annual review orange waste project · 2018-07-18 · annual review orange waste project 1 july 2016...

ANNUAL REVIEW ORANGE WASTE PROJECT

1 JULY 2016 – 30 JUNE 2017 REPORTING PERIOD

PREPARED FOR

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

NOVEMBER 2017


1 JULY 2016 – 30 JUNE 2017 REPORTING PERIOD

PREPARED FOR:

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

NOVEMBER 2017

POSTAL ADDRESS PO BOX 1963 ORANGE NSW 2800

LOCATION 154 PEISLEY STREET ORANGE NSW 2800

TELEPHONE 02 6393 5000 FACSIMILE 02 6393 5050

EMAIL [email protected] WEB SITE WWW.GEOLYSE.COM


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE I 208212_AR_002B.DOCX

Report Title: Annual Review

Project: Orange Waste Project

Client: Orange City Council

Report Ref.: 208212_AR_002B.docx

Status: Final

Issued: 13 November 2017

Geolyse Pty Ltd and the authors responsible for the preparation and compilation of this report declare that we do not have, nor expect to have a beneficial interest in the study area of this project and will not benefit from any of the recommendations outlined in this report.

The preparation of this report has been in accordance with the project brief provided by the client and has relied upon the information, data and results provided or collected from the sources and under the conditions outlined in the report.

All information contained within this report is prepared for the exclusive use of Orange City Council to accompany this report for the land described herein and are not to be used for any other purpose or by any other person or entity. No reliance should be placed on the information contained in this report for any purposes apart from those stated therein.

Geolyse Pty Ltd accepts no responsibility for any loss, damage suffered or inconveniences arising from, any person or entity using the plans or information in this study for purposes other than those stated above.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE II 208212_AR_002B.DOCX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 PURPOSE .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 STRUCTURE ...................................................................................................................... 1

LOCATION ................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 REGIONAL LOCATION ...................................................................................................... 3 2.2 ORRRC ............................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 ERRRC ............................................................................................................................... 6

APPROVALS AND LICENCES ................................................................................. 7

3.1 APPROVALS ...................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 LICENCES .......................................................................................................................... 7 3.3 CONSERVATION AGREEMENT ....................................................................................... 7

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ............................................................................ 8

4.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 8 4.2 ORRRC AEMR SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 8

4.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ..................................................................... 8 4.2.2 COMPLAINTS ..................................................................................................... 9

4.3 ERRRC AEMR SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 10

4.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ................................................................... 10 4.3.2 COMPLAINTS ................................................................................................... 11

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREDICTIONS ............................................... 12

5.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 12 5.2 ORRRC ............................................................................................................................. 12

5.2.1 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................... 12 5.2.2 NOISE ............................................................................................................... 12

5.3 ERRRC ............................................................................................................................. 12

5.3.1 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................... 12 5.3.2 NOISE ............................................................................................................... 13

OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES ................................................................................... 14

6.1 ORRRC OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES ............................................................................. 14

6.1.1 DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD ............................................................... 14 6.1.2 PROPOSED FOR 2017/18 REPORTING PERIOD .......................................... 14

6.2 ERRRC OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES .............................................................................. 14

6.2.1 DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD ............................................................... 14 6.2.2 PROPOSED FOR 2017/18 REPORTING PERIOD .......................................... 14

VEHICLE MOVEMENTS TO ERRRC ...................................................................... 15

7.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 15 7.2 VEHICLE RECORDS........................................................................................................ 15 7.3 SCHOOL BUS OPERATIONS .......................................................................................... 15

MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................... 17

8.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 17 8.2 LANDFILL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS ................................................. 17


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE III 208212_AR_002B.DOCX

8.2.1 REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 17 8.2.2 IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................... 17

8.3 ERRRC GREENHOUSE GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................... 18 8.4 CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................................ 18 8.5 APICULTURE RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................... 27 8.6 COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY ............................. 30

8.6.1 IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................... 30 8.6.2 ENVIROCOM ANNUAL REPORT ..................................................................... 31

MONITORING PROGRAMS .................................................................................... 32

9.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 32 9.2 WASTE AND RESOURCE RECOVERY MONITORING PROGRAM ............................. 32

9.2.1 MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ............................................................................ 32 9.2.2 WASTE DIVERSION ......................................................................................... 32

9.3 ERRRC FLORA AND ABORIGINAL HERITAGE MONITORING PROGRAM ................. 34

9.3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 34 9.3.2 FLORA MONITORING ...................................................................................... 35 9.3.3 ABORIGINAL HERITAGE MONITORING ........................................................ 35 9.3.4 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS .................................................................................. 36

REHABILITATION ................................................................................................... 37

10.1 ORRRC ............................................................................................................................. 37 10.2 ERRRC ............................................................................................................................. 37

COMPLIANCE AND INCIDENTS ............................................................................ 38

11.1 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 38

INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT ............................................................ 39

FIGURES

Figure 1: Regional location of ORRRC and ERRRC (Source: NSW LPI) ......................................... 3 Figure 2: ORRRC Site Layout ............................................................................................................ 4 Figure 3: ORRRC Monitoring Points .................................................................................................. 5 Figure 4: ERRRC site layout with monitoring points .......................................................................... 6 Figure 5: Overall waste diversion ..................................................................................................... 33 Figure 6: Municipal sector waste diversion ...................................................................................... 33 Figure 7: C&I sector waste diversion ............................................................................................... 34 Figure 8: C&D sector waste diversion .............................................................................................. 34

TABLES

Table 2.1 – Annual Review Structure ...................................................................................................... 1 Table 3.1 – Approvals ............................................................................................................................. 7 Table 3.2 – Licences ............................................................................................................................... 7 Table 4.1 – ORRRC Complaint History ................................................................................................... 9 Table 4.2 – ERRRC Complaint History ................................................................................................. 11 Table 7.1 – Euchareena Road Exclusion Zone Time Violations ........................................................... 16 Table 8.1 – ERRRC Greenhouse Gas Management Plan Actions ....................................................... 18 Table 8.2 – Rehabilitation and Management Measures ....................................................................... 19 Table 8.3 – Implementation of ARMP ................................................................................................... 27 Table 8.4 – Communication Tool Implementation Status ..................................................................... 30 Table 9.1 – Percentage waste diversion ............................................................................................... 32 Table 10.1 – ERRRC Rehabilitation Activities ...................................................................................... 37 Table 11.1 – Compliance and Incident Summary ................................................................................. 38


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE IV 208212_AR_002B.DOCX

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A JR Richards Compiled Vehicle Records

APPENDIX B JR Richards School Hours Violation Records

APPENDIX C EnviroCom Food and Garden Organics Waste Education Plan 2016-17 Report

APPENDIX D Weed Inspection Report

APPENDIX E Groundwater, Surface Water, Leachate and Dust Analytical Data Tables

APPENDIX F Groundwater, Surface Water, Leachate and Dust Analysis Charts

APPENDIX G ERRRC Flora and Aboriginal Heritage Monitoring Report


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE V 208212_AR_002B.DOCX

ABBREVIATIONS

AEMR Annual Environmental Monitoring Report

AHD Australian Height Datum

ARMP Apiculture Risk Management Plan

DP&E NSW Department of Planning and Environment

EC Electrical Conductivity

EPA NSW Environment Protection Authority

EPL Environment Protection Licence

ERRRC Euchareena Road Resource Recovery Centre

IEA Independent Environmental Audit

LEMP Landfill Environmental Management Plan

OCC Orange City Council

OEMP Operational Environmental Management Plan

ORRRC Ophir Road Resource Recovery Centre

OWP Orange Waste Project

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SWMP Soil and Water Management Plan

TSS Total Suspended Solids

VEM Virgin Excavated Material

WAP Work Activity Procedure

WRRMP Waste and Resource Recovery Monitoring Program


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE 1 208212_AR_002B.DOCX

Introduction

1.1 PURPOSE

This Annual Review has been prepared to address the requirements of Schedule 7 Condition 6 of the Project Approval 09_0025 (Project Approval) for the Orange Waste Project (OWP).

Annual Review

6. One year after the commencement of operations, and annually thereafter, the Proponent shall review the environmental performance of the project to the satisfaction of the Director-General.

This review must:

a) describe the operations that were carried out in the past year;

b) analyse the monitoring results and complaints records of the Project over the past year, which includes a comparison of these results against the

- relevant statutory requirements, limits or performance measures/criteria;

- monitoring results of previous years; and

- relevant predictions in the EA;

c) identify any non-compliance over the last year, and describe what actions were (or are being) taken to ensure compliance;

d) identify any trends in the monitoring data over the life of the Project; and

e) describe what measure will be implemented over the next year to improve the environmental performance of the Project.

1.2 STRUCTURE

The Annual Review contains 12 sections as described below in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 – Annual Review Structure

Section Purpose

Section 1 – Introduction Identifies the purpose of the Annual Review and structure.

Section 2 – Location Identifies the local and regional setting of each facility.

Section 3 – Approvals and Licences Details of approvals, licences and agreements for the OWP.

Section 4 – Environmental Monitoring Summary of relevant data from the ORRRC and ERRRC Annual Environmental Monitoring Reports, and comment on relevant standards.

Section 5 – Environmental Assessment Predictions Provides a comparison of monitoring results against relevant predictions made in the Environmental Assessment for OWP.

Section 6 – Operational Activities Descriptions of operational activities during the reporting period and proposed operational activities in the next reporting period.

Section 7 – Vehicle Movements to ERRRC Details of vehicle movements to ERRRC.

Section 8 – Management Plan Implementation Details of implementation of management plans during the reporting period.

Section 9 – Monitoring Programs Summary of monitoring and results from the Waste and Resource Recovery Monitoring Program and ERRRC Flora and Aboriginal Heritage Monitoring Program.

Section 10 – Rehabilitation Description of rehabilitation undertaken during the reporting period.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Table 2.1 – Annual Review Structure

Section Purpose

Section 11 – Compliance and Incidents Summary of incidents and the status of compliance with relevant monitoring programs, management plans and the project approval.

Section 12 – Independent Environmental Audit If an Independent Environmental Audit is undertaken during the reporting period, a summary of non-compliances and corrective actions will be provided in this section.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Location

2.1 REGIONAL LOCATION

The location of ORRRC and ERRRC in a regional context is provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Regional location of ORRRC and ERRRC (Source: NSW LPI)


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


2.2 ORRRC

The layout of the ORRRC site is provided in Figure 2 and monitoring points are provided in Figure 3.

Figure 2: ORRRC Site Layout


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Figure 3: ORRRC Monitoring Points


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


2.3 ERRRC

The layout of the ERRRC site and location of monitoring points is provided in Figure 4.

Figure 4: ERRRC site layout with monitoring points


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Approvals and Licences

3.1 APPROVALS

A list of relevant approvals for ORRRC and ERRRC are provided in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 – Approvals

Approval Approval Authority Approval Date

Orange Waste Project Project Approval (MP 09_0025)

Minister for Planning and Infrastructure 14 September 2011

Orange Waste Project Project Approval Modification (MP 09_0025 MOD 1)

Minister for Planning and Infrastructure 28 April 2010

ORRRC Liquid Trade Waste Approval to Discharge to Councils Sewer

Orange City Council 12 July 2012

ORRRC Liquid Trade Waste Revised Approval

Orange City Council 16 January 2014

ERRRC Liquid Trade Waste Approval Orange City Council 16 January 2014

Waste Disposal Facility (community recycling centre) – DA 129/2016(1)

Orange City Council 5 July 2016

3.2 LICENCES

A list of relevant licences for ORRRC and ERRRC are provided in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 – Licences

Licence Regulatory Authority Licence Version Date

ORRRC Environment Protection Licence No. 5956

Environment Protection Authority 23 December 2015

ERRRC Environment Protection Licence No. 20104

Environment Protection Authority 6 July 2016

3.3 CONSERVATION AGREEMENT

A Conservation Agreement was registered for part of the ERRRC by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW OEH), and came into effect on 10 September 2013 in accordance with the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

The Conservation Agreement covers 100.3 hectares and relates to part of the land described as Lot 102 DP 1183238.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Environmental Monitoring

4.1 INTRODUCTION

An Annual Environmental Monitoring Report (AEMR) has been prepared and submitted to the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) for both ORRRC and ERRRC for the reporting period 1 July 2016 – 30 June 2017 in accordance with each facility’s Environment Protection Licence (EPL).

A summary of monitoring results from each facility’s AEMR is provided in the following sections.

4.2 ORRRC AEMR SUMMARY

4.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

4.2.1.1 Groundwater

Groundwater monitoring was conducted at ten piezometer monitoring stations in September 2016 and March 2017.

Groundwater levels remained relatively consistent throughout the reporting period, with the notable exception of monitoring location BH3 in September 2016, which showed elevated levels due to above-average rainfall in the period prior to gauging. Groundwater is generally noted to flow from the south-east to the north-west. Groundwater levels recorded at the ORRRC facility are attached in Appendix E, Table E1 and charted in Appendix F, Chart F1.

Groundwater samples were obtained from monitoring stations BH1, BH1A, BH2, BH3, BH4, BH5, BH6, and BH7, and were analysed for the biannual suite of parameters. Monitoring stations BH2A and BH7A could not be sampled as they provided insufficient recharge following purging.

The following parameters exceeded the LEMP provisional groundwater limits within the reporting period:

Ammonia in BH2 (September 2016)

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in BH2 (September 2016) and BH4 (September 2016 and March 2017)

Analytical data for groundwater monitored at the ORRRC facility is attached to this review as Appendix E, Table E2.

Concentrations of analytes were generally consistent with historical results, and were not considered excessively high or low, being comparable with previous monitoring periods. Concentrations of analytes of environmental concern in groundwater at the ORRRC facility have been charted for the monitoring period and attached to this review as Appendix F, Charts F2 to F10.

A potential increasing trend in chloride concentrations may be inferred at BH4. Results of further monitoring will establish whether these are indicative of significantly increasing trends.

4.2.1.2 Surface Water

Four discharge samples were collected from SW3 and SW4 during the reporting period. Ammonia in SW3 (11 July and 6 September 2016) and nitrate in SW3 (11 July 2016) exceeded the LEMP provisional limits, whilst being within the established range. Analytical data for surface water monitored at the ORRRC facility is attached to this review as Appendix E, Table E3.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Concentrations of other monitored analytes in surface water were below LEMP provisional limits and within historical ranges.

Concentrations of analytes of environmental concern in surface water at the ORRRC facility have been charted for the monitoring period and attached to this review as Appendix F, Charts F11 to F18.

4.2.1.3 Leachate

The leachate monitoring point was sampled in September 2016 and March 2017. Concentrations of monitored analytes in leachate were generally within historical ranges. Analytical data for leachate monitored at the ORRRC facility is attached to this review as Appendix E, Table E4. Concentrations of analytes of environmental concern in leachate have been charted for the monitoring period and attached to this review as Appendix F, Charts F19 to F26.

4.2.1.4 Landfill Gas

No landfill gas was detected accumulated within buildings located within 250 metres of deposited waste during the reporting period.

4.2.1.5 Relevance of Standards

Where exceedances of drinking, stock watering or irrigation criteria have been identified, these have generally been recorded for reference purposes in the AEMR. No receptors have been identified that utilise groundwater or leachate within the immediate area of the site, whilst surface water discharges are not considered to have significantly impacted downgradient surface water receptors.

4.2.2 COMPLAINTS

There were four (4) complaints reported to the EPA and passed through to Orange City Council regarding the operation of the landfill during the annual reporting period, on 19 and 26 December 2016 and 9 and 16 January 2017, which related to odour. All complaints were investigated and reported to the EPA.

Ongoing management of offensive odours by the ORRRC operator mitigated their extent and duration. Odour surveys were also undertaken at random intervals at off-site locations by the ORRRC operator.

Complaint history for ORRRC is provided in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 – ORRRC Complaint History

AEMR Complaints

2016-2017 Four odour complaints.

2015-2016 Two odour complaints.

2014-2015 Seven odour complaints made to the EPA between September 2014 and March 2015.

2013-2014 Five odour complaints received between 20 March and 10 April 2014.

2012-2013 One odour complaint made to the EPA on 5 November 2012.

2011-2012 One complaint received on 16 September 2011 relating to the presence of plastic bags on a neighbouring property during windy conditions.

2010-2011 One complaint received in relation to odour.

2009-2010 No complaints






ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Table 4.1 – ORRRC Complaint History

AEMR Complaints






4.3 ERRRC AEMR SUMMARY

4.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

A summary of environmental monitoring results from ERRRC is provided below. Detailed monitoring results are provided in the ERRRC AEMR provided in Appendix F.

4.3.1.1 Groundwater

Groundwater monitoring was conducted at six piezometer monitoring stations in August 2016 and February 2017.

Groundwater levels were seen to increase in the period between August 2016 and February 2017, most predominantly at locations HP2, HP4 and HP5. This is considered to be due to above average rainfall recorded in the second half of 2016. HP4 remains the up-gradient monitoring point and HP1 and HP3 are the downgradient points. Groundwater levels recorded at the ERRRC facility are attached in Appendix E, Table E5 and charted in Appendix F, Chart F27.

Groundwater samples were collected from monitoring stations HP1, HP2, HP3, HP4, HP5 and HP6, and results were compared to available guidelines. Elevated concentrations of monitoring parameters, including alkalinity, chloride and sodium, were recorded in groundwater.

Concentrations of analytes were generally consistent with historical results, and were not considered excessively high or low, being comparable with previous monitoring periods. Analytical data for groundwater monitored at the ORRRC facility is attached to this review as Appendix E, Table E6.

Previously increasing iron concentrations at HP3 have levelled. Concentrations of nitrate (at HP2 and HP6) and ammonia (at HP6) may be inferred to be decreasing. Results of further monitoring will establish whether these are indicative of significant trends. Concentrations of analytes of environmental concern in groundwater at the ERRRC facility have been charted for the monitoring period and attached to this review as Appendix F, Charts F28 to F35.

4.3.1.2 Surface Water

Six surface water sampling rounds were conducted at SWA and SWB during the reporting period. Discharge events occurred during the reporting period in July 2016 (SWB), August 2016 (SW1, SW2 and SWB) and September 2016 (SW2 and SW3). Sampling and analysis undertaken was additional to the requirements of EPL 20104.

Some exceedances of discharge criteria nominated in the SWMP were identified, including turbidity and TSS were recorded. Concentrations of other monitored analytes in surface water were below the SWMP criteria, where present, and/or within historical ranges. Analytical data for surface water monitored at the ERRRC facility is attached to this review as Appendix E, Table E7.

Potentially increasing trends in surface water turbidity and manganese concentrations may be inferred at SWA. Results of further monitoring will establish whether these are indicative of significantly


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


increasing trends. Concentrations of analytes of environmental concern in surface water at the ERRRC facility have been charted for the monitoring period and attached to this review as Appendix F, Charts F36 to F44.

4.3.1.3 Leachate

The leachate monitoring point was sampled in December 2016, and February 2017. Concentrations of monitored analytes in leachate were generally within historical ranges. Analytical data for leachate monitored at the ERRRC facility is attached to this review as Appendix E, Table E8. Concentrations of analytes of environmental concern in leachate have been charted for the monitoring period and attached to this review as Appendix F, Charts F45 to F53.

4.3.1.4 Deposited Dust

Deposited dust monitoring was conducted at EPL Points 1-4 throughout the reporting period. Results recorded at the northern gauge (EPL 1, September – October 2016), western gauge (EPL 4, November – December 2016) and southern gauge (EPL 3, November – December 2016) exceeded the project criterion defined in Condition 24 of the Project Approval and in the Air Quality Monitoring Program (Orange City Council, 2012).

Deposited dust concentrations monitored at the ERRRC facility is attached to this review as Appendix E, Table E9, and charted for the monitoring period as Appendix F, Chart F54.

The project criterion are not identified as limit conditions of EPL 20104.

4.3.1.5 Relevance of Standards

Where exceedances of drinking, stock watering or irrigation criteria have been identified, these have generally been recorded for reference purposes in the AEMR. No receptors have been identified that utilise groundwater or leachate within the immediate area of the site, whilst surface water discharges are not considered to have significantly impacted downgradient surface water receptors.

4.3.2 COMPLAINTS

No complaints were received by Orange City Council regarding the operation of ERRRC during the annual reporting period.

Complaint history for ERRRC is provided in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 – ERRRC Complaint History

AEMR Complaints




2013-2014 One complaint received on 6 March 2014 related to surface water runoff onto the adjoining landowners property.



ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Environmental Assessment Predictions

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This section provides a comparison of monitoring results against relevant predictions made in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the OWP, prepared by GHD in September 2009.

Predictions made with regards to waste quantities received and diverted are addressed in Section 9.2.

5.2 ORRRC

The EA does not provide any predictions relevant to monitoring at ORRRC for groundwater, surface water, leachate, or landfill gas.

5.2.1 AIR QUALITY

The EA provides some quantitative goals and predictions for dust and odour under Section B.5.6 (Air Quality) however, there is no requirement for quantitative dust or odour monitoring at ORRRC. Therefore, no comparison can be made with the EA goals or predictions.

5.2.2 NOISE

The EA provides predictions for noise levels under Section B.5.8 (Noise). In accordance with the OEMP, noise monitoring is undertaken by recording of complaints received. In the event that a noise complaint is received more than once, field monitoring is undertaken to quantify off-site impacts. No noise complaints were received during the reporting period and therefore no PM10, TSP and/or noise monitoring was undertaken and comparison cannot be made with the EA predictions.

5.3 ERRRC

The EA does not provide any predictions relevant to monitoring at ERRRC for groundwater, surface water, or leachate.

5.3.1 AIR QUALITY

5.3.1.1 Odour

The EA provides some odour performance criteria for odour under Section C.4.10 (Air Quality) however, there is no requirement for quantitative odour monitoring at ERRRC. Therefore, no comparison can be made with the EA goals or predictions.

5.3.1.2 Deposited Dust

The EA provides predictions for deposited dust, which provide the following conclusions.

The predicted mean monthly deposited dust rates presented in Table C.4-14 are well below the project goal of 3.8 g/m2/month for all modelled scenarios.

Table C.4-15 indicates that the predicted PM10 levels at all surrounding residences would include six exceedances above the project goal of 50 µm/m3 (24 hour average) for all modelling scenarios, albeit the exceedance would have been caused by the abnormally high background levels attributable to other sources.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


The predicted levels (Annual Average PM10 concentrations at the assessment locations) are significantly lower than the project goal of 30 µm/m3 for all modelling scenarios.

It is predicted that both the 24 hour average PM2.5 goal of 25 µm/m3 and the annual average goal of 8 µm/m3 PM2.5

would be achieved during all stages of construction and operation.

Deposited dust monitoring results recorded at the western gauge (EPL 4, November – December 2016, 9.2 g/m2/month), northern gauge (EPL 1, September-October, 5.1 g/m2/month) and the southern gauge (EPL 3, November – December 2016, 8.3 g/m2/month) exceeded the project criterion defined in Condition 24 of the Project Approval (provided below) and in the Air Quality Monitoring Program (Orange City Council, 2012). These results are also above the predicted mean monthly deposited dust rate project goal (3.8 g/m2/month) in Table C.4-14 of the EA.

Monthly dust monitoring results are attached to this Annual Review as Table E9 and Chart F54. It is noted that these monitoring results are recorded at locations at the perimeter of the ERRRC facility, rather than the receptor impacts predicted in the EA.

5.3.2 NOISE

The EA provides predictions for noise levels under Section C.4.12 (Noise). In accordance with the OEMP, noise monitoring is undertaken by recording of complaints received. In the event that a noise complaint is received more than once, field monitoring is undertaken to quantify off-site impacts. This is undertaken in accordance with the ERRRC Noise Monitoring Program under Section 7.5 of the OEMP.

No noise complaints were received during the reporting period and therefore no PM10, TSP and/or noise monitoring was undertaken and comparison cannot be made with the EA predictions.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Operational Activities

6.1 ORRRC OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES

6.1.1 DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD

ORRRC ceased receiving inert wastes from the baling facility from 1 July 2016 and this material was sent to ERRRC and is being co-located with the baled waste within cell 2. This will now be an ongoing arrangement for the remaining life of ERRRC.

Construction of the Community Recycling Centre (CRC) for Household Hazardous Wastes commenced in May 2017 at the ORRRC with construction continuing and anticipated completion in December 2017.

The western face of the ORRRC landfill received 1 metre depth of soil for phytocapping between November 2016 and January 2017. Seeding of the western face took place on 2 August 2017 and planting of native tube-stocks to occur in August 2017 (Note: this is outside the reporting period).

The above operational changes will be addressed in the 2017 OEMP annual update.

No other changes to operational activities occurred during the reporting period.

6.1.2 PROPOSED FOR 2017/18 REPORTING PERIOD

Operation of the CRC will commence in the 2017/18 reporting period.

This operational change will be addressed in the 2017 OEMP annual update.

No other changes to operational activities are proposed during the 2017/18 reporting period.

6.2 ERRRC OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES

6.2.1 DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD

ERRRC cell 2 received intermediate cover to the northern and western faces in March and May/June 2017.

Quotations were sought for design of landfill cells 3 & 4 at ERRRC and a contract was awarded to Geolyse for this work. Construction of Cell 3 is expected in the 2017/18 financial year.

The above operational changes will be addressed in the 2018 OEMP annual update.

No other changes to operational activities occurred during the reporting period.

6.2.2 PROPOSED FOR 2017/18 REPORTING PERIOD

Construction of cell 3 at ERRRC is planned for the first quarter of 2018.

This operational change will be addressed in the 2018 OEMP update.

No other changes to operational activities are proposed during the 2017/18 reporting period.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Vehicle Movements to ERRRC

7.1 INTRODUCTION

Vehicle movements to ERRRC are required to demonstrate compliance with Schedule 5 Condition 34 of the Project Approval, reproduced below:

34. Unless the Director-General agrees otherwise, the Proponent shall ensure that the operations on site do not generate more than 40 heavy vehicle movements in any one day, and not more than 30 heavy vehicle movements a day when averaged over a 7 day period

7.2 VEHICLE RECORDS

Vehicle records for the reporting period were provided by JR Richards and include records of daily heavy vehicle movements to and from ERRRC. The data has been compiled to assess compliance with Condition 34 of the Project Approval.

Vehicle records were compiled as described below:

Total movements per day.

Total movements per week divided by seven (7) to obtain the average movements per day over a 7 day period.

Compiled records are provided as Appendix A. Raw data is available upon request.

Review of the vehicle movement data identified the following:

Operations did not generate more than 40 heavy vehicle movements in any one day during the reporting period, with a maximum number of 28 heavy vehicle movements recorded on 22 June 2017.

Operations did not generate more than 30 heavy vehicle movements a day when averaged over a 7 day period. The maximum number of daily heavy vehicle movements averaged during a 7 day period was 15.3 movements (26-30 June 2017).

7.3 SCHOOL BUS OPERATIONS

Condition 10(b) of the Project Approval requires that OCC shall ensure that no heavy vehicles associated with the project use Euchareena Road during the regular school bus operations on that road. This includes not being within the Euchareena Road exclusion zone at the following times:

7.00am – 7.15am Mon-Fri (School days)

8.28am – 8.37am Mon-Fri (School days)

3.28pm – 3.40pm Mon-Fri (School days)

4.40pm – 5.00pm Mon-Fri (School days)

JR Richards maintain records of times that heavy vehicles violate the school bus operation times. Compiled records are provided in Appendix B for the reporting period. Original data is available in Excel format upon request.

All time violations recorded occurred outside of school holidays and were not on public holidays. A summary of time violations is provided in Table 7.1.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Table 7.1 – Euchareena Road Exclusion Zone Time Violations

Date Time From Time To Duration Action Taken

15/08/2016 15:36:02 15:44:08 0:08:06 No breach. Vehicle parked on side road until clear to drive.

31/08/2016 7:14:08 7:18:11 0:04:03 JR Richards issued an Employee Infringement Notification – Breach of Transport Code of Conduct and forwarded it to Orange City Council.

7/09/2016 15:39:15 15:45:19 0:06:04 No breach. Vehicle parked at the entrance to Euchareena Road.




22/02/2017 7:14:15 7:18:16 0:04:01 JR Richards issued an Employee Infringement Notification – Breach of Transport Code of Conduct and forwarded it to Orange City Council. 22/02/2017 15:25:32 15:29:33 0:04:01

17/03/2017 15:33:19 15:44:10 0:10:51 No breach. Vehicle stopped at gate.

21/03/2017 15:33:22 15:44:13 0:10:51 No breach. Vehicle stopped at gate.

27/04/2017 7:00:27 7:01:27 0:01:00 No breach. GPS error occurred.



1/05/2017 6:56:11 7:01:13 0:05:02 JR Richards issued an Employee Infringement Notification – Breach of Transport Code of Conduct and forwarded it to Orange City Council. 1/05/2017 7:13:08 7:18:10 0:05:02



It is also noted that JR Richards completed a Toolbox Meeting on 3 May 2017 which included discussion of Euchareena exclusion zones and times with the drivers. As a result of that meeting, all drivers were given laminated copies of the exclusion times and times were extended to avoid breaches (as outlined on p. 15).


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Management Plan Implementation

8.1 INTRODUCTION

The following sections provide details on the implementation of management plans during the reporting period, including:

ORRRC Landfill Environmental Management Plan

ERRRC Landfill Environmental Management Plan

ERRRC Greenhouse Gas Management Plan

Conservation Management Plan

Apiculture Risk Management Plan

Community Education Program

8.2 LANDFILL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS

The ORRRC and ERRRC Landfill Environmental Management Plans (LEMPs) are provided in the Orange Waste Project Operational Environmental Management Plan (OEMP).

8.2.1 REVIEW

The OEMP is currently under review and will be updated to address minor operational changes, update contact details in relevant sections, and update selected SOPs and WAPs.

The revised OEMP will be submitted to DP&E with a covering letter outlining the updates.

8.2.2 IMPLEMENTATION

8.2.2.1 Training and Inductions

The LEMPs have continued to be implemented at each facility by ensuring all staff, regular contractors and visitors complete the relevant inductions in accordance with Section 5.1 – Staff Training and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 02 – Site Inductions, provided in the OEMP.

8.2.2.2 Daily Checklists

Each LEMP requires completion of a Daily Checklist.

Daily Checklists ensure that operational staff and contractors are correctly undertaking daily tasks, resulting in correct and efficient operations at each facility. In addition to recording daily operational procedures, the checklist also records references to incidents, complaints, or any other unusual activities or occurrences.

Daily checklists are available to the Manager Waste Services and Technical Support to determine compliance with procedures and identify the need for any action to be taken.

No non-compliances or major actions resulted from daily checklists at ORRRC and ERRRC during the reporting period.

8.2.2.3 Actions Required

No issues with LEMP implementation have been identified during the reporting period at ERRRC or ORRRC, and therefore no actions are required.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


8.3 ERRRC GREENHOUSE GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Management actions are identified in Section 4 of the ERRRC Greenhouse Gas Management Plan (GGMP). The status of implementation of each management action is provided in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1 – ERRRC Greenhouse Gas Management Plan Actions

Management Action Status

Orange City Council will have landfill gas collection and treatment system designed and ready to install as part of the design on the capping of Stages 1 and 2 of the landfill.

Scheduled for 2018-2019 as capping will not be completed before then.

Monitoring of landfill gas generation will be undertaken by Council consistent with requirements specified in the Environment Protection Licence.

EPL 20104 does not include a requirement for monitoring landfill gas generation, however surveys for surface landfill gas emissions are voluntarily being conducted on a quarterly basis.

8.4 CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

The ERRRC Conservation Management Plan (CMP) provides management measures to be undertaken. The status of implementation of each operational management measure is provided in Table 8.2.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Table 8.2 – Rehabilitation and Management Measures

Category Task Status Action Required

ABORIGINAL

2 DURING OPERATION OF RRC

a Staff Inductions i

All staff and contractors are to undertake an induction that includes a cultural heritage awareness component, consistent with Sections 6.1.1 and 6.2.1 of the Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan (Appendix A).

All staff and contractors undergo a detailed induction prior to commencing any work or activities on the site. Section 5.1 (Training) of the OEMP and SOP 02 – Site Inductions includes a section on Aboriginal Heritage Management consistent with the requirements of Sections 6.1.1 and 6.2.1 of the Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan.

No action required

b Heritage & Biodiversity Awareness

i A suitably sized copy of Drawing 18B_EV01 shall be displayed in the Site Office, where the Site Manager has visual access to it.

Drawing 18B_EV01 is displayed in the ERRRC Site Office No action required

ii

A person shall be appointed by Orange City Council to take responsibility for the continued protection of the identified heritage items, ensuring they are protected from future impacts.

The Manager of Waste Services & Technical Support is responsible for the continued protection of the identified heritage items.

No action required

iii

The items are to be monitored regularly. In particular monitoring shall consider: The impacts of any grazing animals. If it looks

like stock are rubbing against the items they should be fenced off to avoid such impacts.

Whether or not the scarred tree (ST1) is closing over. If such occurs consultation with OEH and the LALC shall be undertaken to determine what measures/if any shall be undertaken to rectify the situation.

Photo monitoring site to be monitored annually, with outcomes recorded in an Aboriginal Heritage Monitoring report.

Scarred tree ST1 is monitored annually as part of the ERRRC Flora And Aboriginal Heritage Monitoring Program. Monitoring was undertaken during the reporting period in February 2017.

No action required

REMNANT WOODLAND


a Staff Inductions i

All staff and contractors are to undertake an induction that includes a cultural heritage awareness component, consistent with Sections 6.1.1 and 6.2.1 of the Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan (Appendix A).

All staff and contractors undergo a detailed induction prior to commencing any work or activities on the site. SOP 02 – Site Inductions includes a section on Aboriginal Heritage Management.

No action required


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL






Drawing 18B_EV01 is displayed in the ERRRC Site Office No action required

Woodland Monitoring

i

Implementation of the woodland monitoring program.

Two permanent monitoring sites throughout the remnant Box-gum woodland EEC have been established, including two quadrants (C1 and C2) and one transect (F1). Flora in remnant woodland is monitored annually as part of the ERRRC Flora And Aboriginal Heritage Monitoring Program. Monitoring was undertaken during the reporting period in February 2017.

No action required

ii

Where, during monitoring, species diversity is found to be insufficient, supplementary planting programs may be undertaken in accordance with advice from a suitably qualified person.

No supplementary planting programs recommended by the ERRRC Flora And Aboriginal Heritage Monitoring Program for the reporting period.

No action required

iii Any supplementary plantings are to be suitably protected through fencing or suitable tree guards.

As above No action required

c Weed & Pest Management

i

Implementation of the Weed Management Program.

The ERRRC Weed Management Plan is provided as Section 7.2 of the Orange Waste Project (OWP) Operational Environmental Management Plan (OEMP). One weed inspection occurred at ERRRC during the reporting period (refer – Appendix D). The following actions have been undertaken in response to the weed inspection: Ongoing spraying and control of St John’s Wart and

thistles; Removal of identified Fireweed and continued

monitoring; and Ongoing monitoring of site by Weed Inspection Officers.

No action required

ii

Implementation of the Pest Control Plan. The ERRRC Pest Management Plan is provided as Section 7.3 of the OWP OEMP. RRC staff maintained fencing around the perimeter of the landfill operations to maintain security and mitigate intrusion from feral animals such as European foxes.

No action required


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL




d Groundcover Management

i

Groundcover management within the woodland areas is to be undertaken through grazing with cattle, using appropriate stocking rates that reflect seasonal conditions and to ensure an adequate level of groundcover remains at all times.

Grazing of the Conservation Area in accordance with the Conservation Agreement to manage fire risk commenced in June 2017 with approval from OEH.

No action required

ii

Controlled grazing by livestock to maintain or improve native vegetation values at a low to moderate stocking rate or ‘crash grazing’. Grazing is an ecological tool and the aim of crash grazing is to manage the groundcover to ensure that a diverse groundlayer of native species is encouraged.

Grazing regimes will be guided by: - Appropriate location of grazing - Triggers to change grazing regime e.g.

changes to abundance of selected key species.

- Triggers for grazing to be excluded e.g. during flowering and seeding of particular species.

- Seasons where grazing may be desirable e.g. reduction in seeding of particular weed species.

- Exclusion of grazing for a required number of years or until certain outcomes have been achieved.

Management of stock in the remnant woodland should aim to minimise damage to native vegetation and minimise introduction of weeds and disease as follows: - Ensure stock camps are not established - Ensure stock are confined to formed

tracks and are under supervision when moving livestock through the conservation area.

- Mustering of livestock with the use of working dogs and horses is permitted.

- Fodder or any stock feed may not be brought into the remnant woodland areas.

- Before introduction of stock into the remnant woodland areas ensure they are held in a relatively weed free area for at


No action required


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL




least a week immediately prior to their introduction.

- Pasture improvement or fertilisation is not permitted.

- Exclude stock from any burnt area of the remnant woodland until native vegetation has re-established. Stock should be excluded for at least three years and groundcover should be >70% before grazing recommences.

iii Any grazing and implementation of grazing regime requires prior written agreement from OEH, subject to monitoring reports.


No action required

iv

Reducing the population of native grazing animals where grazing pressure is resulting in the degradation of the quality and structure of native vegetation and inhibiting natural regeneration and the owner is granted a licence to cull under Section 121 of the NPW Act 1974.

No requirement for culling identified by the 2016/17 ERRRC Flora And Aboriginal Heritage Monitoring Program.

No action required

REHABILITATION CORRIDORS


b Woodland Monitoring

i Implementation of the rehabilitation corridor monitoring program.

Two permanent monitoring sites within the rehabilitation corridor have been established, including two quadrants (R1 and R2) and one transect (F2). Flora in rehabilitation corridors is monitored annually as part of the ERRRC Flora And Aboriginal Heritage Monitoring Program. Monitoring was undertaken during the reporting period in February 2017.

No action required

ii Where, during monitoring, species diversity is found to be insufficient, supplementary planting programs are to be undertaken in accordance with advice from a suitably qualified person.

No supplementary planting programs were recommended by the ERRRC Flora And Aboriginal Heritage Monitoring Program for the reporting period.

No action required

iii Any supplementary plantings are to be suitably protected through fencing or suitable tree guard, as outlined in this Appendix.



ORANGE CITY COUNCIL





i Implementation of the Weed Management Program.

The ERRRC Weed Management Plan is provided as Section 7.2 of the OWP OEMP. One weed inspection occurred at ERRRC during the reporting period (refer – Appendix D). The following actions have been undertaken in response to the weed inspection: Ongoing spraying and control of St John’s Wart and



No action required

ii Implementation of the Pest Control Plan. The ERRRC Pest Management Plan is provided as Section 7.3 of the OWP OEMP. RRC staff maintained fencing around the perimeter of the landfill operations to maintain security and mitigate intrusion from feral animals such as European foxes.

No action required


i Groundcover management within the rehabilitation areas is to be undertaken through grazing with cattle, using appropriate stocking rates that reflect seasonal conditions and to ensure an adequate level of groundcover remains at all times. Trees and shrubs are to be protected from cattle in accordance with the principles outlined in this Appendix.


No action required

ii Once established, grazing shall be undertaken in accordance with the measures outlined in the Remnant Woodland Areas (Appendix C).


No action required

LANDSCAPED BUNDS


a Landscaped Bunds

i

The landscaped bunds shall be constructed and landscaped in accordance with this Appendix.

The Landscape Bunds were constructed and seeded prior to operations on August 2013. Some tree loss was experienced on these bunds due to extreme weather conditions. Replanting of trees on bunds occurred in May/June 2016.

No action required


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL






Drawing 18B_EV02 is displayed in the ERRRC Site Office. No action required

c Monitoring

i Implementation of the Landscaped Bund/Strip monitoring program.

A permanent monitoring site within Landscape Bund 1 (B1) has been established as part of the ERRRC Flora and Aboriginal Heritage Monitoring Program.

No action required

ii

Where, during monitoring, species diversity is found to be insufficient, supplementary planting programs are to be undertaken in accordance with advice from a suitably qualified person.


No action required

iii Any supplementary plantings are to be suitably protected through fencing or suitable tree guard.


d Weed & Pest Management

i





No action required

ii


No action required

e Groundcover Management

i

Once established, grazing shall be undertaken in accordance with the measures outlined in the Remnant Woodland Areas (Appendix C).


No action required


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL




LANDSCAPED AREA


a Heritage & Biodiversity Awareness


Drawing 16B_EV02 is displayed in the ERRRC Site Office. No action required

b Monitoring

i

Implementation of the landscaped area monitoring program.

A permanent monitoring site within the Landscaped Area has been established which includes one transect (L1). Flora in the landscaped area is monitored annually as part of the ERRRC Flora And Aboriginal Heritage Monitoring Program. Monitoring was undertaken during the reporting period in February 2017.

No action required

ii



No action required




i





No action required

ii


No action required


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL





i



No action required



No action required


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


8.5 APICULTURE RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Apiculture Risk Management Plan (AMP) identifies monitoring and recording requirements to minimise apiculture risks. The status of implementation of the ARMP monitoring and recording requirements is provided in Table 8.3.

Table 8.3 – Implementation of ARMP

Requirement Status Action Required

PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS

1.2 Records and Monitoring Where not otherwise stated, a record of any non-conformance detected and the subsequent

corrective actions must be kept.

There have been no non-conformances in the reporting period.

No action required

A register of bee sightings at the ERRRC must be kept In accordance with the Apiculture Risk Management Plan, Council and its Contractor JR Richards and Sons, monitor the Euchareena Road Resource Recovery Centre for bees. Bees were sited in November 2016 and April 2017. These sighting coincided with the flowering of bottle brushes in the garden beds surrounding the composting operations. Details of these sightings are as follows:

Date Number of bees

Location of bees

25 November 2016

2 - 20 bees Near the process water area of the Euchareena Road Resource Recovery Centre composting operations

26 April 2017 20 - 100 bees Garden Bed within the composting compound at Euchareena Road Resource Recovery Centre

No action required

Customer complaints must be recorded on the customer complaints register and updated on the Orange City Council website monthly. All supporting documentation relating to the complaint must also be retained on file (Appendix 3).

A Complaints Register (Form 14.01) and Complaints Report Form (Form 14.02) is provided under SOP 14 – Complaints Handling of the OWP OEMP. Records of complaints are kept for at least four years in accordance with EPA requirements. A complaints registry is maintained on Council’s website Refer to: http://www.orange.nsw.gov.au/client_images/1887708.pdf

No action required


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL




A report on issues relating to this RMP must be provided to the Review Committee either by exception or at no less than 6-monthly intervals.

The Apiculture Committee which consists of local apiarists, the President of the Central Tablelands Apiary Association and Department of Primary Industries resolved to meet annually. A report is provided to this Committee at the annual meeting. Any beekeeping equipment sightings at the facilities are reported to this committee immediately. There was no bee keeping equipment presented at the facilities in the reporting period.

No action required

USED BEE KEEPING EQUIPMENT

2.4.1 Records Records will be kept of all instances where loads containing used beekeeping equipment have

been rejected. This should contain, date stopped, nature of goods, driver details and date reported to site supervisor

Form 6.01 – Rejected Apiculture Product Register is provided under SOP 06 – Bee Keeping Equipment and Honey Containers of the OWP OEMP. There were no detection of beekeeping equipment or honey containers in the reporting period.

No action required

Records will be kept by waste stream of the discovery and subsequent burial of any item of beekeeping equipment that inadvertently enters the ORRRC. This should also contain, date found, nature of goods and date reported to site supervisor.

Form 6.03 – Found Apiculture Product Register is provided under SOP 06 – Bee Keeping Equipment and Honey Containers of the OWP OEMP. There has been no detection of beekeeping equipment or honey containers in the reporting period.

No action required

2.4.2 Monitoring Site supervisor to check processes and records quarterly

The Site Supervisor has checked and processed records in accordance with the ARMP. There have been no incidents during the reporting period.

No action required

Site supervisor to report incidents to the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) as appropriate

This is a requirement of SOP 06 – Bee Keeping Equipment and Honey Containers of the OWP OEMP. If there is an incident this is immediately reported to DPI and to the Apiculture Committee. There has been no incidents during the reporting period.

No action required

USED HONEY CONTAINERS

3.4.1 Records A record of any bale rejection is to be kept and is to include date, degree of failure plus any

indication of cause, and date reported to management.

Form 09 – Compromised Bales Returned to ORRRC is provided under SOP 09 – Rejected Bales from ERRRC of the OWP OEMP. There has been no compromised or rejected bales in the reporting period.

No action required

A record of any wrapping tear or failure is to be kept and is to include incident date, corrective action, and date reported to management.

As above. No action required


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL




3.4.2 Monitoring Site supervisor to check processes and records quarterly

The Site Supervisor has processed and checked records in accordance with the OEMP.

No action required

TIMBER OR TREE LOGS

4.4.1 Records A record of feral colonies (alive or dead) found in tree logs must be kept

Records of feral colonies (alive or dead) found in tree logs are recorded as rejected or found waste on Form 06.01 - Rejected Apiculture Product Register or Form 6.03 – Found Apiculture Product Register (respectively) under SOP 06 – Bee Keeping Equipment and Honey Containers under the OWP OEMP. There has been no feral bee colonies detected in any tree logs during the reporting period.

No action required

Processing, storage and disposal records for risk material must be kept. There has been no feral bee colonies detected in any tree logs during the reporting period.

No action required

4.4.2 Monitoring Site supervisor to report instances of feral colonies in tree logs to DPI as appropriate.

This is a requirement of SOP 06 – Bee Keeping Equipment and Honey Containers of the OWP OEMP. There has been no feral bee colonies detected in any tree logs during the reporting period.

No action required

Site supervisor to check processes and records quarterly There has been no feral bee colonies detected in any tree logs during the reporting period.

No action required

EDUCATION / PERSONNEL COMPETENCY

9.3.1 Records Induction and training records for all staff performing key tasks relating to the ARMP must be

kept on file. Staff must sign these records confirming that training has been received.

A Staff Training Register is provided under SOP 02 – Site Inductions under the OWP OEMP. During the reporting period 1 new Resource Recovery Centre staff member was employed. This staff member has been trained and records are kept on site in accordance with the OEMP.

No action required

9.3.2 Monitoring Monitoring of staff performance must be carried out by the responsible person at regular

intervals.

The Site Supervisor and Manager Waste Services & Technical Support monitor staff performance.

No action required


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


8.6 COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY

8.6.1 IMPLEMENTATION

The Community Education and Communications Strategy (CECS) is a three phase strategy.

Phase 1 and 2 applied to the pre-operation period and are no longer applicable.

Phase 3 also applied to the pre-operation period but also includes operational actions to overcome implementation problems.

The status of implementation of relevant operational communication tools identified in the CECS during the reporting period is provided in Table 8.4.

Table 8.4 – Communication Tool Implementation Status

Tool Function Audience Implementation Status

Twitter/Facebook Use Twitter in months following launch to show statistics on how much waste has been diverted from landfill and subsequently how much greenhouse gasses have been reduced. Reinforce what is required of residents eg ‘Remember to use your new bin for organics from this week onward.

All stakeholders. Residents

Orange City Council utilises it social media accounts to continually promote Council’s activities including waste management activities.

Open days and guided

educational tour of new facilities.

Special school tours should be organised on weekdays.

All stakeholders Throughout the reporting period, Council hosted 5 school tours to the Waste Facilities.

Direct response to community

questions

Where possible requests and questions will be responded to through one of the established communication elements eg website, information booth. In some cases, if a particular group of people eg Senior Citizens Association) need more information special presentations or distribution of targeted information will be arranged.

Specific community

groups

Orange City Council has hosted numerous public place displays to promote Council’s waste management services and facilities. These public place displays provide opportunities for the community to speak one-on-one with the representative hosting the display. During the reporting period 4 displays were hosted at a range of venues including shopping centres, Bunnings and community fetes. Council also hosted a community “Tea and Talk” information session. This event was hosted at the Orange City Library. This was well received and will be continued in future reporting periods. An Early Learning Staff information session was delivered to representatives from 5 Early Learning Centres. These sessions provided information to staff to enable delivery of waste education to children at the Centres.

Customer Service Centre

The centre should be well prepared with answers to expected questions and should direct customers to the website, newsletter and information booth.

Residents and businesses

Orange City Council maintain a phone line for enquiries and complaints about the OWP (1300 650 511). Customers can be directed to the website for specific information on the OWP at: www.orange.nsw.gov.au/site/index.cfm?display=267052


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Table 8.4 – Communication Tool Implementation Status

Tool Function Audience Implementation Status

Poster display The posters will also address implementation issues and educate people on elements of the new system that they may not be following correctly eg in the case of widespread use of plastic bags in new organics bin.

All stakeholders Council has developed pull-up banner posters that are utilised at the public place displays and in Council’s foyer. These posters provide clear instruction of what waste items can go into each of the bins.

8.6.2 ENVIROCOM ANNUAL REPORT

Orange City Council’s waste collection contractor, J.R. Richards & Sons, has engaged EnviroCom Australia to deliver the educational elements of the OWP.

EnviroCom provide an annual report on activities, the Food and Garden Organics Waste Education Plan 2016-17. The EnviroCom report identifies the following initiatives carried out during the reporting period:

Pop-up Displays

Community ‘Tea and Talk’ Session

Community Organisation Information Session

Early Learning Staff Professional Development Session

Waste Education Supporting Materials

Primary Schools Waste Education Program

Food and Garden Organics (FOGO) Bin Inspection Program

The EnviroCom report is provided in Appendix C.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Monitoring Programs

9.1 INTRODUCTION

A summary of monitoring and results during the reporting period for the following monitoring programs is provided in the following sections:

Waste and Resource Recovery Monitoring Program (WRRMP).

ERRRC Flora and Aboriginal Heritage Monitoring Program.

9.2 WASTE AND RESOURCE RECOVERY MONITORING PROGRAM

9.2.1 MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

The key resource recovery outcome of the WRRMP strategy is to achieve an overall 58% diversion of waste from landfill including:

63% of municipal waste generated.

53% of C&I waste generated.

53% of C&D waste generated.

9.2.2 WASTE DIVERSION

Percentage waste diversion since 2012/13 is provided in Table 9.1 and plotted in Figures 5 to 8.

Table 9.1 – Percentage waste diversion

Reporting Period Municipal C&I C&D Overall

2012/13 37.2% 17.1% 64.7% 40.1%

2013/14 50.4% 27.3% 60.0% 46.5%

2014/15 51.0% 31.7% 81.1% 53.5%

2015/16 55.5% 32.3% 92.3% 62.9%

2016/17 47.5% 17.8% 76.1% 47.7%

The overall waste diversion has decreased for the first time in four years, falling from 62.9% in 2015/16 to 47.7% in 2016/17. This result is less than the overall diversion target (58%).

The reduction in overall diversion is principally attributed to an increase in C&I waste, which has limited opportunities for diversion. Municipal waste diversion also fell, largely due to a reduction in the volume of green waste delivered in the 2016/17 period.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Figure 5: Overall waste diversion

Figure 6: Municipal sector waste diversion


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Figure 7: C&I sector waste diversion

Figure 8: C&D sector waste diversion

9.3 ERRRC FLORA AND ABORIGINAL HERITAGE MONITORING PROGRAM

9.3.1 INTRODUCTION

Monitoring was completed in February 2017 as part of the approved Conservation Management Plan for ERRRC. A summary of monitoring results is provided in the following sections.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


9.3.2 FLORA MONITORING

Flora monitoring sites assessed during the survey included:

Two plots as control sites in remnant woodland areas (C1 and C2).

Two plots within the rehabilitation corridor; one in the southern rehabilitation corridor and another in the northern rehabilitation corridor (R1, R2).

Transect within the landscaped area on the south western boundary (L1).

Transect within the newly planted landscape bund on the northern boundary (B1).

One transect west of the access road in remnant woodland also acting as a control site (F1, C1).

One transect east of the access road in the southern rehabilitation corridor also acting as a plot site (F2, R2).

One transect (L2) established in the 2016 survey period that incorporates the planted rehabilitation area immediately north of the facility’s perimeter fence line.

Flora monitoring identified the following:

The February 2017 survey period coincided with a dry end to the summer season with recorded rainfall averages for Molong, again, being below average for the months of January and February. The annual seasonal conditions included significantly higher rainfall totals for winter and spring periods. As a result of the extended dry summer period, the proportion of live growth and summer perennial species recorded within transects and control plots were low. Dry ground vegetation loading was high in comparison with the 2016 surveys due to elevated sporing and early summer growth patterns. This was particularly noticeable with high proportions of exotic summer weed species occurring across the site.

Infestation by St Barnaby’s Thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) has been elevated by wet winter and spring conditions. This species is particularly prolific within prior disturbance areas where the plant dominates broad areas of groundcover. High populations of this species have yielded a high seed bank which may see seed longevity lasting seven to ten years. Associated with the heightened groundcover growth during the wet growing spring season, is the high vegetation loadings across the site. Winter and spring growth remains as dense, dead vegetative matter across many of the survey plots and has impeded the summer emergence of many ground cover species (particularly lower native groundcovers).

Kangaroo populations lowered slightly during the winter to spring period, with kangaroo numbers stabilising throughout the summer period. Two populations remain on the site and these groups use the woodland areas to the east and west of the facility. Kangaroos on site numbered approximately 120 by December which is consistent with December 2016 counts. These populations have had a slight impact on transects this survey year. Impacts range from trampling and compaction, to vegetation removal for regular camp sites and territory marking. Impacts are more evident during the dry summer period.

Kangaroo impact continues within some of the unfenced tree lots. The tree lots along the northern perimeter fenceline continue to be interfered with by adult males marking territory. Numerous tree guards and weed mats have been disturbed. The new plantings along the northern bund (B1) have employed a kangaroo/vermin proof tree guard which has proven to endure kangaroo interference so far (as of March 2017)

9.3.3 ABORIGINAL HERITAGE MONITORING

Aboriginal Heritage monitoring during the survey included monitoring of a scarred tree (Molong ST1, Side ID 44-1-0080) to determine the impacts of grazing animals and whether the scarred tree is closing over.

Monitoring identified the following:

The tree remains in moderate to good health for an old-mature box-eucalypt.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


The spring-summer period resulted in the loss of a large upper-crown limb

The tree shows little change in trunk damage from initial survey photographs taken in 2012.

Removal of surface bark by parrots has continued around the dead upper trunk.

The internal cavity has not increased in size and does not show evidence of termite damage or infestation.

The excavation caused by foxes to the eastern side of the tree during 2015 has been revisited by echidnas (and possible fox). Further soil material has been removed from the base of the eastern scar. It was noted that some of the dead heartwood has been removed, now allowing access to the internal void of the tree trunk.

9.3.4 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

Appendix D of the Flora and Aboriginal Heritage Monitoring report (attached as Appendix G) summarises the issues and describes control measures to be implemented.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Rehabilitation

10.1 ORRRC

The western face of the ORRRC landfill received 1 metre depth of soil for phytocapping between November 2016 and January 2017. Seeding of the western face took place on 2 August 2017 and planting of native tube-stocks to occur in August 2017 (Note: this is outside the reporting period).

10.2 ERRRC

Rehabilitation at ERRRC continued with ongoing spraying of weeds, watering and maintenance of planted trees.

Specific rehabilitation activities undertaken at the ERRRC during the reporting period are detailed in Table 10.1.

Table 10.1 – ERRRC Rehabilitation Activities

Month/Year Rehabilitation Activity

June 2017 Grazing of the Conservation Area in accordance with the Conservation Agreement to manage fire risk commenced in June 2017 with approval from OEH.

During reporting period

Liaison with National Parks & Wildlife Service and OEH on possible culling of resident kangaroo population was undertaken however, permission was not granted due to the Conservation Agreement.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Compliance and Incidents

11.1 SUMMARY

A summary of incidents and the status of compliance with relevant monitoring programs, management plans and the project approval is summarised in Table 11.1.

Table 11.1 – Compliance and Incident Summary

Details Action

Environmental Monitoring Programs

ORRRC Environmental Monitoring Exceedances were recorded for groundwater and surface water monitoring during the reporting period – refer Section 4.2.

Continued monitoring

ERRRC Environmental Monitoring Exceedances were recorded for surface water and deposited dust – refer Section 4.3.

Continued monitoring

Management Plans

ORRRC and ERRRC Landfill Environmental Management Plans (LEMP) – Daily Checklist

No non-compliances or major actions resulted from daily checklists at ORRRC and ERRRC during the reporting period.

No action required

Apiculture Risk Management Plan (ARMP)

The Site Supervisor has checked and processed records in accordance with the ARMP. There have been no incidents during the reporting period.

No action required

Approval

Project Approval Condition 10(b) 17 time violations were recorded during the reporting period, as outlined in Appendix B. Of the 17 time violations, 8 are reported as breaches. All time violations were recorded during the NSW school term.

JR Richards issued Employee Infringement Notifications – Breach of Transport Code of Conduct for all breaches and forwarded them to Orange City Council. No further action required.

Complaints

ORRRC There were four (4) complaints reported to the EPA and passed through to Orange City Council regarding the operation of the landfill during the annual reporting period, on 19 and 26 December 2016 and 9 and 16 January 2017, which related to odour.

All complaints were investigated and reported to the EPA. Ongoing management of offensive odours by the ORRRC operator mitigated the extent and duration.

ERRRC No complaints were received by Orange City Council regarding the operation of ERRRC during the annual reporting period.

No action required.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Independent Environmental Audit

An Independent Environmental Audit (IEA) was not undertaken during the reporting period.

Appendix A JR RICHARDS COMPILED VEHICLE

RECORDS


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE A1 208212_AR_002B.DOCX

Date Total Daily Movements

1/07/2016 12

4/07/2016 6

5/07/2016 5

6/07/2016 13

7/07/2016 15

8/07/2016 13

11/07/2016 12

12/07/2016 14

13/07/2016 8

14/07/2016 6

15/07/2016 8

18/07/2016 12

19/07/2016 12

20/07/2016 10

21/07/2016 4

22/07/2016 4

25/07/2016 10

26/07/2016 5

27/07/2016 9

28/07/2016 14

29/07/2016 12

30/07/2016 6

1/08/2016 2

2/08/2016 4

3/08/2016 10

4/08/2016 12

5/08/2016 10

8/08/2016 12

9/08/2016 10

10/08/2016 6

11/08/2016 8

12/08/2016 2

15/08/2016 8

16/08/2016 14

17/08/2016 12

18/08/2016 10

19/08/2016 10

22/08/2016 10

23/08/2016 2

25/08/2016 14

26/08/2016 12

29/08/2016 14

30/08/2016 14

31/08/2016 8

1/09/2016 10

2/09/2016 12


5/09/2016 8

6/09/2016 8

7/09/2016 16

8/09/2016 12

9/09/2016 4

12/09/2016 4

13/09/2016 8

14/09/2016 8

15/09/2016 6

19/09/2016 12

20/09/2016 14

21/09/2016 10

22/09/2016 8

23/09/2016 2

26/09/2016 12

27/09/2016 14

28/09/2016 10

29/09/2016 14

30/09/2016 14

3/10/2016 8

4/10/2016 12

5/10/2016 8

6/10/2016 8

7/10/2016 10

10/10/2016 13

11/10/2016 7

12/10/2016 15

13/10/2016 12

14/10/2016 11

17/10/2016 11

18/10/2016 11

19/10/2016 12

20/10/2016 18

21/10/2016 12

24/10/2016 6

25/10/2016 14

26/10/2016 8

27/10/2016 16

28/10/2016 8

31/10/2016 1

1/11/2016 12

2/11/2016 17

3/11/2016 12

4/11/2016 14

5/11/2016 6

7/11/2016 14


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL



8/11/2016 2

9/11/2016 12

10/11/2016 16

11/11/2016 18

14/11/2016 18

15/11/2016 16

16/11/2016 18

17/11/2016 12

18/11/2016 16

21/11/2016 16

22/11/2016 10

23/11/2016 14

24/11/2016 20

25/11/2016 12

28/11/2016 14

29/11/2016 18

30/11/2016 12

1/12/2016 14

2/12/2016 17

5/12/2016 8

6/12/2016 8

7/12/2016 18

8/12/2016 4

9/12/2016 5

12/12/2016 14

13/12/2016 12

14/12/2016 14

15/12/2016 16

16/12/2016 20

19/12/2016 18

20/12/2016 10

21/12/2016 8

22/12/2016 14

23/12/2016 16

26/12/2016 4

27/12/2016 10

28/12/2016 16

29/12/2016 18

30/12/2016 17

2/01/2017 2

3/01/2017 14

4/01/2017 17

5/01/2017 16

6/01/2017 12

9/01/2017 12

10/01/2017 10


11/01/2017 12

12/01/2017 12

13/01/2017 8

16/01/2017 14

17/01/2017 13

18/01/2017 17

19/01/2017 18

20/01/2017 12

23/01/2017 9

24/01/2017 10

25/01/2017 12

26/01/2017 13

27/01/2017 11

30/01/2017 13

31/01/2017 10

1/02/2017 18

2/02/2017 22

3/02/2017 10

6/02/2017 8

7/02/2017 18

8/02/2017 24

9/02/2017 2

10/02/2017 16

13/02/2017 16

14/02/2017 14

15/02/2017 8

16/02/2017 16

17/02/2017 8

20/02/2017 8

21/02/2017 14

22/02/2017 14

23/02/2017 6

24/02/2017 8

27/02/2017 16

28/02/2017 12

1/03/2017 4

2/03/2017 8

3/03/2017 12

6/03/2017 10

7/03/2017 16

8/03/2017 10

9/03/2017 6

10/03/2017 14

13/03/2017 10

14/03/2017 14

15/03/2017 14


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL



16/03/2017 10

17/03/2017 16

20/03/2017 10

21/03/2017 14

22/03/2017 16

23/03/2017 14

24/03/2017 12

27/03/2017 6

28/03/2017 12

29/03/2017 17

30/03/2017 14

31/03/2017 11

3/04/2017 14

4/04/2017 18

5/04/2017 16

6/04/2017 18

7/04/2017 10

10/04/2017 16

11/04/2017 14

12/04/2017 14

13/04/2017 16

15/04/2017 2

17/04/2017 7

18/04/2017 15

19/04/2017 19

20/04/2017 22

21/04/2017 17

24/04/2017 14

25/04/2017 4

26/04/2017 20

27/04/2017 26

28/04/2017 24

29/04/2017 6

1/05/2017 16

2/05/2017 13

3/05/2017 20

4/05/2017 14

5/05/2017 16

8/05/2017 16

9/05/2017 14

10/05/2017 14

11/05/2017 12

12/05/2017 14

15/05/2017 10

16/05/2017 16

17/05/2017 18


18/05/2017 14

19/05/2017 12

22/05/2017 16

23/05/2017 10

24/05/2017 12

25/05/2017 10

26/05/2017 12

29/05/2017 10

30/05/2017 10

31/05/2017 15

1/06/2017 14

2/06/2017 8

5/06/2017 8

6/06/2017 16

7/06/2017 18

8/06/2017 14

9/06/2017 18

13/06/2017 14

14/06/2017 12

15/06/2017 20

16/06/2017 16

19/06/2017 14

20/06/2017 16

21/06/2017 18

22/06/2017 28

23/06/2017 22

26/06/2017 18

27/06/2017 22

28/06/2017 22

29/06/2017 20

30/06/2017 25

Grand Total 3225


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Week Total Weekly Movements Average Daily Movements

27/06/2016 - 3/07/2016 12 1.7

4/07/2016 - 10/07/2016 52 7.4

11/07/2016 - 17/07/2016 48 6.9

18/07/2016 - 24/07/2016 42 6.0

25/07/2016 - 31/07/2016 56 8.0

1/08/2016 - 7/08/2016 38 5.4

8/08/2016 - 14/08/2016 38 5.4

15/08/2016 - 21/08/2016 54 7.7

22/08/2016 - 28/08/2016 38 5.4

29/08/2016 - 4/09/2016 58 8.3

5/09/2016 - 11/09/2016 48 6.9

12/09/2016 - 18/09/2016 26 3.7

19/09/2016 - 25/09/2016 46 6.6

26/09/2016 - 2/10/2016 64 9.1

3/10/2016 - 9/10/2016 46 6.6

10/10/2016 - 16/10/2016 58 8.3

17/10/2016 - 23/10/2016 64 9.1

24/10/2016 - 30/10/2016 52 7.4

31/10/2016 - 6/11/2016 62 8.9

7/11/2016 - 13/11/2016 62 8.9

14/11/2016 - 20/11/2016 80 11.4

21/11/2016 - 27/11/2016 72 10.3

28/11/2016 - 4/12/2016 75 10.7

5/12/2016 - 11/12/2016 43 6.1

12/12/2016 - 18/12/2016 76 10.9

19/12/2016 - 25/12/2016 66 9.4

26/12/2016 - 1/01/2017 65 9.3

2/01/2017 - 8/01/2017 61 8.7

9/01/2017 - 15/01/2017 54 7.7

16/01/2017 - 22/01/2017 74 10.6

23/01/2017 - 29/01/2017 55 7.9

30/01/2017 - 5/02/2017 73 10.4

6/02/2017 - 12/02/2017 68 9.7

13/02/2017 - 19/02/2017 62 8.9

20/02/2017 - 26/02/2017 50 7.1

27/02/2017 - 5/03/2017 52 7.4

6/03/2017 - 12/03/2017 56 8.0

13/03/2017 - 19/03/2017 64 9.1

20/03/2017 - 26/03/2017 66 9.4

27/03/2017 - 2/04/2017 60 8.6

3/04/2017 - 9/04/2017 76 10.9

10/04/2017 - 16/04/2017 62 8.9

17/04/2017 - 23/04/2017 80 11.4

24/04/2017 - 30/04/2017 94 13.4

1/05/2017 - 7/05/2017 79 11.3

8/05/2017 - 14/05/2017 70 10.0


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL


Week Total Weekly Movements Average Daily Movements

15/05/2017 - 21/05/2017 70 10.0

22/05/2017 - 28/05/2017 60 8.6

29/05/2017 - 4/06/2017 57 8.1

5/06/2017 - 11/06/2017 74 10.6

12/06/2017 - 18/06/2017 62 8.9

19/06/2017 - 25/06/2017 98 14.0

26/06/2017 - 1/07/2017 107 15.3

Appendix B JR RICHARDS SCHOOL HOURS

VIOLATION RECORDS


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE B1 208212_AR_002B.DOCX

Date Time From Time To Duration

15/08/2016 15:36:02 15:44:08 0:08:06

31/08/2016 7:14:08 7:18:11 0:04:03

7/09/2016 15:39:15 15:45:19 0:06:04

10/10/2016 16:52:01 16:53:32 00:01:31

10/11/2016 8:29:15 8:33:16 0:04:01

13/02/2017 8:32:24 8:35:25 0:03:01

22/02/2017 7:14:15 7:18:16 0:04:01

22/02/2017 15:25:32 15:29:33 0:04:01

17/03/2017 15:33:19 15:44:10 0:10:51

21/03/2017 15:33:22 15:44:13 0:10:51

27/04/2017 7:00:27 7:01:27 0:01:00

27/04/2017 15:29:21 15:30:21 0:01:00

27/04/2017 15:35:54 15:36:23 0:00:29

1/05/2017 6:56:11 7:01:13 0:05:02

1/05/2017 7:13:08 7:18:10 0:05:02

14/06/2017 15:29:16 15:33:19 0:04:03

21/06/2017 6:58:57 7:02:59 0:04:02

Appendix C ENVIROCOM FOOD AND GARDEN

ORGANICS WASTE EDUCATION PLAN

2016-17 REPORT

Orange City Council

Food and Garden Organics Waste Education Plan 2016-17 Report

July 2017

Project Undertaken by

16 Childs Road Chipping Norton, NSW, 2170

[P] (02) 9724 3889 [F] (02) 9724 3715 [E] [email protected]

Disclaimer

The collection of information presented in this report was undertaken to the best level possible within the agreed timeframe and should not be solely relied upon for commercial purposes. The opinions, representations, statements or advice, expressed or implied in this report are provided in good faith. Information, statements and recommendations implied or stated in this report are limited to the nature and scope of the project and do not constitute legal advice.

Acknowledgments

EnviroCom would like to thank the staff at the Orange City Council and also J.R. Richards & Sons for their valuable assistance and cooperation whilst actioning the initiatives outlined in this report.

Project Team

Project Coordinator: Rachel McIntyre (Senior Consultant) Reporting: Rachel McIntyre (Senior Consultant) Donald Munro (Regional Manager, NSW & VIC) Project Team: Chris Dart (Environmental Consultant) Daniel Burchmore (Environmental Consultant)

mailto:[email protected]

Table of Contents

1.0 Overview of Waste Education Plan 2016-17 .......................................... 2

2.0 Pop-up Displays ....................................................................................... 3

3.0 Community ‘Tea and Talks’..................................................................... 4

4.0 Community Organisation Information Sessions ................................... 5

5.0 Early Learning Staff Professional Development Sessions................... 6

5.1. Session Promotion ....................................................................................... 6

5.2. Session Delivery ........................................................................................... 6

5.3. Session Evaluation ....................................................................................... 7

6.0 Waste Education Supporting Materials ................................................. 8

6.1. Home Bin Audit Tool .................................................................................... 8

6.2. Education Flyer ............................................................................................. 8

7.0 Primary School Waste Education Program ........................................... 9

7.1. Program Promotion ...................................................................................... 9

7.2. Program Delivery .......................................................................................... 9

7.3. Program Evaluation .................................................................................... 10

7.4. Take Home Surveys ................................................................................... 10

8.0 FOGO Bin Inspection Program ............................................................. 12

9.0 Discussion .............................................................................................. 13

10.0 Budget Summary ................................................................................. 15

11.0 Appendices ........................................................................................... 17

Appendix 1 – PUD survey results summary .................................................... 17

Appendix 2 – Community ‘Tea and Talk’ flyer and results summary ............ 19

Appendix 3 – Community Organisation information Session – invitation .... 22

Appendix 4 – ELC PD session EOI and results ............................................... 23

Appendix 5 – Waste Ed. Support Materials – Home Bin Tool......................... 25

Appendix 6 – Waste Ed. Support Materials – ELC Flyer ................................. 27

Appendix 7 – Primary School Program EOI & Evaluation Comments ........... 29

Appendix 8 – Primary School Program Take Home Survey Results ............. 31

1.0 Overview of Waste Education Plan 2016-17

As part of the Food and Garden Organics (FOGO) Collection Contract, and in an effort to improve environmental outcomes related to waste management in the region, Orange City Council’s Waste Collection Contractor, J.R. Richards & Sons, engaged EnviroCom Australia to develop a suite of educational and communication initiatives targeting the Orange community for each of the contract years. These initiatives aimed to actively engage and involve residents, and equip them with the skills and knowledge to develop effective waste minimisation habits, as well as make informed decisions when utilising the FOGO Collection Service. On top of the $50,000 annual contribution from J.R. Richards & Sons, Orange City Council has committed a further $30,000 annual contribution over a five-year period ($150,000 in total, from 2017-2021). These funds will be utilised for community engagement, research and education programs that will assist in meeting the New South Wales State diversion target of 75% of waste diverted from landfill by 2021-22. With the addition of this funding, there are now three separate budgets available for rolling out waste education in Orange targeting increased resource recovery; funds from the NetWaste Joint Recycling Contract; funds from Council’s separate FOGO Contract; and the additional annual Council-funded budget. EnviroCom acknowledges the need to ensure the integration of clear messages across education campaigns funded under the three different budgets to ensure consistent messaging within the Orange community. To this end, EnviroCom developed a five-year Waste Diversion Education Strategy to systematically target the delivery and evaluation of this and other funding available for waste education in the Orange City Council LGA. This report describes initiatives delivered by the FOGO Waste Education Plan 2016-17 (FOGO WEP 2016-17) during the fourth year of the community education program, which aimed to support the following:

Increased resource recovery

Minimised contamination within kerbside FOGO and recycling collections

Decreased waste to landfill The initiatives carried out as per FOGO WEP 2016-17 were as follows:

Pop-up Displays

Community ‘Tea and Talk’ Session

Community Organisation Information Session

Early Learning Staff Professional Development Session

Waste Education Supporting Materials

Primary Schools Waste Education Program

FOGO Bin Inspection Program

The outcomes of these initiatives are outlined in this report. In January 2017 an EnviroCom consultant was permanently relocated to the Orange LGA to allow greater flexibility in program delivery and value for money for Council. This consultant is based in the Education Room at the Ophir Road Resource Recovery Centre, but continues to report to and work under instruction from EnviroCom management.

2.0 Pop-up Displays

Two sets of PUDs were delivered during the 2016-17 contract year, with the first set scheduled in a school holiday period in order to access resident audiences similar to weekends, and thus resulting in better value for Council. The second was delivered across two weekend days, in order to take advantage of a popular local event. An EnviroCom consultant was available for four face-to-face hours during each PUD event, using a range of posters, banners, factsheets and a resident survey to engage the Orange community in conversations around waste. PUDs were advertised on local radio stations 2GZ FM and Star FM for one week prior to delivery. Where stations needed to added ‘fillers’ they ran additional ads free of charge. The delivery details for each event are summarised below:

Table 1 – PUD delivery summary PUD no.

Locations Delivery dates Completed

surveys No. radio ads aired

1 Orange City Centre 7th July 2016

127 68 8th July 2016

2 Bunnings Orange 15th October 2016

180 60 East Orange Village Markets 16th October 2016

In total, 309 responses to the survey were collected. Some of the notable survey results were:

63% of survey respondents were greater than 46 years of age

83% of those surveyed stated that they placed both were ‘Fruits’ and ‘Vegetables’ in their FOGO bins, making these the most selected categories, followed closely by ‘Grass clippings’, ‘Garden weeds’ and ‘Leaves’ (78%-80)

Items that were indicated the least were ‘Dairy products’ and ‘Fish’ (both at 33%), ‘Red meat’ (37%) and ‘Chicken’ (39%)

The most popular strategies for keeping FOGO bins and kitchen caddies tidy were ‘Putting the bin out weekly’ (75%), ‘Rinsing out the caddy after emptying’ (65%) and ‘Keeping the bin in a shady spot’ (53%)

4% of residents indicated they didn’t do any of the listed strategies

‘Paper/cardboard’ (96%), ‘Glass’ (91%) and ‘Steel cans’ (81%) were the recyclable items most frequently indicated as currently being placed in recycling bins by residents were

‘Plastic bottles/jars’, ‘Takeaway containers’ (62%) and ‘Aluminium foil/trays’ (63%) were indicated in the least number of responses

When being questioned on what items residents currently take to the Resource Recovery Centre for disposal/special recycling, or would consider taking in the future, there were no stand out items that were significantly higher than the rest, with only four items indicated in more than 30% of cases. These were ‘Car batteries’ (34%), ‘Electronic waste’ (33%) and ‘Mattresses’ (32%) and Scrap metal’ (31%).

The style of questions 3-6 were such that residents were being provided with the answers on how to use their recycling and FOGO bins correctly, with the intention to provide further inspiration with respect to ways to mitigate any perceived issues with FOGO bin use and self-haul resource recovery options. Seventy-nine of the 309 residents (26%) indicated they would be interested in attending a community engagement meeting in order to provide feedback to Council regarding how they can better assist residents with waste minimisation (emails can be provided upon request). For full survey results, see Appendix 1.

3.0 Community ‘Tea and Talks’

The community Tea and Talk was delivered between 10am-2pm on Monday 24th April 2017, at the Orange City Library.

This initiative aimed to facilitate a relaxed environment to encourage residents to engage with the display and attending consultant, allowing the opportunity to discuss or clarify any matters relating to waste services in Orange in greater depth than may normally be allowed by a PUD-style delivery.

The display was set up adjacent to the entry inside the library, meaning everyone who entered could be engaged by the consultant and could view the materials. A number of resources were utilised, including the Orange City Council Garbage, Recycling and FOGO banners, posters of the composting process, a newspaper-lined food waste caddy with examples of acceptable waste, and copies of the Orange Waste Services Guide and Waste Calendar were made available.

A range of free refreshments (tea, coffee, snacks) were provided and passers-by were encouraged to help themselves and to either engage with the display or with the consultant. A number of people were enticed by the free refreshments and were willing to speak with the consultant, often to discuss a waste-related matter in depth. Occasionally, a number of people congregated at the display which allowed the consultant to facilitate a group discussion about a range of matters.

Individuals were also prompted to complete a resident survey in order to receive a free food waste kitchen caddy – this was the same survey as had been used for PUD delivery. In total, twenty-four responses to the survey were collected. Some of the notable survey results were:

The average age of residents that engaged this display was higher than usual

PUD attendances, with 75% of respondents indicated they were at least 46

years of age

‘Fruits’ and ‘Vegetables’ were once again the most common items included in

FOGO bins (63% of responses)

‘Dairy products’ (33%), ‘Red Meat’ and ‘Chicken’ (both 38%) continued to be

the least-selected items reported to be disposed of in FOGO bins

All respondents indicated they were applying at least one of the food and

garden waste maintenance/hygiene tips listed. ‘Rinsing the kitchen caddy’ was

the most commonly practiced (62%), followed by ‘putting the bin out for

collection every week’ (58%), and ‘placing the bin a shady spot’ and ‘lining the

caddy with paper towel/newspaper’ (both 50%)

Margarine tubs (67%), shampoo/conditioner bottles (67%), aerosol cans (50%)

and other plastic bottles/jars (63%) were the only categories that less than 70%

of residents indicated they were disposing of in the kerbside recycling service.

Electronic waste was the most likely item to be disposed of at the RRC (42%)

A number of residents indicated verbally that they have a compost, worm farm, or other method of diverting organics that meant they were only using the food and garden waste service to dispose of a number of waste types, or not at all. Further, a number of people stated that issues with pests (notably flies and maggots) and odour deterred them from disposing of certain items – namely meat, chicken, fish or other animal products – in the FOGO bin.

For promotional flyer and full survey results, see Appendix 2.

4.0 Community Organisation Information Sessions

Community groups have been identified as another important education conduit to the wider community, and in 2017 a range of established groups were invited to participate in Council’s newly created ‘As easy as green, yellow, red’ community group workshops. The workshops aimed to improve resident confidence in Council’s waste diversion services - kerbside Recycling, kerbside FOGO Services and drop off facilities for ‘self-haul’ waste, with a view to encouraging the maximum use of these services. It was envisaged that the workshops would involve the attendance of an EnviroCom consultant at a pre-established/regular meeting/gathering of interested community groups, using the combination of a highly visual PowerPoint presentation and hands-on activities to explore the workshop content within the comfort of their own group setting. An invitation letter was developed in consultation with Council. EnviroCom made contact with Council’s Migrant Support Officer and Community Services Manager in order to obtain a list of community group contacts that would be appropriate to contact. No contacts were provided for Migrant or Indigenous groups; however, EnviroCom compiled a database of five local Council-approved community groups and provided the invitation letter to these groups by email, which included:

Country Women’s Association

Orange Lions Club

Orange Rotary Club

Orange Senior Citizens' Association Inc.

Time Out For Mum's

Unfortunately a community group workshop was not able to be delivered within the 2016-17 contract year; however, it is hoped that this may take place in the forthcoming contract year. For invitation letter, see Appendix 3.

5.0 Early Learning Staff Professional Development Sessions

In 2012 the National Quality Framework (NQF) was introduced to ELCs to improve standards relating to education and care in the early learning sector. While face-to-face waste education workshops are popular among centres, this is a costly exercise, as it requires multiple revisits to ensure information retention.

EnviroCom identified the need to provide a more cost effective option for councils, which led to the development of EnviroCom’s ‘Tom, Sam and Kate’s Adventures: An Early Years Resource for Waste and Litter Reduction’ resource kit, and associated professional development (PD) sessions. The PD sessions were designed to empower early learning educators to improve waste management practices within their centres and promote year-round waste education, utilising the books, posters, activities and resource CD provided in the kit, assisting them in meeting some of the operational and educational requirements under the NQF (e.g. Standard 3.3, Outcome 2: children are connected to and contribute to their world).

The PD session delivered under FOGO WEP 2016-17 specifically aimed to improve the overall understanding of the use and benefits of the recycling service, various organics diversion methods and to support ongoing waste education in ELCs.

5.1. Session Promotion

EnviroCom compiled a database of ELCs within the Orange LGA containing centre names, postal and email addresses and phone numbers. An Expression of Interest (EOI) form was developed in consultation with Council and circulated among all private and Council-operated ELCs in the LGA via email. The form was an editable PDF to aid easy electronic completion and return.

5.2. Session Delivery

An hour-long session was delivered on Tuesday 22nd May 2017 at the Ophir Rd Resource Recovery Centre (ORRRC) Education Room from 6.15-7.15pm. Confirmations were taken from seven centres, totaling sixteen staff; however, actual session attendees totaled eight staff, representing five ELCs, summarised in Table 2 below: Table 2 – ELC PD session attendance summary

Centre No. attending staff

Yarrawong Children's Centre 1

Courallie Park Childcare 3

Trinity Preschool 1

Goodstart Kite St 1

Happy Feet Childcare 2

The session PowerPoint provided context for why recycling and further resource recovery was important for our community, reviewing how to correctly use Council’s Recycling and FOGO Collection Services. Details on what happens to each of these streams once collected were also provided. As not all ELCs would be willing to voluntarily take up the FOGO Collection Service, worm farming and composting were also explored as options for reducing organic waste in the general waste stream.

The range of accepted items for drop-off at the ORRRC was briefly covered in order to inspire centres to look for further resource recovery opportunities, such as fluorescent tubes and printer cartridges. Finally, the sessions also involved detailed explanations of the content and use of the resources and activities provided in the EnviroCom resource kit, and how the use of the kit can assist centres with meeting their sustainability requirements. One kit was provided to a representative from each centre, with five kits being awarded in total. Ten kits were costed for under this initiative and so the remaining five kits were provided to Council. Tea, coffee and light refreshments were available at the beginning of the session and throughout for the comfort and enjoyment of attendees.

5.3. Session Evaluation At the conclusion of the session, attendees were encouraged to complete an evaluation, which asked staff to rate various elements of the session using various scales (dependant on the style of the question). Overall, feedback on the session was extremely positive; key results included:

88% of centres were already making efforts to be waste wise

63% of centres already had an organics system in place

100% of respondents indicated the presenter communicated in a clear and concise manner

100% of respondents indicated they felt EnviroCom’s ELC kit would be a valuable resource for their centre and felt confident using the contents (including the Waste Calculator) based on the training provided

The editable EOI form, evaluation results and comments can be found in Appendix 4.

6.0 Waste Education Supporting Materials

Primary schools and ELCs were utilised to distribute waste educational resources that encouraged householders to directly engage with waste minimisation at home.

6.1. Home Bin Audit Tool A ‘do it yourself’ Home Bin Audit Tool was developed in consultation with Council to encourage residents to look more closely at the volume and types of waste they generate by monitoring their household bin contents and identifying opportunities for increased resource recovery in the future. One thousand copies were printed using Council’s internal printery and provided to students at the end of Primary School Waste Education Program sessions as a take home activity. The activity encouraged students to complete the document over the course of one week, in conjunction with other family members. For Home Bin Tool, see Appendix 5.

6.2. Education Flyer

A double sided, A5 sized, full colour education flyer was developed in conjunction with Council for distribution throughout Council-run ELC facilities, as well as private businesses (on a voluntary basis). One thousand copies were printed and will also be used during any other community engagement events, such as PUDs. The front of the flyer summarised the ‘do’s and don’ts’ of each collection service (recycling, garbage, FOGO) in terms of acceptability of a range of household items. The back of the flyer promoted the diversion of problem wastes (such as batteries, gas bottles, fluorescent tubes, etc.) through the Resource Recovery Centre at Ophir Rd, and also the wide range of items that can be dropped off or purchased at the Recovery Shop. For Education Flyer, see Appendix 6.

7.0 Primary School Waste Education Program

The Primary School Waste Education Program introduces students to a range of waste management issues and solutions, aiming to equip them with the awareness, knowledge and skills to think critically about their behaviours, empowering them to undertake waste minimisation and resource recovery actions in their daily lives. Primary schools are often cited as an important conduit to educating the broader community, with students often sharing information with their families and other peers, and therefore it is anticipated that the waste education provided extended well beyond the classroom.

7.1. Program Promotion Schools were informed of the program via an EOI form detailing presentation content and session structure. The generic EnviroCom EOI was updated to include Council’s logos and colour scheme and emailed to established teacher contacts and primary school administration emails on three occasions throughout the contract year, at the commencement of each new school term. EnviroCom developed a new lesson plan for Council’s ‘As Easy As Green, Yellow, Red’ waste education program, which was offered to K-6 students.

7.2. Program Delivery Incursions were delivered by an EnviroCom consultant, providing up-to-date, relevant information focusing on the correct use of Council’s FOGO and Recycling Collection Services, as well as resource recovery options available for the disposal of hazardous and other waste streams in the Orange LGA. The sessions were delivered using a combination of lecture style speaking and questioning techniques, interactive activities, games, resources and props. At the completion of each incursion, EnviroCom:

Provided teachers with a ‘Saving Resources & Wasting Less’ CD to support future learning in waste minimisation.

Encouraged teachers to complete an evaluation form.

Provided all students with a ‘take home survey’ – to be collected and returned by teachers. The survey also included a link to an online survey option for parents.

Provided teachers with a stamped and addressed envelope to facilitate easy return of take home surveys.

Provided all students with a Home Bin Audit Tool worksheet, as a take home activity designed to engage other members of the household.

Over the course of the Program, 600 students across five schools in the Orange LGA participated in twenty-two incursions. A summary of delivered incursions is presented in Table 3.

Table 3 – School Participation Summary

Date School Program title Grade No.

students

No. incursions

14/10/16 Orange Christian School

Easy as ‘Green,

Yellow, Red’

3-4 30 2

17/10/16 St. Mary's Catholic School 3-4 120 4

21/03/17 Orange Public School 3 & 4 140 5



23/05/17

Glenroi Heights Public School 1 26 1

24/05/17

Glenroi Heights Public School 2 26 1

29/06/17 Spring Hill Public School K-6 22 1

TOTAL 600 22

7.3. Program Evaluation

At the conclusion of each presentation, teachers were encouraged to complete an evaluation form. The form required them to rate various components of the session on a scale of 1 – 5 stars, with 5 stars being excellent. The results of the completed evaluations are displayed in Table 41 with the majority of responses indicating a very high level satisfaction with the presentations.

For EOI and evaluation comments see Appendix 7. Table 4 – School Evaluations Summary

Presentation Rating

Content - - - 1 19

Stage appropriate - - 1 2 17

Use of display materials - - 1 2 17

Interaction with students - - - 3 17

Presentations style and delivery - - 1 2 17

Overall assessment of presentation - - - 3 17

TOTALS 0 0 3

7.4. Take Home Surveys

The development of a ‘take home’ survey for distribution to students at the end of waste education sessions aimed to assess whether students actually were engaging their family members in discussions around the information obtained during the waste education session they attended. If this had not taken place, it was anticipated that the survey would prompt these discussions.

In total only thirteen take home surveys were returned to EnviroCom via the self-addressed and stamped envelope provided during incursions, or scanned and emailed, and one of these was completed online via the Survey Monkey link. The majority of parents/carers were aware that their child had recently participated in a recycling activity, and all indicated that; their child shared information on recycling with them; had changed their behaviour since participating; and found the leaflet helpful (Table 5.)

1 Some teachers did not complete an evaluation survey, therefore evaluation summary results do not equal the total

number of presentations delivered.

Table 5 – Take Home Survey Results Summary

Questions Yes No

Q1. Before receiving this brochure, were you aware that your child recently participated in a recycling activity? 62% 38%

Q2. Has your child shared any information about recycling with you? 100% 0%

Q3. Has your child changed his/her behaviour at home since participating in the Primary School Waste Education Program? 100% 0%

Q4. Is this leaflet helpful for you and your child at home? 100% 0%

Comments

Isaac is much more aware of what can be recycled and which bin the items are to be placed in.

A great initiative and informative

More aware of what goes in the 'yellow bin'

Kyden has told me lots of information even telling me off for leaving a lid on a milk bottle to be recycled. Love that they're learning about this at school.

My child knows about recycling now and helps me sort them out. Thank you

Sarah loves to sort out what goes into recycling bin

Been teaching about recycling things all the time and how important it is (sic)

Yes we do recycle all our rubbish

The take home survey used for the program is displayed in Appendix 8.

8.0 FOGO Bin Inspection Program

Full details of this program as well as Program Appendices can be obtained from the FOGO BIP Report 2017. The Executive Summary is included below:

“This report details the results of Orange City Council’s 2017 Food and Garden Organics Bin Inspection Program (FOGO BIP). The FOGO BIP aimed to assess current FOGO bin use and educate residents in Single-Unit Dwellings (SUDs) within the Orange LGA. FOGO bins from SUDs in five inspection areas in the Orange Local Government Area (LGA) were inspected once over a one-week period from the 22nd-26th May 2017. Contamination levels of FOGO bins were recorded for each individual SUDs address in accordance with a contamination rating scale. During the inspections, bins with no visible contamination received a ‘Thank You’ bin sticker. Bins that presented contaminants received a ‘Contamination’ bin sticker with the offending materials identified on the tag. The tags provided direct feedback to residents about the contents of their FOGO bins, as well as ‘recapped’ what can and cannot be accepted in FOGO bins, aiming to assist residents with improved household recycling ‘at the source’. All inspected households also received an introductory letter explaining the purpose and logistics of the program. The results have been provided in two parts – as ‘Combined Areas’, to provide an insight into the City as a whole, and as ‘Individual Inspection Areas’, to allow a comparison of each inspected area. The results of the 2017 FOGO BIP demonstrated very low levels of contamination across all targeted areas, with only 2% of all inspected bins containing more than three contaminants overall, and contamination levels relatively consistent across all inspection areas. This would indicate that for the most part residents in these areas have a sound understanding of what cannot be placed in FOGO bins and are using it only to dispose of accepted materials. When considering areas separately, ‘Area Four’ contained the most contaminated bins and the most diverse range of contaminant types, while ‘Area Five’ demonstrated the fewest recorded contaminated bins and the smallest range of contaminant types. Plastics were the most frequently occurring contaminant in the combined results, with 60% of all recorded contaminants falling into the ‘Plastic bags/film’, ‘Food/garden waste in plastic bags’ or ‘Other plastics’ categories. Further education may also be required around cardboard cartons and untreated timber as FOGO bin contaminants. Council may wish to consider the dissemination of a ‘good news story’ media release or Facebook post following this program to inform residents of the positive results, key contaminants, full range of food groups that are accepted, and encouragement for increased diversion of food waste. The development of Waste Education Plan 2017-18 should explore other engagement methods that aim to encourage resident disposal of food waste in FOGO bins.”


Prepared by EnviroCom Australia ® 13 Project # S08-175-16-142

9.0 Discussion

A wide range of programs and initiatives were designed and delivered during the 2016-17 contract year, with links existing between several programs, aiming to compound positive outcomes. PUDs continue to be a successful way of creating opportunities for residents to interact with informed education personnel to gain clarification on waste-related issues, receive mitigation strategies to perceived barriers to using any of Council’s waste services, and gain inspiration to utilise wider resource recovery options including self-haul and other waste diversion services available at the Ophir Road Resource Recovery Centre. Survey results indicate that meat and dairy products continue to be items that residents are not comfortable including in their FOGO bins, with many indicating this is due to concerns relating to pests and odour. This year’s inclusion of a Community ‘Tea and Talk’ provided a new structure to the traditional PUD format, and succeeded in engaging residents for longer through the provision of refreshments and comfortable seating. A limitation of the initiative was that the library itself was relatively quiet on the day of delivery – possibly due to proximity to a public holiday (Anzac Day). According to the library staff, a number of programs targeted at children and families were not running as normal, which they expect would have impacted the patronage. Future sessions should aim to avoid proximity to public holidays and tie in with school holiday programs, where possible. Attendees participated enthusiastically throughout the ELC PD session, taking notes and asking questions relating to the recyclability of some items and worm farm issues and tips. A ‘drop out’ rate is often observed in after-hours workshops and only half of the confirmed attendees were present. However, at least one representative was present from five of the possible sixteen centres that were invited, meaning that almost one-third of all invited centres received the training and associated resources provided. Council may wish to consider offering a follow-up session in future education years to capture the remaining eleven centres. The Waste Education Supporting Materials will continue to be utilised as required by Council in future years. A copy of the Bin Audit Tool will continue to be disseminated during schools education sessions (including any funded through the NetWaste Joint Recycling Contract). The 1000 printed copies of the ELC Education Flyer will continue to be distributed during community engagement events. The purpose of both of these materials was to increase active engagement of families, in order to continue to raise awareness of ‘what’s in the bin’ and inspire resource recovery opportunities that go beyond the kerbside collection services.



The Primary School Waste Education Program received poor uptake, despite additional rounds of follow-up phone calls to solicit bookings. A likely possibility for this is the limitation of program topics (only one presentation type on offer), which has been found to be a success factor in the uptake of other schools education programs throughout the region. It is expected that schools will be offered the full suite of incursion topics once again under the NetWaste Joint Recycling Contract Waste Education Plan 2017-18, once it commences and this engagement will present further opportunities to educate with regards to the FOGO service. The return rate of take home surveys was also considered poor; however, the results indicated the recipients found the flyer component highly useful in assisting them with ‘recycling right’ at home, and that students were taking the information beyond the classroom, exhibiting heightened interest in waste management at home. Results from the FOGO BIP supported information from JRR monthly reports i.e. the FOGO stream experiences very low rates of contamination. The tags aimed to encourage residents to increase the range of items they currently include in their FOGO bins by providing graphics of the full suite of food and garden organics groups that are accepted. Future programs will need to consider new ways to encourage residents to increase their inclusion of food into FOGO bins in order to reduce the amount of organics still present in the general waste stream.



10.0 Budget Summary

Table 6 – Project costs, expenditure and balance against projected costs of initiatives described in FOGO WEP 2016-17

Programs/Initiatives Total budgeted costs

Spent to-date

Balance (against budgeted costs)

Project Coordination $10,484.56 $10,484.56 $0.00

Project Coordination $10,484.56 $10,484.56 $0.00

Pop-up Displays $11,492.40 $11,492.40 $0.00

PUDs Resource Update $458.27 $458.27 $0.00

PUDs - weekdays (per unit) $3,430.82 $3,430.82 $0.00

PUDs - weekend (per unit) $3,789.11 $3,789.11 $0.00

Radio advertising costs $3,814.19 $3,814.19 $0.00

Community 'Tea & Talks' $819.29 $819.29 $0.00

Delivery (per unit; weekday delivery) $819.29 $819.29 $0.00

Delivery (per unit; weekend delivery) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Community Information Sessions $733.89 $0.00 $733.89

Delivery (per unit; weekday delivery) $733.89 $0.00 $733.89

Delivery (per unit; weekend delivery) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Early Learning Professional Development Session $3,856.81 $3,856.81 $0.00

ELC PD Session Development $1,919.35 $1,919.35 $0.00

ELC PD Session Delivery $1,937.46 $1,937.46 $0.00

Waste Education Supporting Materials $3,499.58 $3,499.58 $0.00

Home Bin Audit Tool $1,146.19 $1,146.19 $0.00

Education Flyer $2,353.39 $2,353.39 $0.00

Primary Schools Program $16,003.10 $11,773.52 $4,229.58

Schools Development & Promo $2,255.99 $2,255.99 $0.00

Schools Initial $4,105.91 $4,105.91 $0.00

Schools Subsequent $7,519.25 $3,289.67 $4,229.58

Schools Take Home Survey Development $1,052.68 $1,052.68 $0.00

Schools Take Home Survey Reporting $1,069.26 $1,069.26 $0.00

Bin Inspection Program $7,201.30 $7,201.30 $0.00

BIP Resource Development $1,689.92 $1,689.92 $0.00

BIP Planning and Development $1,401.06 $1,401.06 $0.00

BIP Delivery $2,179.01 $2,179.01 $0.00

BIP Reporting $1,931.31 $1,931.31 $0.00

Travel and Accommodation (as required and total for known outreach only) $3,623.92 $3,943.46 -$319.53

Travel (per unit; weekdays) $1,601.26 $1,601.26 $0.00

Travel (per unit; weekends) $744.54 $744.54 $0.00

Accommodation & AFHA (per day) $1,278.13 $1,597.66 -$319.53

TOTAL $57,714.84 $53,070.91 $4,643.94



Table 7 – FOGO WEP 2016-17 budget summary and final figure

2016-17 Budget $50,000.00

Carry Over (unspent from 2015-16) $4,472.23

Available Budget 2016-17 $54,472.23

Spent to Date 2016-17 $53,070.91

Total Remaining $1,401.32



11.0 Appendices

Appendix 1 – PUD survey results summary n = 309

Q1. Age of respondents Number Percentage

0 - 25 17 6%

26 - 35 43 14%

36 - 45 55 18%

46 - 55 67 22%

56 - 65 70 23%

66 > 57 18%

Q2. Please indicate your household type 1 (Strongly Disagree) Percentage

Couple with family 135 44%

Couple without children 94 30%

One parent family 26 8%

Single 32 10%

Living with others 22 7%

Q3. All of the following items can be placed in the Food and Garden Waste Bin. Which ones do you put in there?

Number Percentage

Fruits 255 83%

Vegetables 258 83%

Dairy products 101 33%

Breads/cereals 182 59%

Rice/pasta 152 49%

Tea/coffee 166 54%

Red meat 115 37%

Chicken 122 39%

Fish 103 33%

Bones 126 41%

Grass clippings 246 80%

Garden weeds 245 79%

Leaves 240 78%

Pruned branches/flowers 220 71%



Q4. The following are some great maintenance suggestions for keeping your food and garden waste bin or kitchen caddy/scrap bucket tidy, please tick any/all methods that you use:

Number Percentage

I put out my food and garden waste bin every week so that food scraps don't hang around too long 231 75%

I keep my food and garden waste bin in a shady spot 164 53%

I line my caddy/scrap bucket with paper towel to absorb any liquids and keep it cleaner 118 38%

I rinse out the caddy/scrap bucket each time after emptying 200 65%

I wrap the food scraps in newspaper before placing them in the food and garden waste bin 99 32%

I keep a small pile of lawn clippings after cutting the grass and sprinkle a layer on top each time I place food scraps in the food and garden waste bin 69 22%

I use a 'bin protector' that can be bought from hardware shops to discourage flies (only for the hottest summer months) 91 29%

I place a few sheets of newspaper on the bottom of the bin to avoid food sticking, and/or a layer of damp newspaper on top of the food scraps every so often to reduce smell 23 7%

I freeze foods like meat scraps or seafood and then place them in the food and garden waste bin the day before it is collected 91 29%

I don’t do any of the above 12 4%

Other 0 0%

Q5. All of the following items can be placed in the recycling bin. Which ones do you put in there?

Number Percentage

Paper/cardboard 298 96%

Glass 282 91%

Steel cans 249 81%

Ice cream containers 237 77%

Aluminium cans 250 81%

Aluminium foil/trays 195 63%

Take-away containers 193 62%

Margarine tubs 200 65%

Shampoo/conditioner bottles 272 88%

Empty aerosol cans (deodorant, hair spray etc.) 216 70%

Plastic bottles/jars 155 50%

Magazines 211 68%

Q6. The following tricky/difficult to dispose of items can be dropped off at the Resource Recovery Centre at Ophir Rd. Please tick any items you have dropped off before, or may drop off in the future

Number Percentage

Gas bottles 87 28%

Fluorescent tubes 64 21%

Smoke detectors 48 16%

Car batteries 106 34%

Scrap metal 95 31%

Electronic waste 102 33%

Mattresses 99 32%

Sump oils 69 22%

Building material 87 28%

Household batteries 74 24%

Timber 63 20%

Tyres 73 24%



Appendix 2 – Community ‘Tea and Talk’ flyer and results summary

Promotional flyer



Results summary

n = 24

Q1. Age of respondents Number Percentage

0 - 25 0 0%

26 - 35 1 4%

36 - 45 5 21%

46 - 55 1 4%

56 - 65 6 25%

66 > 11 46%

Q2. Please indicate your household type 1 (Strongly Disagree) Percentage

Couple with family 7 29%

Couple without children 11 46%

One parent family 1 4%

Single 5 21%

Living with others 0 0%

Q3. All of the following items can be placed in the Food and Garden Waste Bin. Which ones do you put in there?

Number Percentage

Fruits 15 63%

Vegetables 15 63%

Dairy products 8 33%

Breads/cereals 12 50%

Rice/pasta 11 46%

Tea/coffee 12 50%

Red meat 9 38%

Chicken 9 38%

Fish 10 42%

Bones 11 46%

Grass clippings 12 50%

Garden weeds 14 58%

Leaves 14 58%

Pruned branches/flowers 12 50%



Q4. The following are some great maintenance suggestions for keeping your food and garden waste bin or kitchen caddy/scrap bucket tidy, please tick any/all methods that you use:

Number Percentage

I put out my food and garden waste bin every week so that food scraps don't hang around too long 14 58%

I keep my food and garden waste bin in a shady spot 12 50%

I line my caddy/scrap bucket with paper towel to absorb any liquids and keep it cleaner 12 50%

I rinse out the caddy/scrap bucket each time after emptying 16 67%

I wrap the food scraps in newspaper before placing them in the food and garden waste bin 10 42%

I keep a small pile of lawn clippings after cutting the grass and sprinkle a layer on top each time I place food scraps in the food and garden waste bin 6 25%

I use a 'bin protector' that can be bought from hardware shops to discourage flies (only for the hottest summer months) 7 29%

I place a few sheets of newspaper on the bottom of the bin to avoid food sticking, and/or a layer of damp newspaper on top of the food scraps every so often to reduce smell 0 0%

I freeze foods like meat scraps or seafood and then place them in the food and garden waste bin the day before it is collected 10 42%

I don’t do any of the above 1 4%

Other 0 0%

Q5. All of the following items can be placed in the recycling bin. Which ones do you put in there?

Number Percentage

Paper/cardboard 23 96%

Glass 21 88%

Steel cans 19 79%

Ice cream containers 21 88%

Aluminium cans 19 79%

Aluminium foil/trays 17 71%

Take-away containers 18 75%

Margarine tubs 16 67%

Shampoo/conditioner bottles 22 92%

Empty aerosol cans (deodorant, hair spray etc.) 16 67%

Plastic bottles/jars 12 50%

Magazines 15 63%

Q6. The following tricky/difficult to dispose of items can be dropped off at the Resource Recovery Centre at Ophir Rd. Please tick any items you have dropped off before, or may drop off in the future

Number Percentage

Gas bottles 6 25%

Fluorescent tubes 5 21%

Smoke detectors 6 25%

Car batteries 8 33%

Scrap metal 7 29%

Electronic waste 10 42%

Mattresses 4 17%

Sump oils 5 21%

Building material 7 29%

Household batteries 5 21%

Timber 5 21%

Tyres 5 21%



Appendix 3 – Community Organisation information Session – invitation



Appendix 4 – ELC PD session EOI and results EOI flyer



ELC PD Evaluation Results

Q1 Yes Somewhat No

Before attending the session, were you consciously making efforts to be waste wise in your centre? 88% 13% 0%

Q2 Paper Mixed recycling

Organics No Other

Do you currently have a method for recycling at your Centre? 38% 88% 63% 0%

13% (Bokashi)

Q3-Q6 Yes Somewhat No

Did the presenter/s communicate the information in a clear and concise manner? 100% 0% 0%

Do you feel the Early Learning Resource Kit will be a valuable resource for your Centre? 100% 0% 0%

Do you feel confident in using the waste calculator to help your Centre improve its waste management practices? 100% 0% 0%

Do you feel confident in using the Kit as an educational resource? 100% 0% 0%

Q7 Excellent Adequate Poor

How suitable was the location and venue for the workshop? 88% 13% 0%

Q8 Too long

Appropriate Too short

Was the duration of the session appropriate? 0% 100% 0%

Q9 Yes No

Did the session meet your expectations/needs? 100% 0%

ELC PD Evaluation Comments

Liked most elements / positive comments from earlier questions

Easy to understand; great information

Liked the colourful posters and books with child friendly instructions and stories. Waste calculator looks easy to us and valuable for working out how to best move forward. Liked the information and resources. Learned more about better ways to recycle (i.e. paper recycling)

Chris knew and was able to answer questions. Relaxed and approachable. Kit is very informative and useable. We will play with the calculator at work - I'm sure it will be effective. Great idea with the teacher questions at back of books

Getting you to think about waste and how to dispose of the different types.

Practicality of the session

The depth of information on reduce, reuse, recycle. Covered everything well.

More info required / constructive comments from earlier questions

Maybe more composting/worm farming info

Getting coloured bins for the children to use (would like provided)

Where to buy child friendly sorting bins



Appendix 5 – Waste Ed. Support Materials – Home Bin Tool (front page)



(back page)



Appendix 6 – Waste Ed. Support Materials – ELC Flyer (front page)



(back page)



Appendix 7 – Primary School Program EOI & Evaluation Comments EOI flyer



Primary School Evaluation comments

Date School Comments

14/10/2016 Orange Christian School The students were engaged the whole time. The relay and bingo were great activities. Content was clear and interesting.

14/10/2016 Orange Christian School Great content, students fully engaged

17/10/2016 St Marys Catholic Primary Relates very well to our geography and religion units of work

18/10/2016 St Marys Catholic Primary

Good interaction with all the children. All were engaged and responded well to content. They loved the bingo game. A great resource.

19/10/2016 St Marys Catholic Primary

Great! Children were engaged. Games were great, adapted to our awful weather! Loved the simple explanation of how to decide which plastics can be recycled.

21/03/2017 Orange Public School Relevant and timely for students - are working on sustainability. Suggestions: Field trip?

21/03/2017 Orange Public School Positive start - thanking students for coming in quietly. Nicely animated - engaged the kids well

21/03/2017 Orange Public School Great voice, good visuals.

21/03/2017 Orange Public School Great presentation

22/03/2017 Orange Public School

Presentation tied in well with current unit of study. Well presented. Suggestions: More hands on activities perhaps, students were restless towards the end.

22/03/2017 Orange Public School Really great, thank you!

22/03/2017 Orange Public School Fantastic. The kids enjoyed this lesson - particularly the activity at the end.

22/03/2017 Orange Public School Great content about waste and recycling in Orange

23/03/2017 Orange Public School Presenter was excellent. Children were engaged and responded well. A great and educational lesson, thank you.

23/03/2017 Orange Public School Great information presented, students were engaged in the presentation.

23/05/2017 Glenroi Heights PS

Teachers learnt some new things too! Fabulous presentation, kids were involved all of the time. Very organised. Great activities - kids loved them.

24/05/2017 Glenroi Heights PS Very informative, kids engaged, a good variety of activities. Kids learnt a lot about recycling - great!

29/06/2017 Spring Hill

Amazing and appropriate presentation made better by Chris’s great classroom management skills. We'd love to have this again next year!



Appendix 8 – Primary School Program Take Home Survey Results

(front/back pages)



(inside pages)

Appendix D WEED INSPECTION REPORT

Appendix E GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, LEACHATE AND DUST ANALYTICAL

DATA TABLES

Table E1: ORRRC Environmental Monitoring - Groundwater Gauging Results

BH1 BH1A BH2 BH2A BH3 BH4 BH5 BH6 BH7 BH7A

Date Measured

GWL

(mAHD) Measured

GWL

(mAHD) Measured

GWL

(mAHD) Measured

GWL

(mAHD) Measured

GWL

(mAHD) Measured

GWL

(mAHD) Measured

GWL

(mAHD) Measured

GWL

(mAHD) Measured

GWL

(mAHD) Measured

GWL

(mAHD)

2-Mar-10 2.97 838.69 2.85 838.83 4.60 838.91 NMWL 21.82 847.87 3.60 843.5722-Jun-10 2.79 838.87 2.69 838.99 4.54 838.97 NMWL 21.92 847.77 2.94 844.231-Sep-10 1.41 840.25 1.23 840.45 4.38 839.13 4.38 839.15 21.14 848.55 1.25 845.928-Dec-10 1.03 840.63 0.94 840.74 3.92 839.59 3.96 839.57 19.67 850.02 0.97 846.208-Mar-11 2.14 839.52 2.15 839.53 4.40 839.11 NMWL 18.85 850.84 1.92 845.2521-Jun-11 2.29 839.37 2.30 839.38 4.44 839.07 NMWL 21.01 848.68 2.13 845.0428-Sep-11 2.14 839.52 2.17 839.51 4.64 838.87 5.02 838.51 21.16 848.53 2.96 844.217-Dec-11 2.12 839.54 2.05 839.63 4.51 839.00 NMWL 21.14 848.55 1.83 845.3419-Mar-12 1.54 840.12 1.42 840.26 4.33 839.18 5.12 838.41 19.31 850.38 2.76 844.4114-Jun-12 2.23 839.43 2.16 839.52 4.49 839.02 5.17 838.36 20.56 849.13 2.42 844.7512-Sep-12 1.89 839.77 1.90 839.78 4.67 838.84 4.95 838.58 20.53 849.16 1.77 845.405-Mar-13 2.22 839.44 2.33 839.35 4.35 839.16 5.05 838.48 21.26 848.43 2.78 844.393-Sep-13 2.54 839.12 2.46 839.22 4.62 838.89 5.13 838.40 21.33 848.36 2.73 844.4417-Mar-14 2.62 839.04 2.59 839.09 4.30 839.21 5.10 838.43 21.51 848.18 3.47 843.7018-Sep-14 2.44 839.22 2.43 839.25 4.58 838.93 4.94 838.59 21.43 848.26 2.15 845.021-Jan-15 2.84 838.82 2.80 838.88 4.64 838.87 4.95 838.58 21.52 848.17 3.45 843.72 4.78 831.07 3.69 831.21 4.01 836.88 4.06 836.879-Mar-15 2.57 839.09 2.51 839.17 4.46 839.05 4.96 838.57 21.42 848.27 3.10 844.07 4.66 831.19 3.60 831.30 3.88 837.01 3.77 837.162-Sep-15 2.41 839.25 2.38 839.30 4.33 839.18 4.52 839.01 21.34 848.35 1.91 845.26 2.77 833.08 3.15 831.75 3.53 837.36 3.41 837.521-Dec-15 2.76 838.90 2.76 838.92 4.62 838.89 NMWL 21.48 848.21 2.97 844.20 4.46 831.39 3.45 831.45 3.89 837.00 3.84 837.098-Mar-16 2.90 838.76 2.91 838.77 4.52 838.99 5.15 838.38 21.30 848.39 3.64 843.53 4.54 831.31 3.67 831.23 4.03 836.86 4.22 836.71

27-Sep-16 0.86 840.80 0.88 840.80 4.18 839.33 4.55 838.98 12.05 857.64 3.14 844.03 4.05 831.80 3.24 831.66 3.03 837.86 3.28 837.6529-Mar-17 2.38 839.28 2.41 839.27 4.18 839.33 NMWL 20.97 848.72 2.34 844.83 3.13 832.72 2.83 832.07 3.73 837.16 3.57 837.36

Table E2: ORRRC Environmental Monitoring - Groundwater Analytical Results

2016-2017

Sample ID BH1 BH1 BH1A BH1A BH2 BH2 BH3 BH3 BH4 BH4 BH5 BH5 BH6 BH6 BH7 BH7

Sample Date 27/09/2016 29/03/2017 27/09/2016 29/03/2017 27/09/2016 29/03/2017 27/09/2016 29/03/2017 27/09/2016 29/03/2017 27/09/2016 29/03/2017 27/09/2016 30/03/2017 27/09/2016 30/03/2017

Group Analyte LOR Units Criteria PS PS PS PS PS PS FD PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS

pH by PC Titrator pH Value 0.01 pH Unit 6.5-8.5³, 7.0-9.0² 7.01 7.19 7.17 7.25 7.42 7.18 7.61 7.81 7.36 7.32 7.29 7.52 7.4 7.52 7.68 7.78

Conductivity by PC Titrator Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C 1 µS/cm 4477³ 253 278 280 295 1670 251 657 698 3230 3440 1760 1580 435 434 1380 1040

Total Dissolved Solids dried at 180 ± 5 °C Total Dissolved Solids @180°C 10 mg/L - 210 222 255 209 1110 209 554 409 2160 2580 1300 948 533 404 1120 799

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Organic Carbon 1 mg/L - < 1 < 1 9 3 7 < 1 < 1 7 15 12 10 7 < 1 < 1 4 2

Alkalinity by PC Titrator Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L - 134 118 143 134 503 129 358 352 981 874 869 708 183 182 246 218

Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L - < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L - < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L 350³ 134 118 143 134 503 129 358 352 981 874 869 708 183 182 246 218

Ammonia as N by Discrete Analyser Ammonia as N 0.01 mg/L 1¹ < 0.01 < 0.01 0.06 0.05 1.52 0.02 < 0.01 0.02 < 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 < 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.23

Dissolved Metals by ICP-MS Iron 0.05 mg/L 100² < 0.05 < 0.05 0.16 0.38 0.7 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.44 < 0.05 0.08 < 0.05 0.15 < 0.05

Manganese 0.001 mg/L 10² 0.001 0.001 0.158 0.149 0.44 < 0.001 0.001 0.008 0.184 0.145 0.057 0.017 0.021 0.009 0.34 0.558

Zinc 0.005 mg/L 2³ < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.008 0.016 0.009 0.031 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.014

Copper 0.001 mg/L 0.2³ < 0.001 < 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.004 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.03 0.019 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 0.008

Aluminium 0.01 mg/L 5³ < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.03 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.39 < 0.01 0.08 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Boron 0.05 mg/L 2³ < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 7.5 < 0.05 0.2 < 0.05 4.9 4.78 0.6 0.58 < 0.05 0.06 0.29 0.23

Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser Nitrite as N 0.01 mg/L - < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Nitrate as N by Discrete Analyser Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L 10¹ 0.32 0.21 0.01 0.02 0.1 0.21 4.74 4.56 0.01 0.02 0.24 1.17 6.37 6.75 0.05 0.43

Nitrite plus Nitrate as N (NOx) by Discrete Analyser Nitrite + Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L - 0.32 0.21 0.01 0.02 0.1 0.21 4.74 4.56 0.01 0.02 0.24 1.17 6.37 6.75 0.05 0.43

Reactive Phosphorus as P by discrete analyser Reactive Phosphorus as P 0.01 mg/L 3¹ < 0.01 0.02 < 0.01 0.03 < 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.06 < 0.01 < 0.01

Sulfate (Turbidimetric) as SO4 2- by DA Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric 1 mg/L 1000³, 100² 2 1 < 1 2 215 1 14 9 72 88 12 7 30 27 553 331

Chloride by Discrete Analyser Chloride 1 mg/L - 4 6 9 8 173 5 8 9 604 650 162 119 9 10 19 15

Fluoride by PC Titrator Fluoride 0.1 mg/L 2³, 20² 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.1 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.2 0.2

Dissolved Major Cations Calcium 1 mg/L 1000³ 22 20 21 16 133 20 65 62 301 286 133 103 42 39 202 129

Magnesium 1 mg/L - 16 15 18 18 90 15 45 45 269 250 155 122 29 28 72 44

Potassium 1 mg/L - < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 7 < 1 9 7 2 2 2 1 < 1 < 1 2 2

Sodium 1 mg/L - 11 11 15 17 116 11 23 22 30 26 50 45 14 14 64 48

Ionic Balance Ionic Balance 0.01 % - - - 1.11 - 0.36 - 3.2 2.98 0.5 2.17 1.29 1.39 1.04 4.06 5.25 2.21

Total Anions 0.01 meq/L - 2.83 2.55 3.11 2.94 19.4 2.74 7.67 7.47 38.1 37.6 22.2 17.6 4.99 4.48 17 11.7

Total Cations 0.01 meq/L - 2.89 2.71 3.18 3.02 19.3 2.71 8.18 7.93 38.5 36 21.6 17.2 5.09 4.86 18.8 12.2

Total Phenol by Discrete Analyser Phenols (Total) 0.05 mg/L 0.1¹, 10² < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons C6 - C9 Fraction 20 µg/L 100¹ < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 930 < 20 < 20 < 20 120 220 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20

C10 - C14 Fraction 50 µg/L - < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50

C15 - C28 Fraction 100 µg/L - < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100

C29 - C36 Fraction 50 µg/L - < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50

C10 - C36 Fraction (sum) 50 µg/L 100¹ < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 100 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50

Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons - NEPM 2013 Fractions >C10 - C16 Fraction 100 µg/L - < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100

>C16 - C34 Fraction 100 µg/L - < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100

>C34 - C40 Fraction 100 µg/L - < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100

>C10 - C40 Fraction (sum) 100 µg/L 100¹ < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100

>C10 - C16 Fraction minus Naphthalene (F2)100 µg/L - < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100

C6 - C10 Fraction 20 µg/L 100¹ < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 950 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20

C6 - C10 Fraction minus BTEX (F1) 20 µg/L - < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 950 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20

BTEXN Benzene 1 µg/L - < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 1 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Toluene 2 µg/L - < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2

Ethylbenzene 2 µg/L - < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2

µS/cm microsiemens per centimetre

mg/L milligrams per litre

µg/L micrograms per litre

meq/L milliequivalents per litre

LOR limit of reporting

PS primary sample

FD field duplicate

Criteria

within criteria 1 LEMP provisional limit (groundwater, surface water or leachate)

criteria exceeded 2 Trade waste limit (Samra & McLean, 2005)

3 Maximum guideline limit for livestock or irrigation (ANZECC & ARMCANZ, 2000)

Table E3: ORRRC Environmental Monitoring - Surface Water Analytical Results

2016-2017

Sample ID SW3 SW3 SW3 SW3 SW4 SW4 SW4 SW4

Sample Date 11/07/2016 6/09/2016 27/09/2016 29/03/2017 11/07/2016 6/09/2016 27/09/2016 29/03/2017

Group Analyte LOR Units Criteria PS PS PS PS PS FD PS PS

pH by PC Titrator pH Value 0.01 pH Unit 6.5-8.5³, 7.0-9.0² 7.89 7.92 7.77 7.88 8.17 7.89 8.6 9.37

Conductivity by PC Titrator Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C 1 µS/cm 4477³ 1560 1710 301 1020 273 425 334 321

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Organic Carbon 1 mg/L - 54 52 8 29 17 20 22 48

Alkalinity by PC Titrator Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L - 415 495 92 205 96 129 110 54

Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L - < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 10 29

Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L - < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L 350³ 415 495 92 205 96 129 120 83

Ammonia as N by Discrete Analyser Ammonia as N 0.01 mg/L 1¹ 15.3 12.2 0.01 0.16 0.4 0.26 < 0.01 0.08

Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser Nitrite as N 0.01 mg/L - 1.42 0.82 0.03 0.24 0.04 0.08 < 0.01 < 0.01

Nitrate as N by Discrete Analyser Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L 10¹ 12.7 8.46 3.36 < 0.01 0.29 2.04 < 0.01 -

Nitrite plus Nitrate as N (NOx) by Discrete Analyser Nitrite + Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L - 14.1 9.28 3.39 < 0.01 0.33 2.12 < 0.01 -

Sulfate (Turbidimetric) as SO4 2- by DA Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric 1 mg/L 1000³, 100² 223 305 17 120 27 39 23 10

Chloride by Discrete Analyser Chloride 1 mg/L - 100 82 24 72 16 32 26 35

Fluoride by PC Titrator Fluoride 0.1 mg/L 2³, 20² 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 < 0.1 0.1 < 0.1 0.1

Dissolved Major Cations Calcium 1 mg/L 1000³ 121 144 23 70 20 30 25 18

Magnesium 1 mg/L - 40 48 11 30 12 17 15 11

Potassium 1 mg/L - 76 87 4 45 7 13 11 14

Sodium 1 mg/L - 86 110 21 73 12 22 22 25

Ionic Balance Ionic Balance 0.01 % - 2.39 1.1 3.36 8.79 - 1.25 1.51 6.48

Total Anions 0.01 meq/L - 15.8 18.6 2.87 8.62 2.93 4.29 3.61 2.85

Total Cations 0.01 meq/L - 15 18.1 3.07 10.3 2.69 4.18 3.72 3.25

Total Metals by ICP-MS Iron 0.05 mg/L 100² 6.89 1.61 3.06 8.75 0.92 1.61 3.08 1.78

Manganese 0.001 mg/L 10² 0.675 1.99 0.167 1.03 0.185 0.233 0.231 0.224

Boron 0.05 mg/L 2³ 0.54 0.65 < 0.05 0.32 0.23 0.37 0.26 0.3

Total Phenol by Discrete Analyser Phenols (Total) 0.05 mg/L 0.1¹, 10² < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons C6 - C9 Fraction 20 µg/L 100¹ < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20

C10 - C14 Fraction 50 µg/L - < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50

C15 - C28 Fraction 100 µg/L - 170 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100

C29 - C36 Fraction 50 µg/L - < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50

C10 - C36 Fraction (sum) 50 µg/L 100¹ 170 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50

Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons - NEPM 2013 Fractions >C10 - C16 Fraction 100 µg/L - < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100

>C16 - C34 Fraction 100 µg/L - 150 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100

>C34 - C40 Fraction 100 µg/L - < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100

>C10 - C40 Fraction (sum) 100 µg/L 100¹ 150 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100

>C10 - C16 Fraction minus Naphthalene (F2)100 µg/L - < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100

C6 - C10 Fraction 20 µg/L 100¹ < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20

C6 - C10 Fraction minus BTEX (F1) 20 µg/L - < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20

BTEXN Benzene 1 µg/L - < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Toluene 2 µg/L - < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2

Ethylbenzene 2 µg/L - < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2

meta- & para-Xylene 2 µg/L - < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2

ortho-Xylene 2 µg/L - < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2

Total Xylenes 2 µg/L - < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2

Sum of BTEX 1 µg/L - < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Naphthalene 5 µg/L - < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5






PS primary sample

FD field duplicate

Criteria




Table E4: ORRRC Environmental Monitoring - Leachate Analytical Results

2016-2017

Sample ID L2 L2

Sample Date 27/09/2016 29/03/2017

Group Analyte LOR Units Criteria PS PS

pH by PC Titrator pH Value 0.01 pH Unit 6.5-8.5³, 7.0-9.0² 7.83 8.1

Conductivity by PC Titrator Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C 1 µS/cm 4477³ 2080 3010

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Organic Carbon 1 mg/L - 55 84

Alkalinity by PC Titrator Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L - 656 1060

Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L - < 1 < 1

Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L - < 1 < 1

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L 350³ 656 1060

Ammonia as N by Discrete Analyser Ammonia as N 0.01 mg/L 1¹ 10.4 28.8

Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser Nitrite as N 0.01 mg/L - 0.48 2.92

Nitrate as N by Discrete Analyser Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L 10¹ 20.7 1.44

Nitrite plus Nitrate as N (NOx) by Discrete Analyser Nitrite + Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L - 21.2 1.51

Sulfate (Turbidimetric) as SO4 2- by DA Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric 1 mg/L 1000³, 100² 167 101

Chloride by Discrete Analyser Chloride 1 mg/L - 187 368

Fluoride by PC Titrator Fluoride 0.1 mg/L 2³, 20² 0.2 0.3

Dissolved Major Cations Calcium 1 mg/L 1000³ 176 173

Magnesium 1 mg/L - 61 119

Potassium 1 mg/L - 91 138

Sodium 1 mg/L - 181 291

Ionic Balance Ionic Balance 0.01 % - 4.68 1.39

Total Anions 0.01 meq/L - 21.8 33.7

Total Cations 0.01 meq/L - 24 34.6

Total Metals by ICP-MS Iron 0.05 mg/L 100² 0.38 26.5

Manganese 0.001 mg/L 10² 1.15 1.96

Boron 0.05 mg/L 2³ < 0.05 0.92

Total Phenol by Discrete Analyser Phenols (Total) 0.05 mg/L 0.1¹, 10² < 0.05 < 0.05

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons C6 - C9 Fraction 20 µg/L 100¹ < 20 < 20

C10 - C14 Fraction 50 µg/L - < 50 < 50

C15 - C28 Fraction 100 µg/L - < 100 280

C29 - C36 Fraction 50 µg/L - < 50 < 50

C10 - C36 Fraction (sum) 50 µg/L 100¹ < 50 280

Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons - NEPM 2013 Fractions >C10 - C16 Fraction 100 µg/L - < 100 < 100

>C16 - C34 Fraction 100 µg/L - < 100 240

>C34 - C40 Fraction 100 µg/L - < 100 < 100

>C10 - C40 Fraction (sum) 100 µg/L 100¹ < 100 240

>C10 - C16 Fraction minus Naphthalene (F2)100 µg/L - < 100 < 100

C6 - C10 Fraction 20 µg/L 100¹ < 20 < 20

C6 - C10 Fraction minus BTEX (F1) 20 µg/L - < 20 < 20

BTEXN Benzene 1 µg/L - < 1 < 1

Toluene 2 µg/L - < 2 < 2

Ethylbenzene 2 µg/L - < 2 < 2

meta- & para-Xylene 2 µg/L - < 2 < 2

ortho-Xylene 2 µg/L - < 2 < 2

Total Xylenes 2 µg/L - < 2 < 2

Sum of BTEX 1 µg/L - < 1 < 1

Naphthalene 5 µg/L - < 5 < 5






PS primary sample

FD field duplicate

Criteria




TABLE E5 ERRRC ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING - GROUNDWATER LEVELS

HP1 (EPL 6) HP2 (EPL 7) HP3 (EPL 8) HP4 (EPL 9) HP5 (EPL 10) HP6 (EPL 11)

Date Measured

GWL

(mAHD) Measured

GWL

(mAHD) Measured

GWL

(mAHD) Measured

GWL

(mAHD) Measured

GWL

(mAHD) Measured

GWL

(mAHD)

13-Aug-12 28.45 568.92 27.82 572.37 18.28 568.69 18.03 577.51 20.36 576.57 15.28 573.54

5-Feb-13 28.28 569.09 27.58 572.61 18.29 568.68 17.59 577.95 20.98 575.95 15.23 573.59

28-Aug-13 28.02 569.35 27.48 572.71 18.28 568.69 17.44 578.10 21.83 575.10 15.15 573.67

26-Feb-14 27.94 569.43 27.50 572.69 18.48 568.49 17.22 578.32 22.36 574.57 15.26 573.56

27-Aug-14 27.61 569.76 27.43 572.76 18.32 568.65 17.20 578.34 22.50 574.43 15.32 573.50

23-Feb-15 27.70 569.67 27.18 573.01 18.52 568.45 16.98 578.56 22.66 574.27 15.04 573.78

17-Aug-15 27.72 569.65 27.20 572.99 18.72 568.25 17.71 577.83 23.01 573.92 15.25 573.57

27-Feb-16 27.71 569.66 27.39 572.80 18.96 568.01 17.22 578.32 23.21 573.72 15.52 573.30

9-Aug-16 26.80 570.57 27.51 572.68 18.83 568.14 17.30 578.24 23.31 573.62 15.60 573.22

21-Feb-17 26.68 570.69 24.84 575.35 17.96 569.01 15.96 579.58 19.98 576.95 14.76 574.06

3-Aug-17 26.46 570.91 24.59 575.60 18.00 568.97 18.80 576.74 20.41 576.52 14.72 574.10

TABLE E6 ERRRC RESULTS OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS - GROUNDWATER

2016 - 2017

Sample ID HP1 HP1 HP2 HP2 HP3 HP3 HP4 HP4 HP5 HP5 HP6 HP6

Sample Date 9/08/2016 21/02/2017 9/08/2016 21/02/2017 9/08/2016 21/02/2017 9/08/2016 21/02/2017 9/08/2016 21/02/2017 9/08/2016 21/02/2017

Group Analyte LOR Units PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS

pH by PC Titrator pH Value 0.01 pH Unit 7.34 7.06 7.34 7.16 7.76 7.54 7.21 7.08 7.75 7.67 7.73 7.48

Conductivity by PC Titrator Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C 1 µS/cm 3540 3640 2710 2710 1360 1380 2450 2520 930 813 1310 1310

Alkalinity by PC Titrator Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L 453 497 423 463 429 488 486 569 449 410 384 409

Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L 453 497 423 463 429 488 486 569 449 410 384 409

Sulfate (Turbidimetric) as SO4 2- by DA Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric 1 mg/L 82 76 74 66 31 34 56 54 25 26 33 35

Chloride by Discrete Analyser Chloride 1 mg/L 820 776 579 534 167 166 485 462 22 22 170 159

Fluoride by PC Titrator Fluoride 0.1 mg/L 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.1 1.2

Dissolved Major Cations Calcium 1 mg/L 271 251 214 199 96 83 186 168 83 60 119 111

Magnesium 1 mg/L 173 162 126 119 62 62 119 114 58 38 37 35

Potassium 1 mg/L 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 4 3 1 1

Sodium 1 mg/L 182 182 145 138 109 109 162 158 45 62 121 117

Dissolved Metals by ICP-MS Iron 0.05 mg/L 0.07 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 3.3 2.48 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

Manganese 0.001 mg/L 0.007 0.008 0.025 0.085 0.974 0.741 < 0.001 0.002 0.28 0.007 1.45 1.14

Ionic Balance Ionic Balance 0.01 % 2.7 0.67 1.98 0.17 2.56 3.78 3.19 1.66 4.08 2.51 4.08 0.55

Total Anions 0.01 meq/L 33.9 33.4 26.3 25.7 13.9 15.1 24.6 25.5 10.1 9.35 13.2 13.4

Total Cations 0.01 meq/L 35.8 33.8 27.4 25.8 14.7 14 26.2 24.7 11 8.9 14.3 13.5

Ammonia as N by Discrete Analyser Ammonia as N 0.01 mg/L < 0.01 0.03 < 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.07 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.29 0.01 1.29 1.25

Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser Nitrite as N 0.01 mg/L < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.07 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Nitrate as N by Discrete Analyser Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L 3.42 3.31 9.14 7.4 0.09 0.05 1.89 1.8 0.13 0.03 0.07 0.04

Nitrite plus Nitrate as N (NOx) by Discrete Analyser Nitrite + Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L 3.42 3.31 9.14 7.47 0.09 0.05 1.89 1.8 0.13 0.03 0.07 0.04

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen By Discrete Analyser Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N 0.1 mg/L 0.2 0.3 4.2 0.4 0.2 < 0.1 0.3 < 0.1 0.4 < 0.1 1.4 2.1

Total Nitrogen as N (TKN + NOx) by Discrete Analyser Total Nitrogen as N 0.1 mg/L 3.6 3.6 13.3 7.9 0.3 < 0.1 2.2 1.8 0.5 < 0.1 1.5 2.1

Total Phenol by Discrete Analyser Phenols (Total) 0.05 mg/L < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Organic Carbon 1 mg/L 2 4 1 2 1 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 2 2




PS primary sample

TABLE E7 ERRRC RESULTS OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS - SURFACE WATER

2016 - 2017

Sample ID SW1 SW2 SW2 SW3 SWA SWA SWA SWA SWB SWB SWB

Sample Date 10/08/2016 9/08/2016 7/09/2016 7/09/2016 10/08/2016 14/12/2016 21/02/2017 16/05/2017 11/07/2016 10/08/2016 14/12/2016

Group Analyte LOR Units PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS

pH by PC Titrator pH Value 0.01 pH Unit 6.91 7.01 7.16 7.22 7.65 8.16 8.18 7.9 7.35 7.17 7.73

Conductivity by PC Titrator Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C 1 µS/cm 74 70 70 94 148 228 163 267 88 76 108

Total Suspended Solids dried at 104 ± 2°C Suspended Solids (SS) 5 mg/L 12 17 28 17 496 40 68 134 128 110 46

Turbidity Turbidity 0.1 NTU 182 124 137 53.9 1110 121 362 399 705 586 424

Oil and Grease (O&G) Oil & Grease 5 mg/L < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5

Alkalinity by PC Titrator Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L 25 26 40 43 56 101 80 97 41 27 49

Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L 25 26 40 43 56 101 80 97 41 27 49

Sulfate (Turbidimetric) as SO4 2- by DA Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric 1 mg/L 1 < 1 < 1 12 16 12 < 1 12 < 1 16 7

Chloride by Discrete Analyser Chloride 1 mg/L 2 2 3 2 2 4 5 6 4 2 3

Fluoride by PC Titrator Fluoride 0.1 mg/L < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 < 0.1 0.1

Dissolved Major Cations Calcium 1 mg/L 5 6 4 8 15 26 8 18 4 5 6

Magnesium 1 mg/L 2 2 2 2 4 8 4 7 2 2 3

Potassium 1 mg/L 4 2 7 9 1 5 8 7 6 3 6

Sodium 1 mg/L 8 6 4 2 10 10 20 18 8 12 11

Ionic Balance Total Anions 0.01 meq/L 0.58 0.58 0.88 1.16 1.51 2.38 1.74 2.36 0.93 0.93 1.21

Total Cations 0.01 meq/L 0.86 0.78 0.72 0.89 1.54 2.52 1.8 2.44 0.86 1.01 1.18

Total Metals by ICP-MS Arsenic 0.001 mg/L < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 - 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002

Cadmium 0.0001 mg/L < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 - < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Chromium 0.001 mg/L 0.009 0.008 0.008 0.002 0.025 0.005 - 0.01 0.033 0.019 0.022

Copper 0.001 mg/L 0.009 0.006 0.009 0.019 0.027 0.007 - 0.013 0.023 0.019 0.021

Iron 0.05 mg/L - - 7.94 2.74 - 4.5 10.6 9.56 28.5 - 23

Lead 0.001 mg/L < 0.001 < 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.006 < 0.001 - 0.003 0.006 0.004 0.004

Manganese 0.001 mg/L 0.112 0.095 0.267 0.122 0.328 0.337 0.214 0.538 0.356 0.166 0.29

Nickel 0.001 mg/L 0.007 0.01 0.007 0.004 0.018 0.004 - 0.01 0.019 0.015 0.017

Zinc 0.005 mg/L 0.018 0.017 0.015 0.049 0.036 0.007 - 0.034 0.04 0.028 0.035

Total Recoverable Mercury by FIMS Mercury 0.0001 mg/L < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 - < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Ammonia as N by Discrete Analyser Ammonia as N 0.01 mg/L 0.03 0.14 0.17 0.13 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.13 0.05 0.04 0.07

Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser Nitrite as N 0.01 mg/L < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01

Nitrate as N by Discrete Analyser Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L 0.07 0.05 0.15 0.16 0.22 0.03 < 0.01 0.17 0.31 0.25 0.08

Nitrite plus Nitrate as N (NOx) by Discrete Analyser Nitrite + Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L 0.07 0.05 0.15 0.16 0.22 0.03 < 0.01 0.17 0.31 0.25 0.09

Total Phenol by Discrete Analyser Phenols (Total) 0.05 mg/L < 0.05 < 0.05 0.11 0.09 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) Total Polychlorinated biphenyls 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 - < 1 - < 1 -


2016 - 2017


Sample Date 10/08/2016 9/08/2016 7/09/2016 7/09/2016 10/08/2016 14/12/2016 21/02/2017 16/05/2017 11/07/2016 10/08/2016 14/12/2016


Organochlorine Pesticides (OC) 4.4`-DDD 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

4.4`-DDE 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

4.4`-DDT 2 µg/L < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 - < 2 < 2 < 2 -

Aldrin 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

alpha-BHC 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

alpha-Endosulfan 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

beta-BHC 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

beta-Endosulfan 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

cis-Chlordane 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

delta-BHC 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Dieldrin 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Endosulfan sulfate 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Endrin 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Endrin aldehyde 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Endrin ketone 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

gamma-BHC 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Heptachlor 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Heptachlor epoxide 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Methoxychlor 2 µg/L < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 - < 2 < 2 < 2 -

Sum of Aldrin + Dieldrin 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Sum of DDD + DDE + DDT 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Total Chlordane (sum) 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

trans-Chlordane 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Organophosphorus Pesticides (OP) Azinphos Methyl 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Bromophos-ethyl 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Carbophenothion 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Chlorfenvinphos 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Chlorpyrifos 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Chlorpyrifos-methyl 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Demeton-S-methyl 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Diazinon 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Dichlorvos 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Dimethoate 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Ethion 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Fenamiphos 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Fenthion 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Malathion 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Monocrotophos 2 µg/L < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 - < 2 < 2 < 2 -

Parathion 2 µg/L < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 - < 2 < 2 < 2 -

Parathion-methyl 2 µg/L < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 - < 2 < 2 < 2 -

Pirimphos-ethyl 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Prothiofos 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Phenolic Compounds 2.4.5-Trichlorophenol 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 - < 1 - < 1 -

2.4.6-Trichlorophenol 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 - < 1 - < 1 -

2.4-Dichlorophenol 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 - < 1 - < 1 -

2.4-Dimethylphenol 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 - < 1 - < 1 -

2.6-Dichlorophenol 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 - < 1 - < 1 -

2-Chlorophenol 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 - < 1 - < 1 -

2-Methylphenol 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 - < 1 - < 1 -

2-Nitrophenol 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 - < 1 - < 1 -

3- & 4-Methylphenol 2 µg/L < 2 < 2 < 2 - < 2 < 2 - < 2 - < 2 -

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 - < 1 - < 1 -

Pentachlorophenol 2 µg/L < 2 < 2 < 2 - < 2 < 2 - < 2 - < 2 -

Phenol 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 - < 1 - < 1 -


2016 - 2017


Sample Date 10/08/2016 9/08/2016 7/09/2016 7/09/2016 10/08/2016 14/12/2016 21/02/2017 16/05/2017 11/07/2016 10/08/2016 14/12/2016


Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Acenaphthene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1 -

Acenaphthylene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1 -

Anthracene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1 -

Benz(a)anthracene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1 -

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ (zero) 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1 -

Benzo(g.h.i)perylene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1 -

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1 -

Chrysene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1 -

Dibenz(a.h)anthracene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1 -

Fluoranthene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1 -

Fluorene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1 -

Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1 -

Naphthalene (Ex SVOC) 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1 -

Phenanthrene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1 -

Pyrene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1 -

Sum of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 - < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 -

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons C6 - C9 Fraction 20 µg/L < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 - < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20

C10 - C14 Fraction 50 µg/L < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 - < 50 < 50 < 50 -

C15 - C28 Fraction 100 µg/L < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 - < 100 < 100 < 100 -

C29 - C36 Fraction 50 µg/L < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 - < 50 < 50 < 50 -

C10 - C36 Fraction (sum) 50 µg/L < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 - < 50 < 50 < 50 -

Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons - NEPM 2013 Fractions C6 - C10 Fraction 20 µg/L < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 - < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20

C6 - C10 Fraction minus BTEX (F1) 20 µg/L < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 - < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20

>C10 - C16 Fraction 100 µg/L < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 - < 100 < 100 < 100 -

>C10 - C16 Fraction minus Naphthalene (F2) 100 µg/L < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 - - < 100 < 100 < 100 -

>C16 - C34 Fraction 100 µg/L < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 - < 100 < 100 < 100 -

>C34 - C40 Fraction 100 µg/L < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 - < 100 < 100 < 100 -

>C10 - C40 Fraction (sum) 100 µg/L < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 - < 100 < 100 < 100 -

BTEXN Benzene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Toluene 2 µg/L < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 - < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2

Ethylbenzene 2 µg/L < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 - < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2

meta- & para-Xylene 2 µg/L < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 - < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2

ortho-Xylene 2 µg/L < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 - < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2

Total Xylenes 2 µg/L < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 - < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2

Sum of BTEX 1 µg/L < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 - < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Naphthalene 5 µg/L < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 - < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5




PS primary sample

TABLE E8 ERRRC RESULTS OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS - LEACHATE

2016 - 2017

Sample ID L1 L1

Sample Date 14/12/2016 21/02/2017

Group Analyte LOR Units PS PS

pH by PC Titrator pH Value 0.01 pH Unit 7.95 7.97

Conductivity by PC Titrator Electrical Conductivity @ 25°C 1 µS/cm 12800 14900

Total Suspended Solids dried at 104 ± 2°C Suspended Solids (SS) 5 mg/L 172 567

Turbidity Turbidity 0.1 NTU 208 457

Oil and Grease (O&G) Oil & Grease 5 mg/L < 5 7

Alkalinity by PC Titrator Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L 6120 6760

Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L < 1 < 1

Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L < 1 < 1

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 1 mg/L 6120 6760

Sulfate (Turbidimetric) as SO4 2- by DA Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric 1 mg/L < 10 < 10

Chloride by Discrete Analyser Chloride 1 mg/L 1120 1040

Fluoride by PC Titrator Fluoride 0.1 mg/L 0.8 0.7

Dissolved Major Cations Calcium 1 mg/L 69 136

Magnesium 1 mg/L 97 107

Potassium 1 mg/L 560 500

Sodium 1 mg/L 971 1000

Ionic Balance Ionic Balance 0.01 % 4.21 1.03

Total Anions 0.01 meq/L 154 164

Total Cations 0.01 meq/L 142 161

Total Metals by ICP-MS Arsenic 0.001 mg/L 0.057 0.057

Cadmium 0.0001 mg/L 0.0005 0.0003

Chromium 0.001 mg/L 0.096 0.122

Cobalt 0.001 mg/L - 0.044

Copper 0.001 mg/L 0.03 0.099

Iron 0.05 mg/L 15.3 19.9

Lead 0.001 mg/L 0.007 0.015

Manganese 0.001 mg/L 0.599 0.598

Molybdenum 0.001 mg/L - 0.007

Nickel 0.001 mg/L 0.128 0.15

Silver 0.001 mg/L - < 0.001

Tin 0.001 mg/L - 0.033

Zinc 0.005 mg/L 0.266 0.364

Total Recoverable Mercury by FIMS Mercury 0.0001 mg/L < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Ammonia as N by Discrete Analyser Ammonia as N 0.01 mg/L 1030 1250

Nitrite as N by Discrete Analyser Nitrite as N 0.01 mg/L < 0.01 0.05

Nitrate as N by Discrete Analyser Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L 0.05 < 0.1

Nitrite plus Nitrate as N (NOx) by Discrete Analyser Nitrite + Nitrate as N 0.01 mg/L 0.05 < 0.1

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen By Discrete Analyser Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N 0.1 mg/L 1030 1220

Total Phosphorus as P by Discrete Analyser Total Phosphorus as P 0.01 mg/L - 9.34

Total Phenol by Discrete Analyser Phenols (Total) 0.05 mg/L < 0.05 < 0.25

Sulfide as S2- Sulfide as S2- 0.1 mg/L - < 0.1

Formaldehyde Formaldehyde 0.1 mg/L - 2.1

Chemical Oxygen Demand (Spectrophotometric) Chemical Oxygen Demand 10 mg/L 1140 1490

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Biochemical Oxygen Demand 2 mg/L 2 116

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) Total Polychlorinated biphenyls 1 µg/L < 1 -

Organochlorine Pesticides (OC) 4.4`-DDD 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

4.4`-DDE 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

4.4`-DDT 2 µg/L < 2 < 2

Aldrin 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

alpha-BHC 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

alpha-Endosulfan 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

beta-BHC 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

beta-Endosulfan 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

cis-Chlordane 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

delta-BHC 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Dieldrin 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Endosulfan sulfate 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Endrin 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Endrin aldehyde 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Endrin ketone 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

gamma-BHC 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Heptachlor 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Heptachlor epoxide 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Methoxychlor 2 µg/L < 2 < 2

Sum of Aldrin + Dieldrin 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Sum of DDD + DDE + DDT 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Total Chlordane (sum) 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

trans-Chlordane 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Organophosphorus Pesticides (OP) Azinphos Methyl 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Bromophos-ethyl 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Carbophenothion 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Chlorfenvinphos 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Chlorpyrifos 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Chlorpyrifos-methyl 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Demeton-S-methyl 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Diazinon 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Dichlorvos 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Dimethoate 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Ethion 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Fenamiphos 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Fenthion 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Malathion 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Monocrotophos 2 µg/L < 2 < 2

Parathion 2 µg/L < 2 < 2

Parathion-methyl 2 µg/L < 2 < 2

Pirimphos-ethyl 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Prothiofos 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

TABLE E8 ERRRC RESULTS OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS - LEACHATE

2016 - 2017

Sample ID L1 L1

Sample Date 14/12/2016 21/02/2017

Group Analyte LOR Units PS PS

Phenolic Compounds 2.4.5-Trichlorophenol 1 µg/L < 1 -

2.4.6-Trichlorophenol 1 µg/L < 1 -

2.4-Dichlorophenol 1 µg/L < 1 -

2.4-Dimethylphenol 1 µg/L 1.3 -

2.6-Dichlorophenol 1 µg/L < 1 -

2-Chlorophenol 1 µg/L < 1 -

2-Methylphenol 1 µg/L < 1 -

2-Nitrophenol 1 µg/L < 1 -

3- & 4-Methylphenol 2 µg/L < 2 -

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 1 µg/L < 1 -

Pentachlorophenol 2 µg/L < 2 -

Phenol 1 µg/L < 1 -

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Acenaphthene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1

Acenaphthylene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1

Anthracene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1

Benz(a)anthracene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ (zero) 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1

Benzo(g.h.i)perylene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1

Chrysene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1

Dibenz(a.h)anthracene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1

Fluoranthene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1

Fluorene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1

Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1

Naphthalene (Ex SVOC) 1 µg/L < 1 < 1

Phenanthrene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1

Pyrene 1 µg/L < 1 < 1

Sum of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 0.5 µg/L < 0.5 < 0.5

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons C6 - C9 Fraction 20 µg/L 170 130

C10 - C14 Fraction 50 µg/L 980 1350

C15 - C28 Fraction 100 µg/L 1350 2400

C29 - C36 Fraction 50 µg/L 80 340

C10 - C36 Fraction (sum) 50 µg/L 2410 4090

Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons - NEPM 2013 Fractions C6 - C10 Fraction 20 µg/L 170 100

C6 - C10 Fraction minus BTEX (F1) 20 µg/L 100 40

>C10 - C16 Fraction 100 µg/L 1280 1680

>C10 - C16 Fraction minus Naphthalene (F2) 100 µg/L 1280 1680

>C16 - C34 Fraction 100 µg/L 1170 2130

>C34 - C40 Fraction 100 µg/L < 100 140

>C10 - C40 Fraction (sum) 100 µg/L 2450 3950

BTEXN Benzene 1 µg/L 2 3

Toluene 2 µg/L 10 7

Ethylbenzene 2 µg/L 16 16

meta- & para-Xylene 2 µg/L 26 20

ortho-Xylene 2 µg/L 15 13

Total Xylenes 2 µg/L 41 33

Sum of BTEX 1 µg/L 69 59

Naphthalene 5 µg/L < 5 < 5

Total CN by Segmented Flow Analyser Total Cyanide 0.004 mg/L - < 0.008




PS primary sample

ERRRC

212136

Table A14. EPL 20104 ERRRC Environmental Monitoring

Deposited Dust

EPL Point 1 2 3 4

ID North East South West

Unit g/m2/month g/m

2/month g/m

2/month g/m

2/month

Date

Construction Phase

4 May 2012 - 4 June 2012 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.6

4 June 2012 - 3 July 2012* 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

3 July 2012 - 2 August 2012** 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2

2 August 2012 - 3 September 2012 0.6 0.3 4.4 0.7

3 September 2012 - 4 October 2012 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.8

4 October 2012 - 5 November 2012 1.5 1.0 0.4 0.7

5 November 2012 - 6 December 2012 1.5 1.4 4.2 0.9

6 December 2012 - 4 January 2013 1.1 0.4 5.2 0.9

4 January 2013 - 5 February 2013 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3

5 February 2013 - 6 March 2013 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.8

6 March 2013 - 4 April 2013 0.7 0.6 2.4 0.9

4 April 2013 - 6 May 2013 0.8 2.3 1.1 0.7

6 May 2013 - 5 June 2013 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.6

5 June 2013 - 4 July 2013 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.4

4 July 2013 - 6 August 2013 0.7 0.2 1.1 0.3

Operational

6 August 2013 - 6 September 2013 2.4 0.3 0.1 0.2

6 September 2013 - 4 October 2013 2.7 0.4 0.4 0.4

4 October 2013 - 5 November 2013 0.8 2.2 0.5 0.6

5 November 2013 - 5 December 2013 1.5 1.4 1.0 0.8

5 December 2013 - 6 January 2014 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.6

6 January 2014 - 6 February 2014 4.0 2.2 2.5 2.6

6 February 2014 - 6 March 2014 1.4 0.8 1.0 0.7

6 March 2014 - 7 April 2014 0.9 0.7 1.1 0.4

7 April 2014 - 6 May 2014 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.2

6 May 2014 - 6 June 2014 0.6 0.5 2.2 0.6

6 June 2014 - 7 July 2014 1.0 0.6 0.4 1.7

7 July 2014 to 6 August 2014 1.4 1.2 0.5 1.3

6 August 2014 to 5 September 2014 2.3 1.5 1.1 0.8

5 September 2014 to 3 October 2014 0.7 1.2 0.9 0.4

3 October 2014 to 4 November 2014 0.7 2.2 0.5 0.6

4 November 2014 to 5 December 2014 1.0 0.6 0.8 1.0

5 December 2014 to 5 January 2015 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.8

5 January 2015 to 6 February 2015 0.7 0.7 3.1 0.5

6 February 2015 to 6 March 2015 0.8 0.4 1.2 0.7

6 March 2015 to 7 April 2015 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.7

7 April 2015 to 8 May 2015 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.9

8 May 2015 to 9 June 2015 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.5

9 June 2015 to 8 July 2015 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.4

8 July 2015 to 7 August 2015 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3


Geolyse Pty Ltd

ERRRC

212136

Table A14. EPL 20104 ERRRC Environmental Monitoring

Deposited Dust

EPL Point 1 2 3 4

ID North East South West

Unit g/m2/month g/m

2/month g/m

2/month g/m

2/month

Date







10 March 2016 to 10 April 2016 4.1 1.4 2.1 7.9

10 April 2016 to 12 May 2016 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.6

12 May 2016 to 13 June 2016 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.5

13 June 2016 to 12 July 2016 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.1

12 July 2016 to 10 August 2016 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.8








13 March 2017 to 11 April 2017 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.9

11 April 2017 to 12 May 2017 0.5 1.7 0.6 1.5

12 May 2017 to 13 June 2017 2.9 0.5 1.2 0.2

13 June 2017 to 14 July 2017 0.7 1.6 0.3 0.5

Geolyse Pty Ltd

Appendix F GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER,

LEACHATE AND DUST ANALYSIS

CHARTS

Chart F1 – ORRRC Groundwater Levels

Chart F2 – ORRRC pH in Groundwater

Chart F3 – ORRRC Electrical Conductivity in Groundwater

Chart F4 – ORRRC Total Dissolved Solids in Groundwater

Chart F5 – ORRRC Total Organic Carbon in Groundwater

Chart F6 – ORRRC Alkalinity in Groundwater

Chart F7 – ORRRC Ammonia in Groundwater

Chart F8 – ORRRC Nitrate in Groundwater

Chart F9 – ORRRC Sulfate in Groundwater

Chart F10 – ORRRC Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (C6-C10 fraction) in Groundwater

Chart F11 – ORRRC pH in Surface Water

Chart F12 – ORRRC Electrical Conductivity in Surface Water

Chart F13 – ORRRC Total Organic Carbon in Surface Water

Chart F14 – ORRRC Alkalinity in Surface Water

Chart F15 – ORRRC Ammonia in Surface Water

Chart F16 – ORRRC Nitrate in Surface Water

Chart F17 – ORRRC Sulfate in Surface Water

Chart F18 – ORRRC Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (>C10-C40 fraction) in Surface Water

Chart F19 – ORRRC pH in Leachate

Chart F20 – ORRRC Electrical Conductivity in Leachate

Chart F21 – ORRRC Total Organic Carbon in Leachate

Chart F22 – ORRRC Alkalinity in Leachate

Chart F23 – ORRRC Ammonia in Leachate

Chart F24 – ORRRC Nitrate in Leachate

Chart F25 – ORRRC Sulfate in Leachate

Chart F26 – ORRRC Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (C10-C36 fraction) in Leachate

Chart F27 – ERRRC Groundwater Levels

Chart F28 – ERRRC pH in Groundwater

Chart F29 – ERRRC Electrical Conductivity in Groundwater

Chart F30 – ERRRC Total Organic Carbon in Groundwater

Chart F31 – ERRRC Alkalinity in Groundwater

Chart F32 – ERRRC Ammonia in Groundwater

Chart F33 – ERRRC Nitrate in Groundwater

Chart F34 – ERRRC Sulfate in Groundwater

Chart F35 – ERRRC Iron in Groundwater

Chart F36 – ERRRC pH in Surface Water

Chart F37 – ERRRC Electrical Conductivity in Surface Water

Chart F38 – ERRRC Suspended Solids in Surface Water

Chart F39 – ERRRC Oil & Grease in Surface Water

Chart F40 – ERRRC Alkalinity in Surface Water

Chart F41 – ERRRC Ammonia in Surface Water

Chart F42 – ERRRC Nitrate in Surface Water

Chart F43 – ERRRC Sulfate in Surface Water

Chart F44 – ERRRC Iron in Surface Water

Chart F45 – ERRRC pH in Leachate

Chart F46 – ERRRC Electrical Conductivity in Leachate

Chart F47 – ERRRC Suspended Solids in Leachate

Chart F48 – ERRRC Oil & Grease in Leachate

Chart F49 – ERRRC Alkalinity in Leachate

Chart F50 – ERRRC Ammonia in Leachate

Chart F51 – ERRRC Nitrate in Leachate

Chart F52 – ERRRC Sulfate in Leachate

Chart F53 – ERRRC Iron in Leachate

Chart F54 – ERRRC Dust Gauge Monitoring Results

Appendix G ERRRC FLORA AND ABORIGINAL

HERITAGE MONITORING REPORT

FLORA AND ABORIGINAL HERITAGE MONITORING EUCHAREENA ROAD RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTRE

PREPARED FOR

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

APRIL 2017


PREPARED FOR:

ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

APRIL 2017

POSTAL ADDRESS PO BOX 1963 ORANGE NSW 2800

LOCATION 154 PEISLEY STREET ORANGE NSW 2800

TELEPHONE 02 6393 5000 FACSIMILE 02 6393 5050

EMAIL [email protected] WEB SITE WWW.GEOLYSE.COM


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE I 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Report Title: Flora and Aboriginal Heritage Monitoring

Project: Euchareena Road Resource Recovery Centre

Client: Orange City Council

Report Ref.: 208212_REP_001B_2017.docx

Status: Final

Issued: 6th April 2017

Geolyse Pty Ltd and the authors responsible for the preparation and compilation of this report declare that we do not have, nor expect to have a beneficial interest in the study area of this project and will not benefit from any of the recommendations outlined in this report.

The preparation of this report has been in accordance with the project brief provided by the client and has relied upon the information, data and results provided or collected from the sources and under the conditions outlined in the report.

All maps, plans and cadastral information contained within this report are prepared for the exclusive use of Orange City Council to accompany this report for the land described herein and are not to be used for any other purpose or by any other person or entity. No reliance should be placed on the information contained in this report for any purposes apart from those stated therein. Geolyse Pty Ltd accepts no responsibility for any loss, damage suffered or inconveniences arising from, any person or entity using the plans or information in this study for purposes other than those stated above.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE II 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1

1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1.1 CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................... 1

FLORA MONITORING ............................................................................................... 8

2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 8 2.2 PLOTS ................................................................................................................................ 8 2.3 TRANSECTS ...................................................................................................................... 8 2.4 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 9

METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 10

3.1 CONTROL AND REHABILITATION PLOTS .................................................................... 10 3.2 CONTROL AND REHABILITATION TRANSECTS .......................................................... 10 3.3 LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION TRANSECTS .............................................................. 10

RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 11

4.1 REHABILITATION AND CONTROL PLOTS .................................................................... 11 4.2 REHABILITATION AND CONTROL TRANSECTS .......................................................... 11 4.3 LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION TRANSECTS .............................................................. 11 4.4 2017 MONITORING SURVEY CONSTRAINTS ............................................................... 11

ABORIGINAL HERITAGE MONITORING ............................................................... 13

5.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 13 5.2 MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................. 13 5.3 MONITORING OUTCOMES ............................................................................................. 13

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 14

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Rehabilitation and Control Plot Field Sheets

APPENDIX B Rehabilitation and Control Transect Field Sheets

APPENDIX C Landscape and Rehabilitation Transect Field Sheets

APPENDIX D Office of Environment and Heritage Monitoring Report

TABLES

Table 1.1 – Remnant woodland rehabilitation and management measures ........................................... 1 Table 1.2 – Rehabilitation corridors rehabilitation and management measures ..................................... 3 Table 1.3 – Landscaped bunds rehabilitation and management measures ........................................... 4 Table 1.4 – Landscaped Area Rehabilitation and Management Measures ............................................ 6 Table 2.1 – Summary of transects and plots ........................................................................................... 9 Table B.1 – Flora Monitoring Program – Transect F1 ........................................................................... B1 Table B.2 – Flora Monitoring Program – Transect F2 ........................................................................... B3 Table C.3 - Flora Monitoring Program – Transect L1.......................................................................... C1 Table C.4 - Flora Monitoring Program – Transect L2.......................................................................... C1 Table C.5 - Flora Monitoring Program – Transect B1 ......................................................................... C2


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE III 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

DRAWINGS

Drawing 53B _EV02 – Monitoring Sites

PLATES

Plate 1: Looking north between Corner B and C of Plot R1 ............................................................ 1 Plate 2: Looking north-east from Corner C of Plot R2 ..................................................................... 1 Plate 3: Looking north-east from Corner D of Plot C1 ..................................................................... 2 Plate 4: Looking north-west from Corner D of Plot C2 ..................................................................... 2 Plate 5: Looking east over 10 m sampling point of Transect F1 ...................................................... 3 Plate 6: Looking east over 20 m sampling point of Transect F1 ...................................................... 3 Plate 7: Looking east over 30m sampling point of Transect F1 ....................................................... 4 Plate 8: Looking east over 40m sampling point of Transect F1 ....................................................... 4 Plate 9: Looking east over 50 m sampling point of Transect F1 ...................................................... 5 Plate 10: Looking east over 10 m sampling point of Transect F2 ...................................................... 5 Plate 11: Looking east over 20 m sampling point of Transect F2 ...................................................... 6 Plate 12: Looking east over 30m sampling point of Transect F2 ....................................................... 6 Plate 13: Looking east over 40m sampling point of Transect F2 ....................................................... 7 Plate 14: Looking east over 50 m sampling point of Transect F2 ...................................................... 7 Plate 15: Looking southwest over 10 m sampling point of Transect L1. ........................................... 8 Plate 16: Looking southwest over 20 m sampling point of Transect L1 ............................................ 8 Plate 17: Looking southwest over 30m sampling point of Transect L1. ............................................ 9 Plate 18: Looking southwest over 40m sampling point of Transect L1. ............................................ 9 Plate 19: Looking southwest over 50 m sampling point of Transect L1 .......................................... 10 Plate 20: Looking west over 10 m sampling point of Transect B1. .................................................. 10 Plate 21: Looking west over L2 (Northern landscape plantings adjacent to northern perimeter fence). Planted approximately July 2015. ............................................................................................. 11 Plate 22: Facing east over the eastern end of L2 where the new tree-lot adjoins woodland associated with C2. ............................................................................................................................... 11 Plate 23: Western side scar - 900 mm above ground surface. ........................................................ 12 Plate 24: Eastern side scar - begins at ground surface and extends to 1650 mm. ......................... 12 Plate 25: Scarred Tree showing existing crown damage and fallen limb. ....................................... 13


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE 1 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Introduction

1.1 BACKGROUND

Geolyse was engaged by Orange City Council to undertake annual flora monitoring of box-gum woodland Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) and Aboriginal heritage monitoring as part of the approved Conservation Management Plan (CMP) prepared in May 2011, and revised in March 2013 (Version 2) for the Euchareena Road Resource Recovery Centre (ERRRC).

This report covers the 2017 scheduled flora and Aboriginal heritage monitoring period and is the seventh annual survey period. Prior survey periods have been conducted annually since 2011 between December and February.

Box-gum woodland refers to the EEC ‘White Box Yellow Box Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland’ that is listed as endangered under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) and critically endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

The box-gum woodland on site comprises remnant woodland areas and rehabilitation areas (refer to Drawing 53A_EV02). The following section identifies the tasks required for rehabilitation and management of both areas of box-gum woodland as identified in the CMP.

The Aboriginal heritage on the site refers to the scarred box eucalypt tree within the western remnant woodland area at the site.

1.1.1 CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

1.1.1.1 Remnant woodland management measures

The following table provides management measures for remnant woodland rehabilitation and has been extracted from Appendix C of the CMP. The flora monitoring program addresses various tasks relating to baseline information as highlighted in the Table 1.1 below.

Table 1.1 – Remnant woodland rehabilitation and management measures

Category Task Responsibility

1 PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION WORKS COMMENCING

a Fencing of regeneration areas

i

The two remnant Box Woodland areas are to be fenced off from the remainder of the site, in accordance with the attached plans. The fencing is to be provided outside of the dripline of the trees on the outermost extent of indicated areas. The fencing shall be designed to minimise detrimental impacts on native fauna.

OCC

b Baseline Information

i

Permanent quadrats/transects shall be established, by a suitably qualified person, across the remnant woodland areas to enable periodic monitoring to record the extent of flora regrowth in these areas.

OCC

ii

An initial assessment of the woodland areas, by a suitably qualified person and based on the identified quadrats/transects, to identify deficiencies in species diversity.

OCC

iii An initial planting program may be developed, by a suitably qualified person, subject to the above initial assessment.

OCC


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE 2 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX



iv Establishment of a monitoring program, by a suitably qualified person, for the remnant woodland areas to monitor and record the extent of flora regrowth.

OCC

c Stock control i

Those areas of the site that are not directly affected by the proposed activity shall be de-stocked and remain free of grazing by domestic stock.

OCC

2 DURING CONSTRUCTION

a Woodland Enhancement i Implementation of the initial planting program in the remnant woodland areas.

OCC

3 PRIOR TO OPERATION OF THE RRC

a Weed & Pest Management

i

A Weed Management Program shall be prepared, by a suitably qualified person, that incorporates: Regular inspections of the site; Education of staff with respect to weed identification

and control; and Continual monitoring and control of identified noxious

weeds. This shall form part of the OEMP.

OCC

ii

A Pest Control Plan shall be formulated, that in particular includes the control of foxes and feral cats and any other invertebrate pest that may be considered a problem. This shall form part of the OEMP.

OCC

4 DURING OPERATION OF RCR



OCC


i Implementation of the woodland monitoring program. OCC

ii

Where, during monitoring, species diversity is found to be insufficient, supplementary planting programs may be undertaken in accordance with advice from a suitably qualified person.

OCC

iii Any supplementary plantings are to be suitably protected through fencing or suitable tree guards.

OCC

c Weed & Pest Management i Implementation of the Weed Management Program. OCC

ii Implementation of the Pest Control Plan. OCC


i


OCC

ii

Controlled grazing by livestock to maintain or improve native vegetation values at a low to moderate stocking rate or ‘crash grazing’. Grazing is an ecological tool and the aim of crash grazing is to manage the groundcover to ensure that a diverse groundlayer of native species is encouraged.

Grazing regimes will be guided by: - Appropriate location of grazing - Triggers to change grazing regime e.g. changes to

abundance of selected key species. - Triggers for grazing to be excluded e.g. during

flowering and seeding of particular species. - Seasons where grazing may be desirable e.g.

reduction in seeding of particular weed species. - Exclusion of grazing for a required number of years

OCC


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE 3 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX



or until certain outcomes have been achieved. Management of stock in the remnant woodland should

aim to minimise damage to native vegetation and minimise introduction of weeds and disease as follows: - Ensure stock camps are not established - Ensure stock are confined to formed tracks and are

under supervision when moving livestock through the conservation area.

- Mustering of livestock with the use of working dogs and horses is permitted.

- Fodder or any stock feed may not be brought into the remnant woodland areas.

- Before introduction of stock into the remnant woodland areas ensure they are held in a relatively weed free area for at least a week immediately prior to their introduction.

- Pasture improvement or fertilisation is not permitted. - Exclude stock from any burnt area of the remnant

woodland until native vegetation has re-established. Stock should be excluded for at least three years and groundcover should be >70% before grazing recommences.

iii Any grazing and implementation of grazing regime requires prior written agreement from OEH, subject to monitoring reports.

OCC

iv

Reducing the population of native grazing animals where grazing pressure is resulting in the degradation of the quality and structure of native vegetation and inhibiting natural regeneration and the owner is granted a licence to cull under Section 121 of the NPW Act 1974.

OCC

Source: "Insert Table Source or delete line"

1.1.1.2 Rehabilitation corridors management measures

The Table 1.2 lists rehabilitation and management measures for the rehabilitation corridors on site, and has been extracted from Appendix D of the CMP. The flora monitoring program addresses various tasks relating to rehabilitation corridors that are highlighted below.

Table 1.2 – Rehabilitation corridors rehabilitation and management measures



a Baseline Information

i An initial planting program is to be developed, by a suitably qualified person, based on this methodology. OCC

ii Establishment of a Rehabilitation Area monitoring program, by a suitably qualified person, for the rehabilitation areas to monitor and record the extent of flora growth. This program shall incorporate the principles outlined in this appendix.

OCC

b Stock control i Those areas of the site that are not directly affected by the proposed activity shall be de-stocked and remain free of grazing by domestic stock (except in accordance with any management plan).

OCC


a Woodland Enhancement ii Implementation of the initial planting program in the

rehabilitation corridor. OCC

3 PRIOR TO THE OPERATION OF THE RRC


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE 4 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Table 1.2 – Rehabilitation corridors rehabilitation and management measures



i Creation of a Weed Management Program, by a suitably qualified person, that includes: Regular inspections of the site; Education of staff with respect to weed identification


weeds. This shall form part of the Operational Environmental Management Plan (OEMP).

OCC

ii A Pest Control Plan shall be formulated, that in particular includes the control of foxes and feral cats and any other invertebrate pest that may be considered a problem. This shall form part of the OEMP.

OCC



i Implementation of the rehabilitation corridor monitoring program.

OCC

ii Where, during monitoring, species diversity is found to be insufficient, supplementary planting programs are to be undertaken in accordance with advice from a suitably qualified person.

OCC

iii Any supplementary plantings are to be suitably protected through fencing or suitable tree guard, as outlined in this Appendix.

OCC




i Groundcover management within the rehabilitation areas is to be undertaken through grazing with cattle, using appropriate stocking rates that reflect seasonal conditions and to ensure an adequate level of groundcover remains at all times. Trees and shrubs are to be protected from cattle in accordance with the principles outlined in this Appendix.

OCC


OCC

1.1.1.3 Landscaped bunds management measures

Table 1.3 lists rehabilitation and management measures for the landscaped bunds on site and has been extracted from Appendix E of the CMP. The flora monitoring program addresses various tasks relating to landscaped bunds that are highlighted below.

Table 1.3 – Landscaped bunds rehabilitation and management measures



a Landscape screening

i The landscape strip to the north of Bund 1 shall be established in accordance with this Appendix. OCC

ii

The perimeter tree screening areas are to provide an appropriate alternative nectar source away from the landfilling operation. These species shall be selected in consultation with OEH.

OCC


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE 5 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX



b Baseline information i

Establishment of a Landscaped Bund/Strip monitoring program, by a suitably qualified person, consistent with this Appendix, for the landscaped bund areas to monitor and record the extent of flora growth.

OCC


a Landscaped Bunds i During the construction of the Stage 1 landfill Cell, Bund 1 is to be constructed and landscaped in accordance with this Appendix.

OCC

3 PRIOR TO OPERATION OF THE RRC


i

Creation of a Weed Management Program, by a suitably qualified person, that includes: Regular inspections of the site; Education of staff with respect to weed identification


weeds. This shall form part of the OEMP.

OCC

ii

A Pest Control Plan shall be formulated, that in particular includes the control of foxes and feral cats and any other invertebrate pest that may be considered a problem. This shall form part of the OEMP.

OCC


a Landscaped Bunds i The landscaped bunds shall be constructed and landscaped in accordance with this Appendix. OCC



OCC

c Monitoring


OCC

ii


OCC


OCC

d Weed & Pest Management i Implementation of the Weed Management Program. OCC


e Groundcover Management i Once established, grazing shall be undertaken in accordance with the measures outlined in the Remnant Woodland Areas (Appendix C).

OCC

c Monitoring


OCC

ii


OCC


OCC

d Weed & Pest Management i Implementation of the Weed Management Program. OCC



ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE 6 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX



e Groundcover Management i Once established, grazing shall be undertaken in accordance with the measures outlined in the Remnant Woodland Areas (Appendix C).

OCC

1.1.1.4 Landscaped area management measures

The Table 1.4 lists rehabilitation and management measures for the landscaped areas on site, and has been extracted from Appendix F of the CMP. The flora monitoring program addresses various tasks relating to landscaped areas that are highlighted below.

Table 1.4 – Landscaped Area Rehabilitation and Management Measures


PRIOR TO OPERATION OF THE RRC

a Landscape Screening Plantings

i Prior to operation of the RRC, the landscaped area shall be planted as outlined in this appendix. OCC

ii

The perimeter tree screening areas are to provide an appropriate alternative nectar source away from the landfilling operation. These species shall be selected in consultation with OEH.

OCC

b Baseline information i Establishment of a monitoring program, by a suitably qualified person, for the landscaped area to monitor and record the extent of flora growth.

OCC


i

Creation of a Weed Management Program, by a suitably qualified person, that includes: Regular inspections of the site; Education of staff with respect to weed identification


weeds.

This shall form part of the OEMP.

OCC

ii

A Pest Control Plan shall be formulated, that in particular includes the control of foxes and feral cats and any other invertebrate pest that may be considered a problem.

This shall form part of the OEMP.

OCC



i A suitably sized copy of Drawing 17C_EV02 shall be displayed in the Site Office, where the Site Manager has visual access to it.

OCC

b Monitoring

i Implementation of the landscaped area monitoring program. OCC

ii


OCC


OCC




ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE 7 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Table 1.4 – Landscaped Area Rehabilitation and Management Measures



i


OCC


OCC


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE 8 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Flora Monitoring

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Flora monitoring for the box-gum woodland has included the establishment of permanent monitoring sites at four locations throughout the box-gum woodland EEC in both regenerating and remnant woodland habitat (refer to Drawing 53B_EV02).

2.2 PLOTS

The following plots were established within the box-gum woodland surrounding the proposed ERRRC in December 2011:

two plots as control sites in remnant woodland areas (C1 and C2); and

two plots in the rehabilitation corridors (R1 and R2).

The four monitoring plots were initially selected based on spatial representation, habitat condition, and structure.

The control plots (C1 and C2) located in remnant white box woodland were originally selected based on the highest quality representation of the woodland community, ensuring a range of fauna habitat such as logs, trees, native groundcover and rocks in areas of low disturbance.

One control plot (C1) is located in the south-western section of the remnant woodland whilst the other control plot (C2) is located in the north-eastern remnant woodland to allow for spatial representation of the broader site.

Rehabilitation plots (R1 and R2) were established in both the southern and northern rehabilitation corridors and located within close proximity of original or existing tracks and roads. Habitat structure in the rehabilitation areas is restricted to groundcover.

2.3 TRANSECTS

The following transects were established within the box-gum woodland surrounding the proposed ERRRC in December 2011:

one transect in remnant woodland also acting as a control site (F1, C1); and

one transect in the northern rehabilitation area also acting as a plot site (F2, R2).

Two permanent transects (F1 and F2) are located within the remnant woodland and northern rehabilitation area of the site to quantify weed encroachment and native recruitment within each of these habitats.

Transects L1 and B1 were established on prior vehicular tracks and earthwork disturbances to the site and on the recommendation of the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).

Transect L2 was established in the 2016 survey period to incorporate the newly planted rehabilitation area immediately north of the northern facility perimeter fenceline.

2.3.1.1 Additional Transects

Two additional transects were established during the January 2013 flora monitoring in the Landscaped Area and Bund Number 1 (refer to Drawing 53B_EV02). These transects (L1 and B1, respectively) were established to monitor the success of landscaping and bund rehabilitation once incorporated.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE 9 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

An additional transect (L2) was established in the 2016 survey period to incorporate the newly planted rehabilitation area immediately north of the northern facility perimeter fenceline.

2.4 SUMMARY

A summary of transects and plots is provided in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 – Summary of transects and plots

Type ID Established Area

Plot (Control Sites)

C1 December 2011 Remnant woodland area (south-western section)

C2 December 2011 Remnant woodland area (north-eastern section)

Plot R1 December 2011 Rehabilitation corridor

R2 December 2011 Rehabilitation corridor

Transect (Control Site)

F1 (C1)

December 2011 Remnant woodland area

Transect (Plot Site)

F2 (R2)

December 2011 Northern rehabilitation area

Transect L1 January 2013 Landscaped area

Transect B1 January 2013 Bund number 1

Transect L2 March 2016 New rehabilitation area immediately north of the northern

facility perimeter fenceline.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE 10 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Methodology

3.1 CONTROL AND REHABILITATION PLOTS

The control plots (C1 and C2) and rehabilitation plots (R1 and R2) were surveyed using 20 metre by 20 metre plots and field sheets compiled to measure the following:

dominant species in each stratum type;

crown cover assessed within the larger plot and expressed as a percentage vertical projection of the crowns for each stratum as per Walker and Hopkins (1990);

the average percentage foliage cover of plants that dominate the control sites compared to their percentage foliage cover in the rehabilitation sites;

a visual estimation of the height range for each stratum within the larger plots and comparisons between strata heights of the rehabilitation and control sites made following the accumulation of 5 years of data;

groundcover classified into one of four categories: leaf litter, bare ground, vegetation cover or log cover; and

photo points established for each plot.

3.2 CONTROL AND REHABILITATION TRANSECTS

Two transects(F1 and F2) were surveyed from progressive 10 metre by 10 metre plots that extend 50 metres towards existing disturbance areas and field sheets compiled to measure the following:

plant dominance based on a measure of abundance or importance obtained using the modified Braun-Blanquet system for measuring cover abundance;

numbers of all exotic and native species within each plot; and

photo points established at each progressive plot point.

3.3 LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION TRANSECTS

Three transects (L1, L2 and B1) were surveyed from progressive 10 metre transects along the width of the planting lot. These extend 50 metres long and field sheets compiled to measure the following:

adherence to recommended landscape planting plan;

fatality or success rate of landscape plantings;

numbers of all exotic and native species within each plot; and

photo points established at each plot.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE 11 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Results

4.1 REHABILITATION AND CONTROL PLOTS

The field sheets for each rehabilitation plot (R1 and R2) and control plot (C1 and C2) are included in Appendix A.

4.2 REHABILITATION AND CONTROL TRANSECTS

The field sheets for the control transect (F1) and rehabilitation transect (F2) are included in Appendix B.

4.3 LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION TRANSECTS

The field sheets for the landscape rehabilitation transects (L1, L2 and B1) are included in Appendix C. The rehabilitation transect in Bund Number 1 is now included as new tree-lot planting has been completed.

4.4 2017 MONITORING SURVEY CONSTRAINTS

The February 2017 survey period coincided with a dry end to the summer season with recorded rainfall averages for Molong, again, being below average for the months of January and February. The annual seasonal conditions included significantly higher rainfall totals for winter and spring periods. As a result of the extended dry summer period, the proportion of live growth and summer perennial species recorded within transects and control plots were low. Dry ground vegetation loading was high in comparison with the 2016 surveys due to elevated sporing and early summer growth patterns. This was particularly noticeable with high proportions of exotic summer weed species occurring across the site.

Infestation by St Barnaby’s Thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) has been elevated by wet winter and spring conditions. This species is particularly prolific within prior disturbance areas where the plant dominates broad areas of groundcover. High populations of this species have yielded a high seed bank which may see seed longevity lasting seven to ten years. Associated with the heightened groundcover growth during the wet growing spring season, is the high vegetation loadings across the site. Winter and spring growth remains as dense, dead vegetative matter across many of the survey plots and has impeded the summer emergence of many ground cover species (particularly lower native groundcovers).

Kangaroo populations lowered slightly during the winter to spring period, with kangaroo numbers stabilising throughout the summer period. Two populations remain on the site and these groups use the woodland areas to the east and west of the facility. Kangaroos on site numbered approximately 120 by December which is consistent with December 2016 counts. These populations have had a slight impact on transects this survey year. Impacts range from trampling and compaction, to vegetation removal for regular camp sites and territory marking. Impacts are more evident during the dry summer period.

Kangaroo impact continues within some of the unfenced tree lots. The tree lots along the northern perimeter fenceline continue to be interfered with by adult males marking territory. Numerous tree guards and weed mats have been disturbed. The new plantings along the northern bund (B1) have


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE 12 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

employed a kangaroo/vermin proof tree guard which has proven to endure kangaroo interference so far (as of March 2017)


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE 13 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Aboriginal Heritage Monitoring

5.1 INTRODUCTION

In accordance with Part 6 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act), OCC (as the Owner) is required to preserve and protect Aboriginal places and Aboriginal objects and other sites of cultural heritage significance in the conservation area. The scarred tree that has been identified as an item of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance is listed in the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (Molong ST1, Site ID 44-1-0080).

A condition of the Conservation Agreement between OCC and Minister administering the NPW Act stipulates that an annual Aboriginal heritage monitoring program be developed for the identified scar tree for the operational life of the facility. This condition has been fulfilled with the incorporation of monitoring the Aboriginal heritage on the site with the annual flora monitoring.

5.2 MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS

Monitoring of the scarred tree takes into account:

The impacts of any grazing animals. (e.g. If stock are rubbing against the scar tree it should be fenced off to avoid such impacts); and

Whether or not the scarred tree is closing over. If this occurs, consultation with OEH and the Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC) shall be undertaken to determine what measures, if any, should be undertaken to rectify the situation.

5.3 MONITORING OUTCOMES

The location of the identified scarred tree is such that interference by stock and large native animals is low. The tree is located on an easterly facing, moderate slope amongst an open woodland community with several similarly sized trees located within a 30 metre radius. Ground logs and fallen limbs are also present. The tree remains in moderate to good health for a mature box-eucalypt.

The spring-summer period resulted in the loss of a large upper-crown limb. The tree shows little change in trunk damage from initial survey photographs taken in 2012. Removal of surface bark by parrots has continued around the dead upper trunk. The internal cavity has not increased in size and does not show evidence of termite damage or infestation. The excavation caused by foxes to the eastern side of the tree during 2015 has been revisited by echidnas (and possible fox). Further soil material has been removed from the base of the eastern scar. It was noted that some of the dead heartwood has been removed, now allowing access to the internal void of the tree trunk.

Scar measurements taken during the 2017 survey period are as follows:

Western side scar (refer Plate 21) is 900 mm above ground surface. Blaze is approximately 1400 mm long and remains 150 mm at its widest part. The exposed heart-wood averages 160 mm deep from the outer bark surface.

Eastern side scar (refer Plate 22) begins at ground surface (excavated) and extends to 1680 mm. This scar widens at two places; the lower one remains at 150 mm wide. The upper scar is 140 mm wide (at widest point) and averages 170 mm deep to the dead heartwood.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE 14 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

References

Burbidge, NT (1984) Australian Grasses, Angus and Robertson publishers, Sydney.

Chippendale, GM and Johnston, RD (1989) Eucalypts Volume One, Penguin Books Australia Limited, Victoria.

Chippendale, GM and Johnston, RD (1989) Eucalypts Volume Two, Penguin Books Australia Limited, Victoria.

Geolyse Pty Ltd (2011) Conservation Management Plan Euchareena Road Resource Recovery Centre for Orange City Council.

Harden GJ (Ed.) (1992) Flora of New South Wales. Volume 3. New South Wales University Press.

Harden GJ (Ed.) (1993) Flora of New South Wales. Volume 4. New South Wales University Press, Sydney.

Harden GJ (Ed.) (2000) Flora of New South Wales. Volume 1, Revised Edition. New South Wales University Press.

Harden GJ (Ed.) (2002) Flora of New South Wales Volume 2, Revised Edition. New South Wales University Press.

Lamp, C and Collet, F (1989) Field Guide to Weeds in Australia, Inkata Press, Melbourne.

Romanowski, N (1993) Grasses, bamboos and related plants in Australia, Lothian Pty Ltd, Melbourne.

Walker J & Hopkins MS (1990) 'Vegetation', in R.C. McDonald, R.F. Isbell, J.G. Speight, J. Walker & M.S. Hopkins, Australian soil and land survey Field handbook, 2nd edition, Melbourne, Inkata Press

Drawings

Plates


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE P1 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Plate 1: Looking north between Corner B and C of Plot R1 The vegetation structure remains restricted to taller groundcover with a high weed persistence including Scotch Thistle (Onopordum acanthium) and St Barnaby’s Thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Live and dead vegetation cover is 100%. The percentage of weed cover has increased up to 60%. Disturbance in this plot includes the compacted access track passing along the northern edge of the plot and regular access by kangaroos.

Plate 2: Looking north-east from Corner C of Plot R2 This open community is primarily dominated by spring-summer growing weed species enhanced by favourable growing seasons. Wild Oats, St Barnabys Thistle and Phalaris have each increased across the plot. Native groundcover species remain moderately diverse. Total vegetation cover is 100%. The percentage of weed cover is up to 25%.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE P2 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Plate 3: Looking north-east from Corner D of Plot C1 The vegetation structure comprises a woodland community with midstorey absent. Groundcover supports 100% vegetation cover (live; 20%). The dominant weed species remains Horehound with a lesser dominance by Prickly Lettuce. The site is regularly used by kangaroos as a camp and shelter area. Rehabilitation works involving physical removal of Horehound have been undertaken just north of this site.

Plate 4: Looking north-west from Corner D of Plot C2 The vegetation structure supports a canopy and groundcover. Midstorey is absent. Canopy species is Eucalyptus albens with foliage cover of 35%. The dominant groundcover species is dominated by St. Barnaby’s Thistle, Horehound, Saffron Thistle and areas of Tall Speargrass (Austrostipa bigeniculata). Total vegetation cover is 100% (live; 20%). Slight disturbance is present from kangaroos. Weed species occupy approximately 40% of groundcover.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE P3 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Plate 5: Looking east over 10 m sampling point of Transect F1 Localised compaction and grazing impact from kangaroos continues to impact on the more palatable groundcover species. Cover abundance remains high for *Marrubium vulgare with the prevalence of native grasses remaining but reduced by elevated populations of exotics.

Plate 6: Looking east over 20 m sampling point of Transect F1 This transect continues to be dominated by Horehound with the recent wet growing season, promoting this weed species along with Prickly Lettuce and Saffron Thistle. Kangaroos continue use the site as a camp amongst the Horehound.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE P4 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Plate 7: Looking east over 30m sampling point of Transect F1 High loadings of dead vegetative matter cover this point, partially inhibiting native groundcover diversity. Much of the litter loading consisted of winter and spring growth of exotic broadleaf and grasses.

Plate 8: Looking east over 40m sampling point of Transect F1 Horehound continues to diminish with a high litter loading left from winter grasses and broadleaf weeds. Litter groundcover has restricted growth and inhibited summer growth.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE P5 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Plate 9: Looking east over 50 m sampling point of Transect F1 Groundcover supports native species dominated by Horehound, however the proliferation of this species has reduced over the past year. Prickly Lettuce and exotic winter grasses have been promoted by the wet seasonal conditions prior to summer.

Plate 10: Looking east over 10 m sampling point of Transect F2 Moderately dense groundcover remains dominated by Phalaris aquatica and Rytidosperma richardsonii. Heightened loadings of dead vegetative matter are a result of wet winter and spring seasons.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE P6 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Plate 11: Looking east over 20 m sampling point of Transect F2 Dense dry vegetative mater is less dense in patches. Possibly influenced by kangaroo grazing. Native diversity remain similar in this location.

Plate 12: Looking east over 30m sampling point of Transect F2 Continued trampling associated with kangaroos have flattened a proportion of built-up vegetation.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE P7 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Plate 13: Looking east over 40m sampling point of Transect F2 Elevated populations of Saffron Thistle and Skeleton weed occur on this point this year. Wallaby grass and Red Leg Grass still remain with good coverage.

Plate 14: Looking east over 50 m sampling point of Transect F2 The vegetation cover 100% throughout transect F2 with no evidence of the graded road that once crossed the site. Moderate kangaroo activity is prevalent across the site. This activity will help break down the high winter vegetation loadings.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE P8 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Plate 15: Looking southwest over 10 m sampling point of Transect L1. This transect remains impacted by kangaroos following the boundary fenceline. Occasional trees have established beyond the height of interference by kangaroos, however surviving shrubs are still impacted.

Plate 16: Looking southwest over 20 m sampling point of Transect L1


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE P9 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Plate 17: Looking southwest over 30m sampling point of Transect L1.

Plate 18: Looking southwest over 40m sampling point of Transect L1.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE P10 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Plate 19: Looking southwest over 50 m sampling point of Transect L1

Plate 20: Looking west over 10 m sampling point of Transect B1. Tall plastic tree guards have been replaced with kangaroo/ stockproof mesh-type tree guards. Two rows of trees

have been planted along the length of the bund with a grid spacing of approximately 6 metres. Heavy

infestations of St. Barnabys Thistle.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE P11 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Plate 21: Looking west over L2 (Northern landscape plantings adjacent to northern perimeter fence). Planted approximately July 2015.

Plate 22: Facing east over the eastern end of L2 where the new tree-lot adjoins woodland associated with C2.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE P12 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Plate 23: Western side scar - 900 mm above ground surface. Blaze is approximately 1410 mm long and 150 mm at its widest part. No change to scar.

Plate 24: Eastern side scar - begins at ground surface and extends to 1650 mm. This scar widens at two places; the lower one is 150 mm wide and 340 mm deep. The upper scar

is 120 mm wide (at widest point) and averages 130 mm deep. Animal disturbance continues to

occur at the hollow base of the tree.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE P13 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Plate 25: Scarred Tree showing existing crown damage and fallen limb.

Appendix A REHABILITATION AND CONTROL PLOT

FIELD SHEETS


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE A1 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Date: 9/02/17 Plot No: R1 Elevation: 615m

Initials: DL

Easting & Northing of Plot Corners A to D (WGS 84)

A B C D

55678116 mE 55678116 mE 55678099 mE 55678097 mE

6340650 mN 6340634 mN 6340635 mN 6340651 mN

Photo point Description

Plate 1: Looking north between corner B and C of Plot R1

Crown cover: N/A

Foliage Cover (%) Canopy: 0 Midstorey: 0 Groundcover: >100 total (40 live)

Dominant plant species & height (m)

Wild Oats (Avena fatua): 1.20 St Barnabys Thistle: 0.60

Remaining species

Smooth-flower Wallaby Grass (Rytidosperma pilosum) Cranesbill (Geranium retrorsum) Barley Grass (Bothriochloa decipiens) Paspalum (Paspalidium aversum) Phalaris (Phalaris aquatica) Saffron Thistle* (Carthamus lanatus) Sowthistle*(Sonchus oleraceus) Ryegrass*(Lolium rigidum) Skeleton Weed* (Chondrilla juncea) St Barnabys Thistle* (Centaurea solstitialis) Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) Clover sp.* (Trifolium species) Fuzzweed* (Vittadinia cuneata) Scotch Thistle* (Onopordum acanthium) Horehound* (Marrubium vulgare) Prickly Lettuce (Lactuca serriola) Wild Oats (Avena fatua) Poa sp.

Weed cover (%) and dominant species

5 Scotch Thistle* 5 Saffron Thistle* 5 Phalaris* 25 St Barnabys Thistle*

Groundcover Type (%)

Bare Ground: 0 Vegetation Cover: > 100

Leaf Litter: <5 Logs: 0

Disturbance Type Fire: NA Grazing: Drought: Flood: NA

Kangaroos No

NA not applicable

* introduced species


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE A2 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Date: 9/02/17 Plot No: R2 Elevation: 606m Initials: DL


A B C D

55677948 mE 55677938 mE 55677922 mE 55677932 mE

6341451 mN 6341434 mN 6341438 mN 6341457 mN


Plate 2: Looking northeast from corner C of Plot R2

Crown cover: N/A

Foliage Cover (%) Canopy: 0 Midstorey: 0 Groundcover: 100 total (20 live)


Phalaris (Phalaris aquatica) 1.20

Remaining species

Hairy Wallaby Grass (Rytidosperma pilosum) Tall Speargrass (Austrostipa bigeniculata) Red Leg Grass (Bothriochloa decipiens) Pidgeon Grass*(Setaria parviflora) Soft Brome*(Bromus hordeaceus) Rye Grass* (Lolium rigidum) Flaxleaf Fleabane* (Erigeron bonariensis) Narrow-leaf Clover *(Trifolium angustifolium) Red Clover* (Trifolium pratense) Prickly Lettuce (Lactuca serriola) Climbing Saltbush (Einadia nutans) Solanum sp. Poa sp.


10 Saffron Thistle*(Carthamus lanatus) 10 Wild Oats*(Avena fatua) 5 Horehound* (Marrubium vulgare) 5 St Barnabys Thistle*(Centaurea solstitialis)


Bare Ground: 0 Vegetation Cover: 100 (80/20)

Leaf Litter: 0 Logs: 0

Disturbance Type Fire: Grazing: Drought: Flood:

N/A Kangaroo tracks and camps

NA not applicable



ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE A3 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Date: 9/02/17 Plot No: C1 Elevation: 597m

Initials: DL


A B C D

55677473 mE 55677487 mE 55677485 mE 55677467 mE

6341000 mN 6340997 mN 6340975 mN 6340978 mN


Plate 3: Looking northeast from Corner D of Plot C1

Crown cover: 45

Foliage Cover (%) Canopy: 25 Midstorey: 0 Groundcover: 100 (Live 20)


Blakely's Red Gum (Eucalyptus blakelyi). 20.0

*Prickly Lettuce (Lactuca serriola) 1.3m

Remaining species

Plains Grass (Austrostipa bigeniculata) Climbing Saltbush (Einadia nutans) subps nutans Soft Brome* (Bromus hordeaceus) Scotch Thistle *(Onopordum acanthium) Ryegrass* (Lolium rigidum) Barleygrass* (Hordeum leporinum) Tall Speargrass (Austrostipa bigeniculata.) Poa sp. Peppercress (Lepidium africanum) Phalaris (Phalaris aquatica) Tall Fleabane (Conyza sumatrensis) Wire Weed (Polygonum aviculare) St Barnaby’s Thistle* (Centaurea solstitialis)


25 Horehound* (Marrubium vulgare): 10 Prickly Lettuce* (Lactuca serriola)


Bare Ground: 0 Vegetation Cover: 90 (20 /50d)

Leaf Litter: 10 Logs: 10

Disturbance Type Fire:

Grazing: Kangaroo disturbance, Vehicular access,

Drought:

Flood:

NA not applicable * introduced species


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE A4 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

Date: 9/02/17 Plot No: C2 Elevation: 604m Initials: DL


A B C D

678121 mE 678128 mE 678147 mE 678138 mE

6341341 mN 6341358 mN 6341350 mN 6341335 mN


Plate 4: Looking northwest from Corner D of Plot C2

Crown cover: 35

Foliage Cover (%) Canopy: 20 Midstorey: 0 Groundcover: 100 (Live 20)


Eucalyptus albens:18 N/A

Tall Speargrass (Austrostipa bigeniculata) 0.7

Remaining species

Purple Wiregrass (Aristida ramosa) Cranesbill (Geranium retrorsum) Bluebell (Wahlenbergia luteola) Smooth Brome* (Bromus molliformis) Australian Brome (Bromus arenarius) (Rytidosperma pilosum) Wheatgrass (Elymus scaber) Variable Glycine (Glycine tabacina) Wattle Mat-rush (Lomandra filiformis subsp. filiformis) Phalaris (Phalaris aquatica) Nodding Club-rush (Isolepis cernua) Poa sp. Annual Ryegrass*(Lolium rigidum) Barleygrass* (Hordeum leporinum) Haresfoot Clover* (Trifolium arvense) Saffron Thistle* (Carthamus lanatus) Scotch Thistle* (Onopordum acanthium)


20 Horehound*( Marrubium vulgare) 15 St Barnaby’s Thistle* (Centaurea solstitialis) 5 Wild Oats (Avena fatua) 5 Prickly Lettuce (Lactuca serriola)


Bare Ground: 0 Vegetation Cover: 100 (80/20d)

Leaf Litter: <5 Logs: 5, Rocks: <5

Disturbance Type Fire: N/A Clearing: Yes*, Kangaroo activity

Drought: Dry Flood:

Clearing note*; Southern edge has boundary fence track. **; Crow and fox distributed rubbish on site NA not applicable


Appendix B REHABILITATION AND CONTROL

TRANSECT FIELD SHEETS


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE B1 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

208212 Euchareena Road Resource Recovery Centre 9 February 2017 FLORA MONITORING PROGRAM – 50m transect F1

Quadrat Sampling Point 10m 20m 30m 40m 50m

Easting 677469 677468 677469 677470 677469

Northing 6341034 6341024 6341011 6341004 6340997

Photo Point Number 5 6 7 8 9

Table B.1 – Flora Monitoring Program – Transect F1

FAMILY/Scientific Name Common Name Cover Abundance (CA) per 10m x 10m quadrant

10 20 30 40 50

ASTERACEAE

*Carthamus lanatus saffron thistle 1 1 2

*Chondrilla juncea skeleton weed 2

*Conyza albida tall fleabane 1

Euchiton sphaericus 1

Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce 1 2 1 1 2

*Onopordum acanthium scotch thistle 1 1

*Sonchus oleraceus common sowthistle 1

*Centaurea solstitalis St. Barnaby’s Thistle 1 1 1 1 1

*Vittadenia cuneata Fuzzweed 1

BRASSICACEAE

*Lepidium africanum common peppercress 1

CHENOPODIACEAE

Einadia nutans subsp nutans climbing saltbush 1 1 1 1

FABOIDEAE

Glycine tabacina 1

GERANIACEAE

Geranium retrorsum common cranesbill 1

LAMIACEAE

*Marrubium vulgare white horehound 3 3 2 1 2

MYRTACEAE

Eucalyptus albens white box stag

Tree+1 stag

POLYGONACEAE

Rumex brownii swamp dock 1

LOMANDRACEAE

Lomandra filiformis subsp. filiformis wattle mat-rush

1 1

POACEAE

*Lolium rigidum wimmera ryegrass 1 1(g) 1(g) 1(g)

*Hordeum leporinum barley grass 1 1


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE B2 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX



10 20 30 40 50

*Phalaris aquatica Phalaris 1

Austrostipa bigeniculata rare spear-grass 1

Austrostipa scabra rough spear-grass 1

Bothriochloa macra red-leg grass 1(g) 1 (g)

Bromus arenarius sand brome

Chloris truncata windmill grass 1(g) 1(g)

Elymus scaber wheatgrass 1(g)

Austrostipa scabra Corkscrew grass 1

Poa sieberiana 1(g)

C/A Cover Abundance (Modified Braun Blanquet) 1: <5% cover and few individuals 2: <5% cover and many individuals 3: 5-25% cover 4: 25% - 50% 5: 50% - 75% 6: 75% - 100% *Introduced species (g); heavily grazed


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE B3 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

9 February 2017 FLORA MONITORING PROGRAM – 50m transect F2


Easting 677967 677963 677961 677953 677949

Northing 6341489 6341479 6341470 6341461 6341451




10 20 30 40 50

ASTERACEAE

*Carthamus lanatus saffron thistle 1 1 2 2 1

*Chondrilla juncea skeleton weed 1 2 2 2 2

*Hypericum perforatum st john’s wort 1

*Vittadenia cuneata Fuzzweed 1 1

*Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce 1 1 1 1 1

*Taraxacum officinale dandelion 1

CHENOPODIACEAE

Einadia nutans subsp nutans climbing saltbush 1

OXALIDACEAE

Oxalis perennans 1

POACEAE

*Lolium rigidum wimmera ryegrass 1 1 1 1

Rytidosperma caespitosa common wallaby grass 1 1 1 1

Rytidosperma fulvum wallaby grass 1 1 1

Rytidosperma pilosum velvet wallaby-grass 1 1

Rytidosperma richardsonii straw wallaby grass 1 1 2 2

Austrostipa bigeniculata rare spear-grass 1

Austrostipa nodosa 1 1

*Avena fatua wild oats 1 1 1 1

Bothriochloa macra red-leg grass 2 2 2 2 2

Bromus diandrus great brome

*Bromus hordeaceus soft brome 1

*Phalaris aquatica phalaris 3 2 1 1 2

*Paspalum dilatatum paspalum 1 1

*Dactylis glomerulata cocksfoot 1

*Eleusine tristachya crabgrass 1 1

Elymus scaber wheatgrass 1 1 1 1

Panicum effusum hairy panic 1 1 1

*Setaria parviflora marsh bristlegrass 1

C/A Cover Abundance (Modified Braun Blanquet) 1: <5% cover and few individuals 2: <5% cover and many individuals 3: 5-25% cover 4: 25% - 50% 5: 50% - 75% 6: 75% - 100% *Introduced species

Appendix C LANDSCAPE AND REHABILITATION

TRANSECT FIELD SHEETS


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE C1 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

9 February 2017 FLORA MONITORING PROGRAM – 50m transect L1


Easting 678401 678394 678390 678382 678380

Northing 6340590 6340584 6340575 6340567 6340558


Table C.3 - Flora Monitoring Program – Transect L1

10m 20m 30m 40m 50m

Total alive plantings 3 4 4 0 1

Total No plantings 28 23 28 28 24

Success Rate (%) 10 13 14 0 4

Initial row spacing (metres) <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Initial tree spacing (metres) <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Weed species *Phalaris aquatica Bromus hordeaceus *Carthamus lanatus *Sonchus oleraceus *Hordeum leporinum *Lolium rigidum *Medicago polymorpha *Setaria parviflora *Chondrilla juncea

Weed species Cover Abundance 4 3 2 2 2

9 February 2017 FLORA MONITORING PROGRAM – 50m transect L2


Easting 677921 677908 677899 677885 677870

Northing 6341410 6341413 6341414 6341416 6341417

Table C.4 - Flora Monitoring Program – Transect L2

10m 20m 30m 40m 50m



Success Rate (%) 20 31 22 14 21

Initial row spacing (metres) 5 5 5 5 5

Initial tree spacing (metres) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

Weed species *Phalaris aquatica *Carthamus lanatus *Hordeum leporinum *Lolium rigidum *Setaria parviflora *Chondrilla juncea


Comments Percentage of success has risen in the case of the 30m section. This is due to apparently dead or broken tubestock (2016) recovering from coppic growth and redeveloping. Kangaroos continue to interfere with tree guards. Tall grass has lessened the effects of wind disturbance.


ORANGE CITY COUNCIL

PAGE C2 208212_REP_001B_2017.DOCX

9 February 2017 FLORA MONITORING PROGRAM – 50m transect B1


Easting 678032 678022 678004 679001 678991

Northing 6341519 6341524 6341526 6341524 6341527

Photo Point Number 20 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Table C.5 - Flora Monitoring Program – Transect B1

10m 20m 30m 40m 50m



Success Rate (%) 50% 25% 100% 100% 50%

Initial row spacing (metres) 6 6 7 6 6

Initial tree spacing (metres) 5 6 6 6 6

Weed species *Lactuca serriola *Phalaris aquatica *Centaurea calcitrapa *Avena fatua * *Chondrilla juncea


Comments Caged trees in stock/kangaroo- proof fencing have been protected well from interference by animals. Notably very high densities of thistles may be discouraging animals as well. Several young trees showing extended signs of water stress. Rows would benefit greatly by slashing lines along edge of tree lots to allow sunlight and air around young tubestock.

Appendix D OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT AND

HERITAGE MONITORING REPORT

Appendix D MONITORING REPORT 2017 Description of work undertaken Source of funding and amount Date completed

Flora and Aboriginal Heritage Monitoring Program of the Euchareena Road Resource Recovery Centre Orange City Council

2016/176 financial year; Activity Total: $4,386.25

Ongoing. (Annual monitoring program)

FIRE HISTORY Date of fire Area burnt

(% of c.a./approx ha) Reason (hazard red./wild)

Intensity (low/medium/high)

History not identifiable. No fire history from past 10 years.

VISITATION Average No. of Visitors per year Purpose of Visitation Visitation effects Strategies to overcome effects

Visitation to rehabilitation site restricted to monitoring, management staff, maintenance personnel and neighbouring landholders.

Equipment repair and installation, Scheduled water and flora monitoring, Dust monitoring, land management, stock management

L access is restricted to existing tracks. Low impact on existing vegetation and communities.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION AND INPUT INTO DECISION MAKING Type of Involvement Numbers involved Outcomes No community involvement in the past year

PHOTO-MONITORING Vegetation

Community Current condition Benchmark comparison, changes or trends (evidence of natural

regeneration) Threats/issues

Monitoring point 1 Plot R1 Flora Monitoring Point

Derived Grassland, prior pasture

Poor Total removal of grazing since inception of the Resource Recovery Centre. Access tracks are lightly used and remain well vegetated (>80% cover). No slashing of perimeter track/ fire protection boundaries has been undertaken in last 12 months. High winter-spring rainfall events have promoted elevated agricultural weed species growth. Grass tussocks and tufts remain well established, however rank spring-growth vegetation inhibits some groundcover species. Areas of dense thistle infestation.

Overgrazing if grazing management is reintroduced to grassland areas. Poorly timed/ managed spraying/ slashing events.

Monitoring point 2 Plot R2 Flora Monitoring Point

Derived Grassland, prior cropping and pastureland. Future revegetation area.

Poor Total removal of grazing since inception of the Resource Recovery Centre. Prior graded access tracks are not visible. No slashing of perimeter tracks and access to C2 piezometer has occurred within the last 12 months. High winter-spring rainfall events have promoted elevated agricultural weed species growth. Patches of agricultural weed species (including exotic grasses and thistles), have been promoted by the wetter spring growing season. This growth has partially suppressed the establishment of less robust ground cover species. Kangaroos have been partially restricted from this area (closed gates) in the past 12 months. Native ground vegetation diversity is slightly less compared to last year survey results. The adjacent tree lot area (along the northern perimeter fence) was planted in July 2015. Early losses and damage to tree guards affected establishment rates. Damp spring conditions allowed for moderate to good growth rates, however extended dry summer periods are impacting on weaker and smaller trees and shrubs. Isolated acacia species are also beginning to emerge from the tall grass level throughout this area. It is likely that these acacia species are a result of direct seeding works undertaken in 2012.

Overgrazing if grazing management is reintroduced to grassland areas. Poorly managed spraying/ slashing. Hot/ wild-fire impact. Impact on future revegetation areas by heightened populations of grey kangaroo on recruitment of native species. Impacts on future revegetation areas through low maintenance of establishing trees and shrubs. (i.e.; watering young trees during dry-stress periods, clearing dense grass/ thistle from tree lots during establishment phase. Poor grazing management and grazing of unfenced tree lots. Loss of young trees by fire.

Monitoring point 3 Plot C1 Flora Monitoring Point

Open box woodland remnant

Moderate Total removal of grazing since inception of the Resource Recovery Centre. Partial infestation by robust agricultural weeds. (i.e. Marrubium vulgare). Infestation by Marrubium vulgare is not spreading and becoming more clumped with low recruitment of the species. High winter-spring rainfall events have promoted elevated agricultural weed species growth. Patches of agricultural weed species (including exotic grasses and thistles), have been promoted by the wetter spring growing season. Slow establishment of native grass species with kangaroos using the area for regular camping and dust-bowls. Trial hand removal of Horehound has been carried out on areas immediately north of C1.

Wild-fire impact. Timber collection Poor grazing management leading to impact upon recruitment and spread of weed species. Impact by increased populations of grey kangaroo on successful recruitment of native species and further establishment of weed species.

Vegetation Community

Current condition Benchmark comparison, changes or trends (evidence of natural regeneration)

Threats/issues

Monitoring point 4 Plot C2 Flora Monitoring Point

Open box woodland (Internode between derived grassland and woodland)

Poor to Moderate Total removal of grazing since inception of the Resource Recovery Centre. Infestation by Horehound and St Barnaby’s Thistle is not spreading, however wet spring conditions have promoted much more dense stands of these species that recorded previously. Growth of Prickly Lettuce and Wild Oats have also been promoted by favourable growing conditions. Continued natural recruitment and establishment of young eucalypts in the immediate area of Dust Monitoring Point 4. Plastic bags within tree-tops were present at the time of the survey. It appears that these may have been transported by whirly winds rather than birds.

Wild-fire impact. Timber collection Poor grazing management leading to impact upon recruitment and spread of weed species). Impact by increased populations of grey kangaroo on successful recruitment of native species.

Monitoring points 5 to 9 Transect F1

Open box woodland remnant

Moderate Total removal of grazing since inception of the Resource Recovery Centre. Continued (but slightly lessened) infestation by robust agricultural weeds. (I.e. Marrubium vulgare on old stock camps amongst trees). Grassy understorey impacted by populations of Kangaroos using the area for camps and shelter. Tussock formation reduced due to browsing by kangaroo population. Lessened understorey diversity potentially associated with heightened litter loading of old winter/ spring growth.

Wild-fire impact. Illegal timber collection Defoliation by scarab beetle Poor grazing management leading to impact upon recruitment and spread of weed species). Impact by increased populations of grey kangaroo on recruitment of native species and possible spread of weed species.

Monitoring Points 10 to 14 Transect F2

Derived Grassland, prior cropping and pastureland. Future revegetation area.

Poor Total removal of grazing since inception of the Resource Recovery Centre. Original access tracks are no longer visible. Slashing of perimeter tracks and access to C2 piezometer has not occurred in last 12 months. Agricultural weed species and thistles have had high density growth this last year in response to wet seasonal conditions. Diversity has been slightly suppressed by high density winter and spring growth. Moderate traffic and grazing by kangaroos across flats have partially broken down rank stands of pasture species.

Overgrazing if grazing management is reintroduced to grassland areas. Poorly managed spraying/ slashing events. Hot/ wild-fire impact. Impact on future revegetation areas by increased populations of grey kangaroo on recruitment of native species.

Monitoring Points 15 to 19 Transect L1

Derived Grassland, prior cropping and pastureland. Revegetation area.

Poor Total removal of stock grazing since inception of the Resource Recovery Centre. Slight reduction in diversity of agricultural weed species. Heightened emergence of thistle species this year. Few surviving young trees beginning to emerge from grassy dominated groundcover and some trees establishing beyond reach of Kangaroo interference. Interference to the smaller trees and shrubs by Kangaroos continues.

Poor grazing management and grazing of unfenced tree lots. Damage to young native tree lot by kangaroos Loss of young trees by fire.

Vegetation Community

Current condition Benchmark comparison, changes or trends (evidence of natural regeneration)

Threats/issues

Monitoring Point 20 Transect B1

Derived grassland. Perimeter Bund Revegetation area.

Poor Total removal of grazing since inception of the Resource Recovery Centre. Area initially subject to complete vegetation removal and landscaping. Seedling tubestock planted and guards in place late winter 2016. Subject site vegetated by very tall and dense thistle species and robust grass species. Young trees partially out-competed by dense stands of thistles along bund.

Competition impact by weed species on young tubestock. Poor grazing management leading to impact upon recruitment and spread of weed species). Impacts on future revegetation areas through low maintenance of establishing trees and shrubs. (i.e. watering young trees during dry-stress periods, clearing dense grass/ thistle from tree lots during establishment phase.

Monitoring Point 21 Transect L2

Derived Grassland, prior cropping and pastureland. Revegetation area.

Poor Total removal of grazing since inception of the Resource Recovery Centre. Native ground vegetation diversity is slightly less compared to last year’s survey results. The adjacent tree lot area (along the northern perimeter fence) was planted in July 2015. Early losses and damage to tree guards affected establishment rates. Damp spring conditions allowed for moderate to good growth rates, however extended dry summer periods are impacting on weaker and smaller trees and shrubs. Isolated acacia species are also beginning to emerge from the tall grass level throughout this area. It is likely that these acacia species are a result of direct seeding works undertaken in 2012.

Competition impact by weed species on young tubestock. Poor grazing management leading to impact upon recruitment and spread of weed species). Impacts on future revegetation areas through low maintenance of establishing trees and shrubs. (i.e. watering young trees during dry-stress periods, clearing dense grass/ thistle from tree lots during establishment phase.

Monitoring Point 21 Aboriginal Scarred Tree

N/A – Scarred Tree

Moderate Upper limb loss in December 2016. Diggings at base of the tree by foxes, echidna and kangaroo continues. No detrimental damage to site.

Dimensions and physical attributes of tree and scar recorded annually. Fire threat, potential for heavy stock damage (Cattle), insect attack, storm damage, undermining by rabbits, foxes, kangaroos.

CONSERVATION VALUES Conservation Values noted in Agreement

and its significance Current condition

Current and emerging threats Level (severe, high, moderate or low) and extent (throughout, widespread, scattered or localised) of threats

New findings; any other relevant information.

Native vegetation

Box woodland and derived Grassland Mainly Poor to Moderate. Some areas; moderate

Grazing management, Weed ingression, Dieback, Declining regeneration. Kangaroo populations increasing beyond locally sustainable number.

Low to moderate threat. Scattered to Localised

Local population of Kangaroos now appears stabilised at a sustainable level however this population maybe suppressing natural recruitment. Wetter than average year has promoted weed growth across partially disturbed zones, subsequently replenishing weed seed banks.

EECs White Box, Yellow Box, Blakely’s Red Gum EEC

Mainly Poor/ Moderate. Some areas; moderate

Wild-fire, Grazing management, poor recruitment and revegetation. Kangaroo populations increasing beyond locally sustainable number.

Low threat, Scattered to localised Natural recruitment of trees are beginning to emerge from groundcover stratum in areas typically dominated by native grass-cover.

Threatened fauna Brown Tree-creeper, Koala, Eastern Bentwing Bat, Superb Parrot, Grey Headed Flying Fox.

Moderate Loss of hollows due to storm events and tree die-back. Competition for nesting and foraging resources by pest species.

Low to Moderate threat. Widespread

Superb Parrots regularly recorded on site. Resident and transient population. Birds observed nesting on site (Nov 2016). Brown Tree Creeper observed within eastern woodland area October –November 2016.

Threatened flora None listed in Agreement Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Scarred Tree Moderate Wild-fire, Dieback Low threat Localised

Aboriginal Heritage Information System; Molong ST1, Site ID 44-1-0080

Research/ education

None listed

Other

MANAGEMENT ISSUES Describe the Issue

(short description of current extent of impacts, new sightings and any other relevant information

Description of planning and implementation of control measures being and to be undertaken, and duration

Weeds (where applicable, infestation can be given as a % of total vegetation).

Agriculturally associated weed infestation across all flora monitoring sites has increased in areas of prior disturbances. It is likely that this increase is in response to a wet winter and spring season of 2016. Woodland areas where weed populations were slowly declining, contained increased population this last survey period. Increases in weed diversity were inconsequential. Noxious weed species are monitored and controlled and have not been observed increasing in the last survey period.

Managed grazing or shock grazing (short heavy grazing episode) may be introduced late winter or early spring 2017, preferably by cattle instead of sheep due to the increased weed spread potential by sheep. Weed control on access roads, tracks and firebreaks outside the ERRRC compound need to be addressed to minimise weed spread by vehicles. Slashed access tracks need to be maintained to reduce the vehicular spread of weeds and to minimise fire-risk while accessing piezos and dust gauges. Identification of any new weeds within or at edge of compound. Management of same. Continued monitoring of problem weed areas, especially post-grazing applications.

Pest Animals - Feral - Domestic - Native

Feral: Resident rabbit populations are low on site with no new warrens or refuges identified. Continued activity exists on the rocky hill adjacent to the scarred tree site. Fox populations are generally reflective of prey/ food availability on site. Foxes observed to have occasional access to food waste and rubbish. Access holes to fenced compound are well used. Kangaroo populations have remained stable in the last survey period with a decrease throughout the late summer period. Limited access to water by the western kangaroo mob does not seem to effect movement or resident population numbers.

Rabbit populations (post-winter 2017) should be monitored and any warrens destroyed. Fox / cat numbers should be monitored and any increased activity within the ERRRC compound addressed. Access holes under the compound fence should be regularly located and repaired. The rate of population increase has dropped from population counts in 2014. Kangaroo numbers should be monitored during spring and summer 2017. Kangaroos observed to be caught within the fenced compound should be allowed to escape through opened perimeter fence gateways.

Natural regeneration The high rainfall events through winter and spring have contributed to a high vegetative biomass occurring on the study plots. This biomass may suppress the emergence or native species in the upcoming growing seasons. A higher establishment of exotic pasture-related groundcover species has slowed emergence of native grassland species across the site. Tussocks and native species grass tufts continue to develop and continue to establish in areas adjacent to existing woodlands. Natural recruitment is occurring throughout woodland communities with young saplings becoming evident above grass height. Isolated young saplings are often subject to damage by kangaroos. Scattered acacia saplings are now emerging above grass height on areas which were broad-seeded to natives in 2012.

Planned grazing management regime should be considered 2017. Unfenced tree-lots and natural recruitment are likely to be susceptible to damage by stock.

Describe the Issue (short description of current extent of impacts, new sightings and any other relevant information

Description of planning and implementation of control measures being and to be undertaken, and duration

Fire Management Vegetation loadings (veg-biomass) across the broad open regeneration areas has increased in the last year. Intermittent movement by kangaroos has assisted in breaking down dense, rank dead vegetation matter. Tracks and compound perimeter fence road remains overgrown.

Implement and maintain a system of firebreaks around the enclosure and perimeter of the site. Do not let access perimeter roads and tracks to become overgrown with weed species. Trampling of tall grasses across the open grassy areas of the site by managed grazing regime (late winter-early spring) may assist in reducing wild-fire risk by summer.

Revegetation Continuing natural recruitment by eucalypts is occurring on site, particularly on the open fringes of woodland remnants. Poor establishment success within the existing tree-lots have been caused by a range of factors including poor planting conditions, low management and maintenance during the initial establishment period, impact by Kangaroos, weed infestation/ competition and seasonal conditions.

Future plantings to be planned and managed so that monitoring/ maintenance during establishment period is allocated. Response time to issues effecting survival needs to be rapid (e.g. Watering before extreme dry stress of young trees sets in). Kangaroo impact on any future unfenced tree-lots is expected to continue.

Threatened species; endangered ecological communities etc

Lack of ongoing and updated recording response of fauna to rehabilitation and remnant management areas.

Any sightings of threatened species should be recorded. Broad-community reference photo-points should be established so that a record of factors such as recruitment, die-back, storm damage etc, can be collated. Identification of any good-quality areas of native vegetation where regeneration and recruitment are occurring well. Such areas can be added to the monitoring program and used as a benchmark for rehabilitation sites.

Cultural Heritage Management

Potential degradation or damage to scar tree. Annual measurement, summary and photographic record of the scar tree is recorded.

Visitor Impact Management

Not applicable to revegetation areas. Access tracks and roads used for management and monitoring purposes outside of compound areas.

Slash or spray weeds and overgrowth on access perimeter tracks.

Community Consultation and input into decision making.

Research/ Education programs

Other issues - Litter - Vehicle access

Crows continue to remove small food scraps and litter from the landfill and carry it to the nearby woodlands. Whirly winds and strong gusty weather lift plastic bags from the loose rubbish are and deposit litter outside of the compound fenceline. Access tracks remain overgrown with Saffron Thistle and other tall weeds.

Slash or grade perimeter tracks/ firebreak. Plan for track maintenance for spring/ summer period 2017 to prevent the spread of weeds by vehicles and lessen fire risk potential.

WORKPLAN TO ADDRESS MANAGEMENT ISSUES (in priority order) Action to be completed or ongoing action (discuss on site and where necessary confirm details later)

Cost and possible funding sources

Completion Date

Responsibility

Revegetation (refer Conservation Management Plan)

ongoing OCC

Weed Control ongoing OCC

Pest Species Control ongoing OCC

annual review orange waste project · 2018-07-18 · annual review orange waste project 1 july 2016...

Documents