 6: From bare eroding banks to this scene in 14 years – helping nature recover in the Mary River catchment

Photo 7: Riverbanks unfenced on the opposite side of the river.�

7. Unclear assessment of social and economic considerations: Under the current EPBC legislation it is unclear how the social and economic impacts of a project are included in the assessment. How does the risk to upstream landholders and 3 major towns which are proposed to be within the high water level of the dam wall if the spill way gates malfunction (Lenthall's dam spill way gates had a problem this year) get considered? How are the noise impacts on rural landholdings where roads are now realigned to be much closer to their properties assessed? How is the increase in flooding time and what impact that will have on businesses in Gympie downstream assessed? (a modelled scenario has shown if the dam was inn place for the 1999 flood, the flood peak would have been reduced by 4 metres but doubled the flooding time.)

8. Lack of assessment for climate change implications and greenhouse gas emissions: Under the current EPBC legislation there is no requirement to consider impacts from climate change or greenhouse gas emissions with project proposals. Yet there is mounting evidence from overseas that dams and particularly shallow, warm dams will emit large amounts of greenhouse gases and particularly methane and nitrous oxides will be high from the nutrient rich soils that would be inundated in the Mary Valley. CSIRO predictions of climate change for the area include more variability in rainfall and up to 10% decline. This would result in up to 30% decline in stream flow and combined with the proposal to plant plantation timber over 2000-5000 ha of the catchment would substantially decrease the water yield expected. This has not been considered in the EIS.

8. EPBC Act assessment based on flawed water planning in the Mary Basin Water Resource Plan:

The community is particularly concerned with the process involved in the adoption of the Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP). A WRP has been created for the river, and is used as the basis to justify the conclusion that there are no downstream impacts with the proposed extraction of water by the NPI and the proposed Traveston Crossing dam. However the plan is not endorsed by the community reference panel, it doesn’t protect downstream estuarine sections of the river as it is only legally valid to the Mary River Barrage. Also the operation rules in the WRP do not address environmental flows required in the estuarine section of the river and protect the Matters of National Environmental Significance in that area.

• The decision making process of the WRP has not incorporated the Precautionary Principle and advanced sustainable management. According to s 10(1) of the Water Act 2000 (Qld) (the Act) the purpose of Ch 2 is “to advance sustainable management and efficient use of water and other resources by establishing a system for the planning, allocation and use of water”. The term “sustainable management” is defined in s 10(2) of the Act as management that:

(a) Allows for the allocation and use of water for the physical, economic and social well being of the people of Queensland and Australia within limits that can be sustained indefinitely; and

(b) Protects the biological diversity and health of natural ecosystems; and

(c) Contributes to the following:

(i) Improving planning confidence of water users now and in the future regarding availability and security of water entitlements;

(ii) The economic development of Queensland in accordance with the principles of ESD;1

(iii) Maintaining or improving the quality of naturally occurring water and other resources that benefit the natural resources of the State;

“Principles of ecologically sustainable development” (ESD) are defined in the Water Act 2000 (Qld), s 11 1

(iv) Protecting water, watercourses, lakes, springs, aquifers, natural ecosystems and other resources from degradation and, if practicable, reversing degradation that has occurred;

(v) Recognising the interests of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders and their connection with the landscape in water planning;

(vi) Providing for the fair, orderly and efficient allocation of water to meet community needs.

The principles of ecological sustainable development as defined in the Act include the precautionary principle.2

A draft Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) was released for public comment in November 2005. The final Mary Basin Water Resource Plan was legislated in September 2006. There were significant changes made between the draft and final versions of the plan. Notably, the inclusion of words “to minimise the extent” in lieu of “must be adhered to” will have a profound effect on the Mary River and the Great Sandy Strait. This is akin to simply indicating what should happen, but “if we can’t do it, we don’t have to”.

The Government’s own dam operator, Sunwater, in January 2006, seriously questioned the ability to achieve Environmental Flow Objectives (EFOs) contained in the draft WRP and questioned the impact of the ‘strategic reserve” as further undermining EFOs in the draft WRP. S unwater correspondence relating to the draft Mary Basin WRP as tabled by Noosa Shire Council (submission 89 in the Senate Inquiry to investigate additional water supplies for SEQ 2007) clearly states the inability to supply existing allocations before even considering an additional 150,000 ML as a “strategic Reserve”. The final WRP was even more restrictive.

By analysing historical river flows the extent of “change from natural” can be determined. It is then a question of how much change from natural condition is allowable before ecosystems cease to function properly. In particular how much freshwater flow does the estuary need for fish spawning? The proposed dam will have a dramatic effect on river flows, particularly in drier months of the year and particularly the drier years. It is irrelevant that the mean annual flow at the river mouth is maintained at 85% of pre-development flows because most of the flows that influence the mean average occur in times of moderate to heavy flooding over very short time periods and at very infrequent intervals. What is the point of providing for average flows over a 110 year period when the dam operator could legally provide no flow at all year after year if necessary? The number 85% has no documented empirical basis (Arthington et al., 2006).

The draft WRP completed its public notification stage in February 2006. The intention of the dam was not part of the publicly notified WRP. As the dam represents a major departure from the policy intent of the draft Plan, the final Plan is open to the criticism that it unfairly represented the government’s ultimate intentions. The community is aware that the final WRP was created following mandatory inclusion of a

Water Act 2000 (Qld), s 11(b). 2

precondition that 150,000 ML per annum was to be available for extraction. Scientists have already provided the State Government with scientific data that shows the Mary River is already over-allocated and has water quality problems where increasingly salinity and dissolved oxygen are outside the EPA recommended guidelines (Brizga et al., 2006).

Generally, denial of the opportunity for the community to comment on the proposed dam as a part of the draft Water Resource Plan is a denial of the rights intended by the legislation to accrue to the community and the final Plan ought to be seen as substantially flawed in its process.

The Community Reference Panel, appointed by the State Government to provide input into the Water Resource Plan has publicly advised that it had been profoundly deceived by the State Government in relation to the proposed dam. A conference in Noosa on 24 April 2006 (two days prior to the TCD announcement) regarding water resource planning in the Mary Basin failed to highlight the proposal for a major dam on the Mary River. Any reasonable person would consider this type of conduct to be highly deceptive and grossly misleading. In essence, the EIS is based on a fundamentally flawed and deceptive water planning process.

The Resource Operations Plan (ROP) has not been completed which would approve allocations from the strategic reserve for the proposed TCD to extract 70,000ML per year from the catchment. This process so far has not involved community consultation.

The following 2 examples from the EIS for the Traveston Crossing dam shows how at current full allocations, environmental flows can not meet the legislated environmental flow objectives of the Mary Basin Water Resource Plan now without any allowances for climate change or a future dam on the Mary River.

Example 1: The above graph shows the proponent's mean monthly flow data from the EIS (Oct 2007). Even as far downstream from the dam site as the entrance to the estuary at the Mary River barrage, the proposal is predicted to reduce September flows to about half of their natural state and generally significantly reduce flows during the JASON months (MRCCC 2008).

Example 2:The above graph from the data of the EIS (Oct 2007) illustrates the extent to which median ('typical') flows in the lower river would not comply with the environmental flow objectives in the Mary Basin Water Resource Plan if all existing water allocations were fully utilized. It also shows how much further outside compliance the flows would be if Stage 1 of the Traveston Crossing Dam came into operation. It is difficult to see how this intent to make matters worse than they currently are could be interpreted as 'minimizing' the extent to which flows don't meet the objectives, as required under the plan. It is also hard to see how current allocations can be supported and the operation of the dam optimized to bring these figures into compliance without reducing the stated yield of the dam by making specific environmental flow releases. (MRCCC 2008)

9. Limited opportunity to challenge the Ministers decision: Under the current legislation the Minster's decision can only be challenged on process and there is concern that this may again be a political decision even though the facts and data does not support this high risk high cost proposal to dam the Mary compared to other alternatives for water supply.

10. Lack of commitment to species recovery plan development, revision and funding for implementation: Of particular concern is that the lungfish recovery plan is still outstanding, the Mary River cod recovery plan is well overdue for revision and the Mary River turtle recovery plan has not been started. There is also a need for funding to support implementation of these plans. These are the 3 iconic species in the Mary River particularly at threat from the proposal to dam the Mary at Traveston Crossing and to transfer water out of the Mary catchment via the NPI stage 1 and stage 2.

11. Caring for our Country program: There is widespread concern in our community regarding funding for environmental projects dealing with decline and or extinction of flora and fauna by Landcare and Catchment groups or now even NRM groups. Short term funding makes long term projects more difficult to fund, employ skilled people and harder to build community networks and trust. Our Mary Catchment community has worked hard for almost 2 decades to improve our environment and in particular improving habitat for endangered flora and fauna.

11. References Arthington Angela H., Stuart E. Bunn, N. Leroy Poff, and Robert J. Naiman (2006). The Challenge Of Providing Environmental Flow Rules to Sustain River Ecosystems Ecological Applications, 16(4), 2006, pp. 1311–1318_ 2006 by the Ecological Society of America

Brizga, A.H. Arthington, S. Choy, L. Duivendoorden, M. Kennard, R. Maynard, and W. Poplawski 2006. Environmental Conditions Report. Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Brisbane

De Rose, R. Prosser, I. Wilkinson, L. Hughes, A. Young, W. (2002). Regional Patterns of Erosion and Sediment Transport in the Mary River Catchment, Queensland. Technical Report 37/02. CSIRO Land & Water, Canberra.

McKenzie L.J., Roder C.A., Roelofs A.J. & Lee Long W.J. 2000, Post-flood monitoring of. sea grasses in Hervey Bay and the Great Sandy Strait, 1999. Implications for dugung, turtle and fisheries management. www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/2972/rp70a_references.pdf

McLeod J. (1996). Commercial Fishing Industry's Perspective in Assessing and Adopting Scientific/Technical Information in H.M. Hunter, A.G. Eyles, G.E. Rayment (eds.), 'Downstream Effects of Land Use', 427-428, 1996. © Department of Natural Resources, Queensland, Australia

MRCCC (2008). Submission to the Traveston Crossing Dam EIS. www.mrccc.org.au

Preen A.R, Lee Long W.J., & Coles R.G 1995. Flood and cyclone related loss, and partial recovery, of more than 1000 km2 of seagrass in Hervey Bay, Queensland, Australia. Aquatic botany 52 (1995) 3-17.

Simpson, R. & Jackson, P. 1996. The Mary River Cod Research and Recovery Plan. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Endangered Species Program

12. Appendix A - STMRCG comments on Audit of Burnett Water Pty Ltd, QLD, Burnett River Dam, EPBC 2001/422 (attached).

Yours sincerely

Glenda Pickersgill On behalf of the Research Section of the Save the Mary River Coordinating Group�

http://www.mrccc.org.au/


www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/2972/rp70a_references.pdf

Audit Checklist Lead Auditor:

Audit Compliance Codes: Y: Compliance achieved; NC: Non-compliance; N: Non-conformance P: Partial compliance; NA: not applicable at time of audit; U: Undetermined

Evidence codes: O: Observed on site, D: Documents or records sighted Page 1 of 15

Audit of Burnett Water Pty Ltd, QLD, Burnett River Dam, EPBC 2001/422 Audit site visit date: 25-28 June 2007

Item # Ref # Area for review Audit findings Compliance rating

Assessment Issue #

1. CoA 1 Burnett Water Pty Ltd must prepare and submit for the Minister’s approval a plan to mitigate impacts of the action on the Black-breasted Button Quail by securing compensatory habitat at Mount Blandy. The Burnett River Dam may not be operated before the plan is approved. The approved plan must be implemented. 1.1 CoA 1 Have Burnett Water Pty Ltd prepared a plan to mitigate impacts of

the action on the Black-breasted Button Quail by securing compensatory habitat at Mount Blandy?

Compensatory habitat secured. Contract of sale dated 28th April 2006, Lot 83, sighted. Contract states land secured to meet EPBC Act requirements. The Contract has been transferred to the Queensland EPA but not registered as variations are currently being negotiated with the EPA. Contract requires EPA to comply with EPBC Act approval conditions. BBBQMP prepared in 2004.

Y

1.2 CoA 1 Have Burnett Water Pty Ltd submitted the Black-breasted Button Quail Management Plan (BBBQMP) for the Minister’s approval?

Submitted for approval Y

1.3 CoA 1 Was the Black-breasted Button Quail Management Plan approved by the Minister?

BBBQMP approved 8th October 2004 (letter sighted). Y

1.4 CoA 1 Was the Black-breasted Button Quail Management Plan (BBBQMP) approved by the Minister prior to operation of the Burnett River Dam?

Approved prior to operation of the dam in December 2005. Y

1.5 BBBQMP Securing Mount Blandy Habitat Actions 1.5.1 BBBQMP

Sect 5.1 & 6.2

Has a nature refuge or reserve tenure to provide long-term protection to the habitat of the BBBQ at Mt Blandy been negotiated with the EPA and DNRM and secured (ASAP)?

See Item 1.1 Y

1.6 BBBQMP Research Investigation Actions 1.6.1 BBBQMP

Sect 5.2 & 6.2

Has the size, distribution and known or potential threats of T. melanogaster been confirmed at Mt Blandy (by June 2005)?

BBBQ Survey conducted by GHD in 2005. Y






Assessment Issue #

1.6.2 BBBQMP Sect 5.2 & 6.2

Has a Report detailing the findings of the population survey in line with ERIN Data Format been provided to DEW (by August 2005)?

Report submitted 20th June 2005 Y

1.7 BBBQMP Management Control Actions 1.7.1 BBBQMP

Sect 5.2.2 & 6.2

Has controlled and /or managed access to Mt Blandy only been allowed to authorised personnel (Immediately)?

Fencing established. Access controlled by EPA

Y

1.7.2 BBBQMP Sect 5.2.2 & 6.2

Has a Pest Control Plan for Mt Blandy been devised based on the review of threats to T. melanogaster? Has the Plan been submitted to DEW for approval (by August 2005)?

Pest Control Plan has been developed and approved by DEW Y

1.7.3 BBBQMP Sect 5.2.2 & 6.2

Has the Pest Control Plan been implemented following the survey of T. melanogaster (by October 2005)? SEE ITEMS 1.9

See Item 1.9

1.7.4 BBBQMP Sect 5.2.2 & 6.2

Has the need for a firebreak on the perimeter of Mt Blandy been assessed for fire management purposes in conjunction with Qld EPA, Wildlife Ecology Unit (by June 2005)?

SunWater have recently contacted the Rural Fire Service to arrange a meeting. Have not consulted Qld EPA.

N1

1.7.5 BBBQMP Sect 5.2.2 & 6.2

Has any controlled burning been undertaken as part of the operation of the dam near the vine thickets in the Mount Blandy habitat area (during operation of the dam and reviewed every 3 years)?

No controlled burning has been conducted. Y

1.7.6 BBBQMP Sect 5.2.2 & 6.2

Have discussions with Local Rural Bush Fire Brigade been conducted on fire management practices for the inundation area, including no controlled burning of vine thicket areas within the Mt Blandy area (by August 2005)?

SunWater have recently contacted the Rural Fire Service to arrange a meeting, however discussions not held as yet.

N2

1.7.7 BBBQMP Sect 5.2.2 & 6.2

Have discussions with the Qld EPA been held regarding partnership in regular review and update of the Plan during the operational phase of the dam (every 3 years after operation of the dam)?

Plan due for review in December 2008. Negotiations currently being conducted with EPA regarding tenure of Mt Blandy Compensatory habitat.

N/A

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Sticky Note

2.3 years later the plan has still not been implemented

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Sticky Note

2.75 years later this has still not been done - all that has happened is that a meeting has been arranged.






Assessment Issue #

1.7.8 BBBQMP Sect 5.2.2 & 6.2

Have actions to prevent clearing, logging, grazing, recreational use and mining in the secured habitat area been conducted (life of operation of the dam)?

Access currently controlled and no evidence of activities on land. Y

1.8 BBBQMP Monitoring and Review 1.8.1 BBBQMP

Sect 5.2.4 Has the BBBQMP been regularly reviewed and updated (at least every three years)?

N/A

1.8.2 BBBQMP Sect 5.2.4

If the BBBQMP has been amended has it been submitted to DEW for approval?

N/A

1.9 BBBQMP Mt Blandy Pest Animal Management Plan (PAMP) 1.9.1 PAMP

Sect 3.1 & 4

Has a consultation program been undertaken to determine: 1) existing knowledge regarding feral animal distribution? 2) details of any previous feral animal control programs? 3) neighbour support for feral animal monitoring on their land? 4) neighbour support for feral animal control program on their

land? (by December 2005)

The Mt Blandy Pest Animal Management Plan has not been implemented. It is noted that a Project Brief and Tender Document has been prepared for a consultant to conduct a baseline pest survey and BBBQ Survey.

N3

1.9.2 PAMP Sect 3.2 & 4

Has baseline monitoring (3 consecutive monthly monitoring surveys) of feral animal distribution been conducted using sand plot monitoring and searches of other signs of pest animal activity (by May 2006)?

N3

1.9.3 PAMP Sect 3.3 & 4

Has an analysis and assessment of feral animal distribution been undertaken incorporating the results of the monitoring program and information determined from neighbour consultation to determine pest animal abundance (by June 2006)?

N3

1.9.4 PAMP Sect 3.3 & 4

Was this analysis used as the basis for prescribing an appropriate pest control response ?

N3

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Sticky Note

2.25 years later this has still not been done - all that has happened is that a project brief has been prepared.




2. CoA 2 Burnett Water Pty Ltd must prepare and submit for the Minister’s approval, at least one year prior to commencement of operation of the Burnett River Dam, a plan to manage the impacts of the dam on listed migratory species in the Burnett River estuary. The plan must include: (a) Surveying listed migratory species; (b) Sufficient monitoring of water quality and environmental flows to determine whether the operation of the dam is impacting on listed migratory species habitat; and (c) Measures to be taken if the information derived from (a) and (b) indicates that the action is having an adverse impact on migratory species.



Assessment Issue #

1.9.5 PAMP Sect 3.4 & 4

Have active feral animal control measures been implemented? If so was the program implemented within 3 months of monitoring (before September 2006) if the presence was determined as high?

N3

1.9.6 PAMP Sect 3.5 & 4

Has ongoing monitoring of feral animal distribution been conducted (minimum 12 months from feral animal control measures implementation, then ongoing minimum of once per year, or discontinue if low pest numbers)?

N3

1.9.7 PAMP Sect 3.6 & 4

Has ongoing monitoring of BBBQ been conducted (minimum annually)?

N3

2.1 CoA 2 Have Burnett Water Pty Ltd prepared a plan to manage the impacts of the dam on the listed migratory species in the Burnett River estuary?

Several Migratory Bird Assessment Reports have been submitted since November 2003.

Y

2.2 CoA 2 Have Burnett Water Pty Ltd submitted the Migratory Species Management Plan for the Minister’s approval?

Several Plans have been submitted to the Department. Y

2.3 CoA 2 Was the Migratory Species Management Plan approved by the Minister?

There has been ongoing liaison and negotiation with DEW regarding approval of the Plans and a Conservation Agreement was being reviewed by DEW at the time of audit.

P1

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Sticky Note

Assessment reports do not equate to a plan! What will happen and when?

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Sticky Note

Why has this not been finalised?






Assessment Issue #

2.4 CoA 2 Was the Migratory Species Management Plan approved by the Minister at least one year prior to commencement of operation of the Burnett River Dam?

Approval was provided by DEW to submit the Plan by June 2006. P1

2.5 CoA 2(a) Does the Migratory Species Management Plan include a Survey of the listed migratory species?

A Survey list was included and sighted. Y

2.6 CoA 2(b) Does the Migratory Species Management Plan include sufficient monitoring of water quality and environmental flows to determine whether the operation of the dam is impacting on listed migratory species habitat?

See Item 2.3 P1

2.7 CoA 2(c) Does the Migratory Species Management Plan include measures to be taken if the information in CoA 2(a) and CoA 2(b) indicates that the action is having an adverse impact on listed migratory species?

See Item 2.3 P1

3. CoA 3 Burnett Water Pty Ltd must install a fish transfer device on the Burnett River Dam suitable for the lungfish. The fishway will commence when the dam becomes operational 3.1 CoA 3 Has Burnett Water Pty Ltd installed a fish transfer device on the

Burnett River Dam? A fish lift for upstream fish movement and a fish lock for downstream fish movement has been installed and was sighted.

Y

3.2 CoA 3 Is the installed fish transfer device suitable for lungfish? If so how was this determined?

Report into suitability of fish transfer device for Burnett River Dam sighted (Burnett Dam Alliance Burnett River Dam Detail Design Report Section 10 – Fishway. Section 10.4.1) design criteria to suit lungfish. Letter from Qld DPI&F to BWPL stating design addresses fish passage objectives. Verbal advice that Qld DPI&F research into Fish Lift showed lungfish using fish lift (Report to be submitted next year). DPI&F conducting monitoring of lungfish use of fishway. This is a 5yr contract which commenced 1½ years ago. No Report has been provided as yet.

Y

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Sticky Note

Why was dispensation provided and why has the plan still not been finalised and in operation?

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Sticky Note

What is the answer? Is it happening or not and if not, why not?

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Highlight

There are actually two transfer devices - one is has worked (very briefly) the other has not!

Big Kev

Sticky Note

There is no proof whatsoever that this device will work. A letter from DPI&F does not constitute evidence that it will work!

Big Kev

Highlight

Verbal advice is unacceptable in an audit. Facts and data required.

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Sticky Note

Presumably, monitoring has already commenced - what is being achieved?






Assessment Issue #

3.3 CoA 3 Did the fishway commence when the dam became operational? The upstream fish lift is operational however the downstream fish lock has not been operational since the Dam became operational due to the low water level in the dam.

P2

4. CoA 4 Burnett Water Pty Ltd must adhere to the environmental flow requirements specified in the Water Resource Plan (Burnett Basin) 2000 and the Resource Operation Plan (Burnett Basin) 2003 and the Burnett River Dam Flow Strategy for Lungfish dated 22 May 2003. 4.1 Water Resource Plan (Burnett Basin) 2000 4.1 CoA 4 Have environmental flow requirements specified in the Water

Resource Plan (Burnett Basin) 2000 (WRPBB) been adhered to:

The Water Resource Plan objectives are implemented through the “Rules” of the Resource Operation Plan - See Item 4.2

4.1.1 WRPBB Div. 2 (11) (1)

Has water in the Burnett River basin been managed and allocated to, if practicable, minimise the frequency and duration of marine conditions in the estuary of the Burnett River?

See Item 4.2

4.1.2 WRPBB Div. 2 (11) (2)

Has water in the Burnett River been managed and allocated to provide for lungfish habitat in the river particularly lungfish habitat downstream of Gayndah at AMTD 200km?

See Item 4.2

4.1.3 WRPBB Part 4 (15)

For environmental flow and compensation flow objectives and water compensation security objectives, have performance indicators been calculated using the IQQM computer simulation period? If not, have they been calculated using an assessment method approved by the Chief Executive?

See Item 4.2

4.1.4 WRPBB Div. 2 (19)

Have environmental flow objectives stated in schedule 5 of the WRPBB been met?

See Item 4.2

4.1.5 WRPBB Div. 3

Have compensation flow objectives stated in section 21 of the WRPBB been met?

See Item 4.2

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Sticky Note

Does not answer the question. When did this fish lift first become operational and how often has it worked? (Dates & Times required?

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Sticky Note

Was this agreed to in the conditions of consent? If not, why has the dam been allowed to operate in breach of the approval?

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Sticky Note

Objectives are not Requirements. Have the requirements been met - Yes or No?

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Sticky Note

Yes or No?

Big Kev

Highlight

Yes or No?






Assessment Issue #

4.1.6 WRPBB Part 6 (40)

Have monitoring requirements stated in section 40 of the WRPBB been conducted?

See Item 4.2

4.1.7 WRPBB Part 6 (41) (2)

Has a monitoring program been conducted that includes monitoring of the following: (a) water quantity including-

(i) the flow of water at gauging stations (ii) deliveries and diversions of water (iii) inflows of water to dams (iv) the quantity of water released from a dam for each

of the following – (A) consumption (B) the environment (C) the operation of fishways (D) any other purpose decided by the Chief

Executive (v) the level of water in a dam

See Item 4.2

4.1.8 WRPBB Part 6 (42)

Has Burnett Water Pty Ltd provided the chief executive a written report which contains the information specified in section 42 of the WRPBB?

See Item 4.2

4.1.9 WRPBB Have Burnett Water Pty Ltd managed and allocated water in the Burnett River to provide lungfish habitat in the River particularly lungfish habitat downstream of Gayndah at AMTD 200km? (See 4.3 Burnett River Dam Flow Strategy for Lungfish)

See Item 4.2

4.2 Resource Operation Plan (Burnett Basin) 2003 4.2 CoA 4 Have environmental flow requirements specified in the Resource

Operation Plan (Burnett Basin) 2003 (BBROP) been adhered to: A Resource Operations Licence has been issued by the Qld Gov’t under the Water Act 2000. SunWater have been issued the Bundaberg Water Supply Scheme Resource Operations Licence (ROL). Under Section 10 of the Water Act 2000, the licence operates from 13th July 2006 until Paradise Dam reaches EL 67.6 AHD or the 30th June 2008. At the time of the audit the EL was 45.96m therefore SunWater were required to comply with the operating arrangements detailed in Schedule 1 of the ROL.

Y

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Sticky Note

What is the relevance of all this? Compliance with the ROP is required - presumable the ROP that was notified at the time of approval with conditions was given. Have those requirements been met of not?






Assessment Issue #

4.2.1 BBROP Attachment 3.1 (6) (e)

Has water been managed and allocated to provide for community aspirations about - (ii) maintaining areas of significant conservation values such as fish habitat areas. Has ecological monitoring been conducted to assess this?

Ecological Monitoring conducted by Qld DPI&F and Ecowise. Raw data sighted and reports not required until next year. See item 6.

N/A


Has water been managed and allocated to provide for community aspirations about - (iii) protecting species of significant conservation value, including lungfish. Has ecological monitoring been conducted to assess this?


N/A

4.2.3 BBROP Attachment 3.1 (6) (g)

Has water been managed and allocated to make water available for the environment. Operating rules require a more natural flow release regime for the environment and limit the amount of and access to, water taken during high flows. Has ecological monitoring been conducted to assess this?


N/A

4.2.4 BBROP Attachment 3.1 (7) (a)

Has water been managed and allocated to maintain pool habitats and native plants and animals associated with the habitats in watercourses? Has ecological monitoring been conducted to assess this?


N/A

4.2.5 BBROP Attachment 3.1 (7) (b)

Has water been managed and allocated to maintain long-term water quality suitable for riverine and estuarine ecosystems? Has ecological monitoring been conducted to assess this?


N/A

4.2.6 BBROP Attachment 3.1 (7) (c)

Has water been managed and allocated to provide flow regimes that favour native plants and animals associated with watercourses and riparian zones? Has ecological monitoring been conducted to assess this?


N/A


Has water been managed and allocated to provide wet season flow to benefit native plants and animals including, for example, fish and prawns in estuaries? Has ecological monitoring been conducted to assess this?


N/A

Big Kev

Highlight

This is silly! These are questions that are rightly asked in the audit and require answers. The issuance of a future report is irrelevant.

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Sticky Note

This is silly! The audit questions require answers. The fact that a report is to be issued next year is irrelevant!






Assessment Issue #

4.2.8 BBROP Attachment 3.1 (7) (f)

Has water been managed and allocated to improve stream flow conditions to assist the movement of fish along watercourses (Operating Rules state the requirements for the meeting of EFOs and the operation of fishways)? Has monitoring been conducted to monitor this eg records detailing periods of fishway operation and fish community structure monitoring?


N/A

4.2.9 BBROP Attachment 3.1 (11) (1)

Has water in the Burnett River basin been managed and allocated to, if practicable, minimise the frequency and duration of marine conditions in the estuary of the Burnett River (have EFOs for the Burnett Estuary been met)? Monitoring: Records of the volumes released from Ben Anderson Barrage; Water quality measurements in the Burnett estuary


N/A

4.2.10 BBROP Attachment 3.1 (11) (2)

Has water in the Burnett River been managed and allocated to provide for lungfish habitat in the River, particularly lungfish habitats downstream of Gayndah at AMTD 200km)? Monitoring: Ned Churchward Weir


N/A

4.2.11 BBROP Attachment 4.1 E

Have the Rules for operation of storages and waterholes specified in Section 1 been met?

At the time of the audit the EL was 45.96m therefore SunWater were required to comply with the operating arrangements detailed in Schedule 1 of the ROL (See item 4.2)

N/A


Have the Rules for releases of water from storages specified in Sections 2.1 – 2.5 been met (unless Attachment 4.1F (1.2) applies)?

SunWater have submitted an Annual Report (Bundaberg WSSROP)to the Qld Gov’t for the 2005/2006 Year. The Report was submitted on the 28/9/06. The Report meets the reporting requirements specified in Section 4.1 of Attachment 4.1G of the ROP. The next Annual Report is due in December 2007.

N/A


Have the Environmental Management Rules for flow objectives specified in Section 2.6 been met?

See Items 4.2.11 and 4.2.12 above N/A

4.2.14 BBROP Attachment 4.1 E (2.7)

Has the storage inflow derivation methodology been approved by the Chief Executive?

The Storage inflow derivation methodology has not been approved. A letter from the Qld Govt granting an extension to the 1/7/07 was sighted. A letter from SunWater t the Qld Gov’t requesting a further extension to 31/8/07 was sighted but no evidence that this was granted.

N4

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Sticky Note

By what authority does the ROL override the requirement of Section 1 of the ROP?

Big Kev

Highlight

So what? The question must be answered. Yes or No?

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Sticky Note

It's now March 2008 - what is the answer?






Assessment Issue #


Has BWPL consulted with DPI&F and submitted a proposal detailing an alternative to the operating levels of storages to ensure effective fishway operation to the Chief Executive for approval within 12 months of commencement of the ROP?

The ROP has not commenced yet. N/A

4.2.16 BBROP Attachment 4.1 E (2.8.4)

Has the Paradise Dam fishway been operated according to the requirements specified in Section 2.8.4?

The fishway is only required to be operated when the storage level is between 62m AHD and 67.9m AHD and when releases or overflows greater than 14ML/day are being made from the Dam.

Y

4.2.17 BBROP Attachment 4.1 G (1.1)

Have BWPL recorded continuous time series height and flow data at the locations provided in Table 1? Are recordings consistent with the standards for continuous recorded data given in the Water Monitoring Data Collection Standards?

SunWater have been issued the Bundaberg Water Supply Scheme Resource Operations Licence (ROL). Under Section 10 of the Water Act 2000, the licence operates from 13th July 2006 until Paradise Dam reaches EL 67.6 AHD or the 30th

June 2008. At the time of the audit the EL was 45.96m therefore SunWater were required to comply with the operating arrangements detailed in Schedule 1 of the ROL. SunWater have submitted an Annual Report (Bundaberg WSSROP)to the Qld Gov’t for the 2005/2006 Year. The Report was submitted on the 28/9/06. The Report meets the reporting requirements specified in Section 4.1 of Attachment 4.1G of the ROP.

Y


Have BWPL recorded continuous time series height data at the location provided in Table 2? Are recordings consistent with the standards for continuous recorded data given in the Water Monitoring Data Collection Standards?

See item 4.2.17 Y


Have BWPL recorded daily inflow volumes at the location provided in Table 3?

See item 4.2.17 Y


Have BWPL conducted storage releases according to the requirements specified in Section 1.2?

See item 4.2.17 Y


Have BWPL conducted storage releases according to the requirements specified in Section 1.2?

See item 4.2.17 Y

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Sticky Note

What does this mean? Have the consent conditions been overriden?

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Sticky Note

Was this agreed to as part of the conditions for consent or something the Qld Govt just decided would be the rule?

Big Kev

Highlight

These responses do not appear to answer the question!

Big Kev

Highlight






Assessment Issue #

4.2.22 BBROP Attachment 4.1 G (2)

Have BWPL conducted water quality assessments according to the requirements specified in Section 2.1 to establish the impact of storage operation on aquatic ecosystems?

SunWater have submitted an Annual Report (Bundaberg WSSROP)to the Qld Gov’t for the 2005/2006 Year. The Report was submitted on the 28/9/06. The Report meets the reporting requirements specified in Section 4.1 of Attachment 4.1G of the ROP

Y


Have BWPL conducted cyanobacteria monitoring according to the requirements specified in Section 2.2 to establish the impact of storage operation on aquatic ecosystems?


Y


Have BWPL recorded bank condition according to the requirements specified in Section 2.3 to establish the impact of storage operation on aquatic ecosystems?


Y


Have BWPL recorded instances of fish stranding according to the requirements specified in Section 2.4 to establish the impact of storage operation on aquatic ecosystems?


Y


Have BWPL conducted monitoring at Ned Churchward Weir according to the requirements specified in Section 2.5 to establish the impact of storage operation on aquatic ecosystems?


Y


Have BWPL submitted to the chief executive an annual report that includes, but is not limited to the discussion and recommendations with regards to the monitoring results as specified in Section 4.1?


Y


Have BWPL notified the chief executive within 24hrs of becoming aware of the operational incidents as specified in Section 4.2?

Operational Report submitted 29th March to Qld DNRW stating inability of SunWater to provide Storage Inflow Derivation Methodology.

Y


Have BWPL provided an Emergency Report as specified in Section 4.3?

No Emergency Reports required to time of audit. N/A






Assessment Issue #


Have the Rules for operation of storages and waterholes specified in Section 1 been met?

SunWater have been issued the Bundaberg Water Supply Scheme Resource Operations Licence (ROL). Under Section 10 of the Water Act 2000, the licence operates from 13th July 2006 until Paradise Dam reaches EL 67.6 AHD or the 30th

June 2008. At the time of the audit the EL was 45.96m therefore SunWater were required to comply with the operating arrangements detailed in Schedule 1 of the ROL

N/A


Have the Rules for releases of water from storages specified in Sections 2.1 – 2.5 been met?

See Item 4.2.30 N/A


Have the Environmental Management Rules for flow objectives specified in Section 2.6 been met?

See Item 4.2.30 N/A


Has the storage inflow derivation methodology been approved by the Chief Executive?

The Storage inflow derivation methodology has not been approved. A letter from the Qld Govt granting an extension to the 1/7/07 was sighted. A letter from SunWater t the Qld Gov’t requesting a further extension to 31/8/07 was sighted but no evidence that this was granted.

N4

4.2.34 BBROP Attachment 4.2 E (3)

Have BWPL ensured the quality of water downstream of storages as specified in Section 3?

SunWater have submitted an Annual Report (Bundaberg WSSROP)to the Qld Gov’t for the 2005/2006 Year. The Report was submitted on the 28/9/06. The Report meets the reporting requirements specified in Section 4.1 of Attachment 4.1G of the ROP. This included water quality monitoring.

Y

4.3 Burnett River Dam Flow Strategy for Lungfish 4.3 CoA 4 Have environmental flow requirements specified in the Burnett

River Dam Flow Strategy for Lungfish (BRDFSL) dated 22 May 2003 been adhered to?

The environmental flow requirements specified in Table 4 of the Flow Strategy for Lungfish are cross-referenced to Table 6, Part 2 of the Water Resources Plan (checked and verified). These requirements (flow strategy indicators) are used in the flow modelling for the operation of Paradise Dam. The modelling is approved by the Chief Executive prior to issuing the ROL.

Y

4.3.1 BRDFSL 3.1

Have BWPL retained the Mean Annual Flow (MAF) at Figtree Gauge as greater than or equal to 81% of the Pre development MAF (determined by DNR&M IQQM modelling)?

See Item 4.3 Y

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Sticky Note

Yes or No?






Assessment Issue #

4.3.2 BRDFSL 3.2

Have dam operations resulted in an Annual Proportional Flow Deviation (APFD) greater than or equal to 2.1?

See Item 4.3 Y

4.3.3 BRDFSL 3.3

Have dam operations maintained a flow regime class as “late summer”, consistent with the BBWRP?

See Item 4.3 Y

4.3.4 BRDFSL 3.4.1

Have dam operations resulted in the 1.5 year average recurrence interval daily flow volume at Figtree Gauge being retained as greater than or equal to 74% of the Pre development value (determined by DNR&M IQQM modeling)?

See Item 4.3 Y

4.3.5 BRDFSL 3.4.2

Have dam operations resulted in the 5 year average recurrence interval daily flow volume at Figtree Gauge being retained as greater than or equal to 71% of the Pre development value (determined by DNR&M IQQM modeling)?

See Item 4.3 Y

4.3.6 BRDFSL 3.4.3

Have dam operations resulted in the 20 year average recurrence interval daily flow volume at Figtree Gauge being retained as greater than or equal to 82% of the Pre development value (determined by DNR&M IQQM modeling)?

See item 4.3 Y

5. CoA 5 Prior to commencing operation of the Burnett River Dam, Burnett Water Pty Ltd must provide to the Minister a report detailing the results of baseline monitoring of the lungfish population in the vicinity of the Burnett River Dam wall. 5.1 CoA 5 Have Burnett Water Pty Ltd provided to the Minister a report

detailing the results of baseline monitoring of the lungfish population in the vicinity of the Burnett River Dam wall?

Burnett River Dam Baseline Lungfish Monitoring prepared by Qld DPI&F May 2005. Y

5.2 CoA 5 Was the lungfish baseline monitoring report provided to the Minister prior to commencing operation of the Burnett River Dam?

Submitted July 19th, 2005. DEW response in letter dated 7th September 2005 stating satisfies Condition 5.

Y

6. CoA 6 Burnett Water Pty Ltd must undertake annual aquatic ecosystem monitoring at about AMTD 119 km, AMTD 201 km and at least two sites between these points and provide to the Minister five biennial summary reports. This 10-year monitoring program will include the measurement of the condition of lungfish and lungfish habitat / macrophytes. Monitoring will commence when the dam becomes operational.

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Highlight






Assessment Issue #

6.1 CoA 6 Have Burnett Water Pty Ltd undertaken annual aquatic ecosystem monitoring at about AMTD 119 km, AMTD 201 km and at least two sites between these points? Dates of monitoring? Results of monitoring?

Aquatic ecosystem monitoring conducted at 8 sites including AMTD 119km, 201km. Site 1 is located at AMTD 121km, Site 2 119km and site 7 at 201km. Raw data results sighted.

Y

6.2 CoA 6 Have Burnett Water Pty Ltd provided to the Minister five biennial summary reports?

The first Report is due next year. N/A

6.3 CoA 6 Does the 10-year monitoring program include the measurement of the condition of lungfish and lungfish habitat / macrophytes?

Ecowise have been contracted to conduct water quality and aquatic monitoring. The QLD DPI&F have been contracted to conduct lungfish population/habitat monitoring.

Y

6.4 CoA 6 Did monitoring commence when the dam became operational? Monitoring commenced 2006 (dam operational Dec 2005). Y

7. CoA 7 Burnett Water Pty Ltd must conduct a review of the impacts of Burnett River Dam on the lungfish at the conclusion of the 10 year monitoring program in consultation with the Commonwealth Environment portfolio, to determine whether future monitoring is required. 7.1 CoA 7 Have Burnett Water Pty Ltd conducted a review of the impacts of

Burnett River Dam on the lungfish at the conclusion of the 10 year monitoring program in consultation with the Commonwealth Environment portfolio, to determine whether future monitoring is required?

N/A

8. CoA 8 Burnett Water Pty Ltd must make lungfish information and data from research and monitoring activities freely available for inclusion in State and Commonwealth lungfish recovery programs or programs relating to water quality in the Burnett River. 8.1 CoA 8 Have Burnett Water Pty Ltd made lungfish information and data

from research and monitoring activities freely available for inclusion in State and Commonwealth lungfish recovery programs or programs relating to water quality in the Burnett River?

If so what programs or projects has the data been included in?

SunWater were invited to participate in the Lungfish Recovery Team preparing the Lungfish Recovery Plan (liaison with DEW). SunWater has provided lungfish monitoring data for the Hydrobiology EIS for Traveston Dam.

Y

Big Kev

Highlight

Big Kev

Sticky Note

December 2007 report due - what are the findings?

Big Kev

Highlight

What has been discovered?


Audit Compliance Codes: Y: Compliance achieved; NC: Non-compliance; N: Non-conformance P: Partial compliance; NA : not applicable at time of audit; U: Undetermined


9. CoA 9 If aquatic ecosystem monitoring required under paragraph 4 (CoA 6) or the review required under paragraph 5 (CoA 7) indicates ongoing lungfish population decline at about AMTD 119 km that cannot be attributed to natural periodic fluctuations, then Burnett Water Pty Ltd will initiate appropriate recovery actions. The recovery actions cannot be inconsistent with an adopted Commonwealth Lungfish Recovery Plan.



Assessment Issue #

9.1 CoA 9 Has aquatic ecosystem monitoring (CoA 6) indicated ongoing lungfish population decline at about AMDT 119km? Can this be attributed to natural periodic fluctuations? If so how?

N/A

9.2 CoA 9 Has the Review required by CoA 7 indicated ongoing lungfish population decline at about AMDT 119km? Can this be attributed to natural periodic fluctuations? If so how?

N/A

9.3 CoA 9 Have Burnett Water Pty Ltd initiated appropriate recovery actions? If so, are these recovery actions consistent with an adopted Commonwealth Lungfish Recovery Plan? Note: the lungfish is on the list of Recovery Plans in preparation – Jan 2007 DEW.

N/A

10 Referral 10.1 Referral Was the Action conducted according to the referral received under

the EPBC Act (EPBC 2001/422)? Y