Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
for these impacts is well recognised, but the extent of their realisation in
Australia's CSG fields will emerge only with the passage of time.
3.2.4 Fragmentation of the Landscape: Ecosystems and Agriculture.Bys
scale and nature, the 'footprint' of a CSG extraction field of this type cuts
across landscape and biological habitat (see Figure 3). CSG extraction is a
spatially dispersed industry with a much greater footprint on landscape
and environment than the fairly modest surface area devoted to well-
heads would suggest. As noted above, CSG wells typically are scattered
across the landscape at 750 m intervals, but new horizontal drilling tech-
nology may allow well pads to be spaced farther apart. The networks of
pipes for fracking water, gas and waste water, along with the processing,
waste storage and treatment facilities, the network of roads needed to
tend the wells and transportation up-grades to get the CSG products to
market all contribute to landscape fragmentation, with negative impacts
on agriculture and ecosystems.
In preparation for installing this CSG infrastructure, vegetation is re-
moved. As with any activity that requires land clearing, this fragments the
habitat and breeding ranges of native fauna such as lizards and birds, and
can lead to the introduction of invasive species. The negative impacts of
fragmentation of bushland on native fauna are well-documented.
51-53
Where
a landscape already has been cleared extensively for urbanisation or agri-
culture, the remaining vegetation is often of high ecological value.
52,54
Re-
garding ecosystem impacts, the Australian Broadcasting Commission
reports instances in which the federal government has granted major CSG
operators permission to clear land containing species and ecosystems pro-
tected under federal threatened species legislation.
24
Landscape fragmentation associated with CSG development in farming
regions reduces agricultural productivity and increases farmers' costs, as do
the groundwater depletion and resource contamination impacts of CSG op-
erations.
1,27
Despite the major operators' commitment to good neighbour
policies, the dominance of sub-surface rights disadvantages surface-rights
holders by weakening their bargaining position. In regions with active or
potential CSG operations, organisations have arisen to express concerns about
the potential impacts of a weakened agriculture on rural and community ways
of life.
55
Conflicts between agriculture and CSG strike with particular force in
some of Australia's most productive farming areas, including the Darling
Downs and the Liverpool Plains, where the national interest in prime farm-
land (quite scarce in Australia) comes into play, in addition to local concerns.
Cases have been reported where the local Catchment Management Authority
has developed integrative and cumulative impact assessment and risk man-
agement processes that smooth the path to coexistence of CSG and agri-
culture,
27
although coexistence agriculture is usually less productive and
generates lower economic rents than agriculture-only.
1
Some would argue that there is a national interest in preserving the very
best farmland for agriculture, even if the economic argument for CSG
