quarterly environment report › ... › 2016 › 01 › 2015-quarter-3.pdf · this quarterly...

1

Quarter 3: 2015

Environment and Community

Terramin Australia Ltd

July-September: 2015

Quarterly Environment Report

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This quarterly Environment Report (QER) for the Angas Zinc Mine (AZM) summarises the results of the

environmental monitoring program between July and September 2015, as required as part of the Mine’s

Program for Environmental Protection and Rehabilitation (PEPR).

Terramin Australia Ltd ceased mining operations at AZM on September 30th

, 2013, with the site placed into a

Care and Maintenance phase.

This QER reflects the environmental monitoring requirements outlined in the Mine Care and Maintenance Plan

(MCMP), which has been approved by the Department for State Development (DSD) on the 23rd

March 2015.

The Tailings Storage Facility surface area remains at approximately 11,000m2, with the RL of the TSF decant

pond at 68.23m, as of the 28th

September(Appendix I).

The water level in monitoring bore DH2 was at 25.95m below the surface (measured from the bore collar) on

the 28th

September and underground in the mine void has reached the entrance to the mine as planned,

submerging any potential PAF material in the decline, drives and stopes. The AZM mine void groundwater

model has been updated by Australian Groundwater Technologies and was provided to DSD with the updated

2014 Compliance Report, and the SCCC and wider public in the preceding Quarterly Environment Report (April

– June 2015).

Throughout the quarter, weed control has continued as part of the weed and pest management plan. A weed

and pest survey was undertaken in July and has been included in Appendix L.

Senior DSD Mining Regulators Antonia Scrase (Principal Officer of Mine Closure), Kyle Rice (Senior

Environmental Project Manager) and the Director of Mining Greg Marshall visited site on the 23rd

of

September and conducted a quarterly compliance visit.

DSD, Terramin and the SCCC continued to work on the Terms of Reference throughout the quarter, as well as

finalise the appointment of a new chairperson, Mr Kelvin Trimper.

Cover photo: Caterpillars on a Eucalypt on the western side of the TSF

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 2

Background ............................................................................................................................................................. 5

1. Mining and Mine Void Acid and Metalliferous Drainage ............................................................................... 5

2. Surface Water .............................................................................................................................................. 10

3. Groundwater ................................................................................................................................................ 12

4. Noise ............................................................................................................................................................ 13

5. Public Health and Nuisance ......................................................................................................................... 13

Dust Deposition Gauges ................................................................................................................................... 13

High Volume Sampler ....................................................................................................................................... 16

6. Waste Disposal and Hazardous Substances ................................................................................................. 17

7. TSF Water / Acid Mine Drainage .................................................................................................................. 17

TSF Decant Pond .............................................................................................................................................. 17

TSF Seepage Drain Flows .................................................................................................................................. 17

TSF Surface Area ............................................................................................................................................... 18

TSF Groundwater Monitoring Bores ................................................................................................................ 18

TSF PAF testwork results .................................................................................................................................. 19

8. Weeds and Pests .......................................................................................................................................... 19

9. Community Engagement ............................................................................................................................. 19

Strathalbyn Community Consultation Committee (SCCC) ............................................................................... 19

Complaints Register ......................................................................................................................................... 20

10. Additional Information ............................................................................................................................ 20

11. Summary.................................................................................................................................................. 21

12. References ............................................................................................................................................... 21

13. Appendix A – Angas Zinc Mine – Filled and unfilled voids ...................................................................... 22

14. Appendix B – Water Monitoring Locations ............................................................................................. 23

15. Appendix C – Surface Water Monitoring Data ........................................................................................ 24

16. Appendix D – Groundwater Monitoring Data ......................................................................................... 25

Groundwater Quality Raw Data ....................................................................................................................... 29

4

17. Appendix E – Groundwater Standing Water Levels ................................................................................. 30

18. Appendix F – Dust Monitoring Locations ................................................................................................ 31

19. Appendix G – Dust Leading Indicator Data – Dust Deposition Gauges ................................................... 32

Total Insoluble Matter ...................................................................................................................................... 32

Offsite Lead Measurements ............................................................................................................................. 33

Onsite Lead Measurements ............................................................................................................................. 33

20. Appendix H - Dust Leading Indicator Data – HiVol .................................................................................. 35

Total SolId Particulate Measurements ............................................................................................................. 35

PM10 measurements ....................................................................................................................................... 36

Lead measurements ......................................................................................................................................... 37

21. Appendix I – TSF ...................................................................................................................................... 38

Decant Pond RL Over Time ............................................................................................................................... 38

Seepage Drain Flows ........................................................................................................................................ 39

22. Appendix J – TSF Monitoring Bores ......................................................................................................... 40

23. Appendix K – TSF Seepage Drains ............................................................................................................ 44

24. Appendix L – Weed and Pest Survey 2015 .............................................................................................. 45

5

BACKGROUND

This is the third QER for 2015 and represents the period from July to September 2015 (Quarter 3). This report

is prepared for the Strathalbyn Community Consultative Committee, the Department for State Development

and the Terramin Board of Directors. This document is a reports on Terramin’s status against the measurable

criteria outlined in the recently approved Mine Care and Maintenance Plan (23rd

March 2015) submitted as an

addendum to the PEPR in July 2014.

1. MINING AND MINE VOID ACID AND METALLIFEROUS DRAINAGE

Production ceased at the Angas Zinc Mine (AZM) on the 30th

of September 2013. As part of the ongoing Acid

and Metalliferous Drainage management strategy the mine void has been allowed to refill with ground water

seep. In order to speed up the process of filling the void and mitigate potential oxidisation, additional water,

sourced from onsite bores has been pumped into the mine void at approximately 4 L/s. During this time the

water has been monitored for level and pH. The water level was at the 46.6m RL/51.8m AHD, with a measured

pH of 5.9 on the 22nd

September 2015 (Figure 2).

Water was detected in the monitoring bore DH2 in June 2014. This bore is utilised to monitor the mine void

cone of depression recovery, as well as monitor any occurrence of Acid and Metalliferous Drainage (AMD)

related to the mine void. A year on, DH2 had a standing water level of 25.95 m, measured from the bore collar,

on the 28th

of September (Figure 3).

As a result of the winter rains and stormwater caught onsite, the water level of the mine void has risen to

approximately 51.8m AHD and now can be seen at the portal entrance. Monitoring water levels of bores near

the mine void, DH2, DH3 and the Pastefill line (which targets the 140m RL decline void) continues. Figure 1

shows the location of DH2, DH3, LG2 and the Pastefill line which is also being monitored to assist with

updating the required groundwater/mine void recovery model. DH2, DH3 and the Pastefill 140 line will

continue to be sampled to determine if any AMD is occurring in the mine void. On September 2, 2015

Terramin were able to obtain a purged sample from DH2, which, when analysed by a NATA accredited

laboratory, revealed a pH of 7.27 and a sulphate concentration of 2650mg/L. Prior to mining, between 2006

and 2008, the sulphate concentrations of bores (AWE1, LG1, LG2, RG7 and RG8) near the ore bodies ranged

between 1400- 3900 mg/L, hence the results to date support a view that mitigation of AMD has been

successful. The laboratory results have been reviewed by Australian Groundwater Technology and

demonstrate that the contaminants are below the conservative modelled values (e.g. ͌7,500 mg/L for sulphate

within the first 100 days) for the mine void recharge model.

Overall, the results continue to demonstrate that groundwater reintroduction into the mine void has been

successful in mitigating the potential effects of AMD to date. Mine void recharge water level against recorded

pH has been included in Figure 2. Monitoring will continue throughout the Care and Maintenance phase, as

well as the Closure phase.

All groundwater modelling reports, including the most recent mine void recharge model recalibration, have

been submitted to DSD for review as part of the Care and Maintenance and Closure Plan requirements, and

the resubmitted AZM Annual Compliance Report.

Frequent groundwater monitoring of the mine void and nearby bores confirms a cone of depression remains,

Bore DH3 is ͌1.7m metre higher than the water level at the portal. A conceptual schematic of the standing

water level surrounding the mine void is shown in Figure 3. This aligns with the requirements outlined in

Australian Groundwater Technologies Groundwater Closure Plan (Appendix A, Care and Maintenance Plan).

6

Figure 1 Location of DH2, DH3, the 140 RL Pastefill line and the mine drives

7

Figure 2 Mine void level and pH

200

180 170

130

102 89 88 85

75 72 71 65

46.62

6.95

6.44

7.1

6.58 6.66 6.47

7.78 8.23

6.2

6.71 6.74

6.13

6.71 6.52

7.43

5.9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

90

50

100

150

200

250

pH

RL

Mine Void level v pH

RL pH

8

Figure 3 Mine portal, void, pastefill 140 line and DH3 cross section (diagrams conceptual only, not to scale, aerial picture from 2009)

9

Figure 4 Plume migration - Oxidisation of mine void walls, Source SO4 conc. = 5500 mg/L

10

2. SURFACE WATER

Quarter 3 surface water testing was undertaken at the Angas River, upstream at Croser and Downstream at

Hogben (Appendix B). The t-test indicates whether the samples are significantly different from each other (that

is, the p-value is lower than the t-value, which results in a rejected hypothesis that there is an impact), the

results from this test indicate variation of mean values of the samples taken at Croser (downstream) compared

to the upstream sample area at Hogben. Metals which recorded results under detectable limits included

arsenic, cadmium and selenium, as well as total phosphorus. As there is no mining activity and no water flows

from operating areas on site, it would be prudent to recognise that these results indicate the natural variation

in the Angas river.

Quarter 3 surface water monitoring results revealed no significant difference between the two sites.

Stormwater runoff was monitored over the quarter, with no opportunity to obtain any samples. Over the

quarter, Strathalbyn received 108.8mm of precipitation, while the average rainfall for the same period

obtained for the Bureau of Statistics is 177.3mm. There were no single events recording over 15mm of rainfall

over a 24 hour period. No rain events through the quarter generated water leaving site through the three

observation sites. Resultantly, Burnside Creek did not receive any overflow from the STEDS area, and thus

turbidity monitoring was not required at the Angas River.

Water was observed entering the main AZM driveway drains on the 12th

August 2015, but not at a deep

enough flow to gain a useful sample.

11

Table 1: Surface water assay results and t-test values

Site Units

Croser 1

Croser 2

Croser 3

Mean Croser

Hogben 1

Hogben 2

Hogben 3

Mean Hogben p-value t-value

pH pH 7.92 7.94 7.95 7.94 7.84 7.74 7.72 7.77 0.07 4.30

EC-L us/cm 3100 3050 3020 3057 3110 3100 3110 3107 0.16 4.30

TDS-180 mg/L 1630 1630 1660 1640 1660 1640 1690 1663 0.07 4.30

Turbidity NTU 4 3.6 3.1 3.6 32.8 120 5.1 52.6 0.29 4.30

SO4-D mg/L 78 82 80 80 81 79 81 80 0.87 4.30

As-T mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Under detectable limits

Cd-T mg/L 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 Under detectable limits

Cu-T mg/L 0.002 0.015 0.001 0.006 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.42 4.30

Pb-T mg/L 0.005 0.008 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.20 4.30

Zn-T mg/L 0.048 0.145 0.01 0.068 0.012 0.025 0.007 0.015 0.27 4.30

Mn-T mg/L 0.019 0.012 0.02 0.017 0.031 0.02 0.022 0.024 0.13 4.30

Se-T mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Under detectable limits

Fe-T mg/L 0.42 0.22 0.25 0.30 0.42 0.32 0.3 0.35 0.23 4.30

NOX-N mg/L 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.11 0.42 4.30

TKN-N mg/L 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.42 4.30

N-T mg/L 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.42 4.30

P-T mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Under detectable limits

____ Under detection limits

12

3. GROUNDWATER

The environmental monitoring plan outlined in the Care and Maintenance Plan for Angas Zinc Mine requires,

where access is possible, quarterly monitoring of RG1, RG2, RG3, RG4 and RG8. The weekly water level

monitoring of DH2 for three months after water has been detected in the well has been completed, however,

regular monitoring of DH2, DH3 and the 140 RL Pastefill line has continued throughout the quarter.

Measurements undertaken in July for the quarter demonstrate a continuity of the patterns of most

parameters from previous quarters in RG1, RG4 and RG8, and are all significantly within leading indicator limits

and thus also PEPR compliance limits. RG5 and RG6 remain void of water.

All water levels remained within PEPR criteria and below the leading indicator levels. RG1, RG4 and RG8 did

not exceed the drawdown beyond a one-metre band of 2006 levels, which is shown in Figure 5 below. Land

access was not available for RG2 and RG3.

Since water was detected in DH2 in June 2014, the standing water level has risen in line with the mine void and

presently stands 25.95 m below surface, measured from the bore collar, on the 28th

of September (Figure 3).

The recently recalibrated groundwater model for the mine void recharge has been discussed above, in section

1: Mining and Mine Void Acid and Metalliferous Drainage.

As mentioned in section 1, the full suite of results has been reviewed by Australian Groundwater Technologies

to update the mine void groundwater model, and was submitted to DSD for review as part of the Care and

Maintenance and Closure Plan requirements, and the resubmitted AZM Annual Compliance Report.

Figure 5 Standing Water Levels

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Jan

-13

Feb

-13

Mar

-13

Ap

r-1

3

May

-13

Jun

-13

Jul-

13

Oct

-13

Jan

-1

4

Ap

ril-

14

Au

g-1

4

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Mar

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

met

res

bel

ow

gro

un

d le

vel

Standing Water Levels

RG1 RG1 PEPR criteria RG4 RG4 PEPR Criteria RG8 RG8 PEPR Criteria

13

4. NOISE

As outlined in the Care and Maintenance addendum to the PEPR (approved March 2015), noise monitoring has

ceased through the Care and Maintenance phase. There were no noise related complaints received

throughout the quarter.

5. PUBLIC HEALTH AND NUISANCE

Terramin installed a new High Volume Sampler (HVS) at the beginning of September 2014. The HVS measures

lead, TSP and PM10 levels over a 24 hour period every three days. In addition to the HVS, twelve Dust

Deposition Gauges (DDGs) remain installed both onsite and offsite and sampled monthly for Total Insoluble

Matter (TIM) and lead. Locations of all dust monitors can be seen in Appendix F. All leading indicators and

compliance limits remain as per the PEPR requirements.

DUST DEPOSITION GAUGES

Total Insoluble Matter remained under the NSW best practice guidelines of 4g/m2/month (leading indicator

criteria) for all gauges for the quarter, with the exception of DDG2 in September, and DDG12 in July and

August. DDG2 is located to the north-east of the ML in the adjoining landfill facility and as previously

identified, DDG12 is located in an agricultural field and routinely experiences higher dust levels due to

agricultural activities. As there were no mining activities undertaken throughout quarter 3, this dust deposition

has likely emanated from regional agricultural activities and not related to site.

Both off and on-site lead deposition gauges continued to be below the leading indicator limits at all DDGs

(Appendix G), with the exception of DDG3 in July. A slight increase can be observed in the majority of gauges,

as can be expected with the dryer weather. DDG3 is located offsite, to the west of the ML, adjacent to an

agricultural field and STEDS ponds. It frequently experiences higher dust levels, due to the agricultural

activities undertaken next to it. The soil contamination baseline study undertaken by Tonkin in 2005 showed

elevated metal levels at 23 sampling points of 58 in the region. Upon analysis of the report’s lead occurrences

map, frequent instances of elevated lead levels can be observed, north of the STEDS pond area, which is north-

east of DDG3, as can be seen in Figure 6. A more thorough metals analysis of the regional soil was undertaken

by Terramin geologists in 2009, with similar results obtained, shown by purple and red symbols, when

compared to 2005 levels (Figure 7).

As lead levels have remained at typical levels recorded throughout care and maintenance at all other DDGs

and with no mining, surface loading or crushing and processing activities occurring on ML6229 throughout the

quarter, it is unlikely the deposition at DDG3 is linked to AZM activities. As agricultural activities have been

undertaken in the fields to the north of the gauge throughout the quarter, it is possible the lead content found

in the dust is linked to these activities.

Supporting this hypothesis is the analysis of the average wind speed and direction from the onsite weather

station for the ML for July. Wind direction was most commonly observed as travelling in a south-south-

westerly direction for July, on average between 213 and 235 degrees, while wind speeds were on average

between 12 and 29km/hr for the month. Resultantly, lead dust is unlikely to have emanated from the TSF, as

there were no unusual instances of lead over the quarter observed at onsite DDGs 8, 6, 4, 5, 7 or 9, or

recorded by the high volume sampler.

14

Figure 6 Results of baseline soil investigation undertaken by Tonkin in 2005

15

Figure 7 Results of soil investigation undertaken by Terramin in 2009

16

HIGH VOLUME SAMPLER

Throughout the quarter there has been no instance of particulate lead, PM10 or TSP levels above the PEPR

criteria (Appendix H).

17

6. WASTE DISPOSAL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

There was no waste removed from site throughout the quarter.

7. TSF WATER / ACID MINE DRAINAGE

TSF DECANT POND

The Reduced Level (RL) of the TSF decant pond was 68.23 m RL on the 30th

of September, details in Appendix I.

As the tailings dam has filled with tailings over time, the water level (RL) has ceased to be a relevant measure

of compliance. Terramin will focus on maintaining the TSF decant surface area below 15,000m2.

In 2012, the criteria was confirmed by DSD that “RL will be measured until the 15,000m2 area is reached and

from then, all monitoring will be based on water surface area”.

The criteria is described as below:

Reduced Level (RL) indicators on the external wall (Stair side) of the TSF decant chute is read monthly to

ensure that the TSF maintains adequate capacity to manage a 1:1000 year storm event. The TSF is

managed to ensure the following decant pond RL (m) are not exceeded if the surface area is less than

15,000m2:

74.8 as of Dec 2012

74.8 as of June 2013

74.7 as of Dec 2013


74.5 as of Dec 2014


Thus, the TSF decant pond RL of 68.23m remains within compliance limits.

TSF SEEPAGE DRAIN FLOWS

The seepage drain flows in the TSF have remained significantly lower when compared to the mine being

operational. This pattern can be expected to continue while AZM remains in Care and Maintenance and the

TSF water volumes are low. Figure 8 presents the seepage drain flows through the Care and Maintenance

phase to date, significantly lower than throughout the operational phase (Appendix I). The highest seepage

flow rate for the quarter was approximately 2.3L/min, observed in August 2015, while drains 3, 4 and 5

continue to have no flow.

18

Figure 8 Seepage drain flows through Care and Maintenance

TSF SURFACE AREA

Visual estimation of the TSF surface area was undertaken on the 30th

September with use of set sight lines and

is calculated to be approximately 11,000m2. The surface area of the TSF decant pond remains below the

compliance limit of 15,000m2. The surface area has increased throughout the winter period due to rainfall,

however, is expected to decrease as the seasons move through to spring and summer. The surveyed TSF plan

has been included in Appendix M.

TSF GROUNDWATER MONITORING BORES

TSF bores were sampled and analysed monthly through quarter 3.

All parameters were within ranges typically recorded since operations began and remain significantly within

Leading Indicator limits.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

10

/10

/13

10

/11

/13

10

/12

/13

10

/01

/14

10

/02

/14

10

/03

/14

10

/04

/14

10

/05

/14

10

/06

/14

10

/07

/14

10

/08

/14

10

/09

/14

10

/10

/14

10

/11

/14

10

/12

/14

10

/01

/15

10

/02

/15

10

/03

/15

10

/04

/15

10

/05

/15

10

/06

/15

10

/07

/15

10

/08

/15

10

/09

/15

Drain 1 Drain 2 Drain 3 Drain 4 Drain 5 Total Flow (L/min)

19

TSF PAF TESTWORK RESULTS

The acid testwork on the tailings dam surface advised by O’Kane Consultants (Review of Terramin’s AZM

MCMP, 2013) was undertaken on the 19th

June 2015. The methodology requires a 2:1 paste to be made from

the tailings with either distilled water (pH(field)) or hydrogen peroxide (pH(fox)) and a pH reading taken after

any reactions have taken place. Specifically, the procedure provides:

A core of tailings material to be taken from settled tailings;

Samples required from the top 100mm and bottom 700mm of the core;

Any rainfall in the days prior to sampling to be recorded;

Monitor the locations every quarter for the first year post operations and every six months

thereafter;

Provide all data in a spreadsheet to DSD upon completion of each monitoring round.

The testwork is covered by an Occupational Health and Safety risk assessment and an approved Job Hazard

Analysis is in place to ensure sampling is conducted safely. Only locations which can safely be accessed are

included in each monitoring round.

O’Kane advised quarterly testwork for the initial 12 months, and on the basis of the results have now revised

the testwork regularity to be completed biannually, thus no PAF testwork was undertaken this quarter. The

testwork will be undertaken again in December 2015.

8. WEEDS AND PESTS

A weed and pest survey was undertaken in July and demonstrated an overall continued decrease in the

occurrence of declared weeds onsite. The report has been included in Appendix L.

Fuel load reduction works continued to be undertaken to reduce the risk of bushfire during summer. Weed

spraying has been undertaken as weather conditions permit, as well as slashing and brush-cutting where

required.

9. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

STRATHALBYN COMMUNITY CONSULTATION COMMITTEE (SCCC)

Terms of Reference

Terramin have continued to work with the SCCC and the DSD to tailor and finalise the Terms of Reference for

the SCCC. This was completed at a workshop at Angas Zinc Mine in September with the agreed sub-committee,

Terramin Chief Executive Officer Martin Janes, DSD Director of Mining Regulation Greg Marshall and SCCC

members Anne Woolford and Mike Farrier. The Terms of Reference have been finalised and approved by the

SCCC. A copy can be found on Terramin’s website at: http://www.terramin.com.au/community/angas-zinc-

mine-community/.

Chairperson

The same committee have met on numerous occasions over the quarter to finalise a new chairperson for the

SCCC. We are pleased to welcome Kelvin Trimper to the position. Kelvin has been involved in developing and

implementing some of South Australia’s most complex community development projects, which have required

building relationships between both local and state governments and the private sector. The sub-committee is

http://www.terramin.com.au/community/angas-zinc-mine-community/

http://www.terramin.com.au/community/angas-zinc-mine-community/

20

confident that Kelvin has the skills, experience and knowledge to chair the SCCC and look forward to his

involvement in the coming years.

COMPLAINTS REGISTER

There were no complaints received through Terramin’s hotline or lodged with the Environmental and

Community Superintendent throughout Q3 of 2015.

10. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The Environment and Geology teams at Terramin have been hosting an Environmental Policy and

Management student from the University of Adelaide and five geology students from TAFE SA over the

preceding quarter.

Environment and Community Superintendent Matt Daniel with University of Adelaide student Dylan Edwards sampling soils in the

Boxcut at AZM

Dylan Edwards from the University of Adelaide has been competing his final year studies on the long-term

erodibility of the soils located in the Boxcut at AZM, which will form part of the fill once the Boxcut has been

re-contoured in the rehabilitation phase pre-closure. This work was requested as part of the DSD’s feedback

presented on the Mine Closure Plan (MCP) submitted in December 2014. Dylan has almost finished his time

with us and we wish him well in the future.

Terramin continue to work on the Mine Closure Plan, specifically to address the feedback received in May

2015 from the DSD and DEWNR. A second workshop with government regulators, their consultants, Terramin

and Terramin’s consultants to review the Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) risk assessment was undertaken

21

in October 2015. The original FMEA workshop was undertaken in June 2012. This second workshop addressed

the outstanding issues in the Closure Plan, and re-risked identified hazards against the work Terramin has

completed in the preceding three years.

11. SUMMARY

Angas Zinc Mine continued to be maintained through the Care and Maintenance period:

The process plant, including crusher, mill and floatation areas, received regular maintenance;

Hillgrove staff remained onsite 1-2 days per week to load lime;

Onsite water management of the TSF and mine void continued;

Onsite surveying of weeds, visual amenity, seed collection;

The continuation of the Environmental Monitoring Plan;

Terramin continue to work with the DSD to progress the Mine Closure Plan in line with the most recent FMEA

workshop, towards its next submission.

12. REFERENCES

AECOM. Dust Deposition Limit Determination: PEPR Compliance Report. Adelaide, Australia. September 2012.

ATC Williams. Tailings Storage Facility Angas Zinc Mine, Operation and Maintenance Manual: Version 2.

Melbourne, Australia. May 2010.

Australian Groundwater Technologies. Groundwater Model Recalibration for the Angas Zinc Mine Closure and

Completion Plan. Adelaide, South Australia. May 2015.

22

13. APPENDIX A – ANGAS ZINC MINE – FILLED AND UNFILLED VOIDS

23

14. APPENDIX B – WATER MONITORING LOCATIONS

DH3

24

15. APPENDIX C – SURFACE WATER MONITORING DATA

Site Units

Croser 1

Croser 2

Croser 3

Mean Croser

Hogben 1

Hogben 2

Hogben 3

Mean Hogben p-value t-value

pH pH 7.92 7.94 7.95 7.94 7.84 7.74 7.72 7.77 0.065595493 4.30265273

EC-L us/cm 3100 3050 3020 3057 3110 3100 3110 3107 0.162781642 4.30265273

TDS-180 mg/L 1630 1630 1660 1640 1660 1640 1690 1663 0.07282735 4.30265273

Turbidity NTU 4 3.6 3.1 3.6 32.8 120 5.1 52.6 0.291350474 4.30265273

SO4-D mg/L 78 82 80 80 81 79 81 80 0.867546764 4.30265273

As-T mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Under detectable limits

Cd-T mg/L 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 Under detectable limits

Cu-T mg/L 0.002 0.015 0.001 0.006 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.422649731 4.30265273

Pb-T mg/L 0.005 0.008 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.199359231 4.30265273

Zn-T mg/L 0.048 0.145 0.01 0.068 0.012 0.025 0.007 0.015 0.267483306 4.30265273

Mn-T mg/L 0.019 0.012 0.02 0.017 0.031 0.02 0.022 0.024 0.127643256 4.30265273

Se-T mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Under detectable limits

Fe-T mg/L 0.42 0.22 0.25 0.30 0.42 0.32 0.3 0.35 0.225403331 4.30265273

NOX-N mg/L 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.11 0.422649731 4.30265273

TKN-N mg/L 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.422649731 4.30265273

N-T mg/L 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.422649731 4.30265273

P-T mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Under detectable limits

____ Under detection limits

25

16. APPENDIX D – GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00Ja

n-1

4

Feb

-14

Mar

-14

Ap

r-1

4

May

-14

Jun

-14

Jul-

14

Au

g-1

4

Sep

-14

Oct

-14

No

v-1

4

Dec

-14

Jan

-15

Feb

-15

Mar

-15

Ap

r-1

5

May

-15

Jun

-15

Jul-

15

pH

RG1 RG4 RG8 PEPR Criteria Leading indicator

pH

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Au

g-1

4

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

EC (

us/

cm)

EC

RG1 RG4 RG8 PEPR Criteria Leading Indicator

26

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Au

g-1

4

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Arsenic


As

(m

g/L)

0.0000

0.0020

0.0040

0.0060

0.0080

0.0100

0.0120

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Au

g-1

4

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Cadmium


Cd

(m

g/L)

27

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Jan

-14

Feb

-14

Mar

-14

Ap

r-1

4

May

-14

Jun

-14

Jul-

14

Au

g-1

4

Sep

-14

Oct

-14

No

v-1

4

De

c-1

4

Jan

-15

Feb

-15

Mar

-15

Ap

r-1

5

May

-15

Jun

-15

Jul-

15

Pb

(m

g/L)

Lead


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

Jan

-14

Feb

-14

Mar

-14

Ap

r-1

4

May

-14

Jun

-14

Jul-

14

Au

g-1

4

Sep

-14

Oct

-14

No

v-1

4

De

c-1

4

Jan

-15

Feb

-15

Mar

-15

Ap

r-1

5

May

-15

Jun

-15

Jul-

15

Zinc

RG1 RG4 RG8 PEPR Criteria Leading indictor

Zin

c (m

g/L)

28

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Au

g-1

4

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Se (

mg/

L)

Se

RG1 RG4 RG8 Leading Indicator PEPR Criteria

0

50

100

150

200

250

Jan

-14

Ap

r-1

4

Au

g-1

4

Oct

-14

Jan

-15

Ap

r-1

5

Jul-

15

Iron


Fe (

mg/

L)

29

GROUNDWATER QUALITY RAW DATA

Date Criteria Leading

Indicator

Jul-15

Site Units RG1 RG4 RG8

pH pH 8.70 8.15 7.43 7.45 7.17

EC-L uS/cm 68500 53670 12100 11100 32100

TDS mg/L 25000 24843 6430 6070 19300

As-T mg/L 0.090 0.038 0.002 0.002 0.005

Cd-T mg/L 0.0100 0.004 0.0001 0.0002 0.0004

Pb-T mg/L 0.820 0.262 0.006 0.002 0.046

Zn-T mg/L 4.400 1.704 0.018 0.005 0.248

Se-T mg/L 0.130 0.088 0.03 0.03 0.01

Fe-T mg/L 232.00 69.02 3.1 0.05 59.9

30

17. APPENDIX E – GROUNDWATER STANDING WATER LEVELS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Oct-13 Jan -14 April-14 Aug-14 Oct-14 Jan-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 Jul-15

met

res

bel

ow

gro

un

d le

vel

Standing Water Levels

RG1 RG1 PEPR criteria RG4 RG4 PEPR Criteria RG8 RG8 PEPR Criteria

31

18. APPENDIX F – DUST MONITORING LOCATIONS

32

19. APPENDIX G – DUST LEADING INDICATOR DATA – DUST DEPOSITION GAUGES

TOTAL INSOLUBLE MATTER

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

7 5 4 2 8 1 6 9 11 3 12 10

g/m

2.m

on

th

Gauge number

Total Insoluable Matter

Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 *Leading Indictor

33

OFFSITE LEAD MEASUREMENTS

ONSITE LEAD MEASUREMENTS

0

50

100

150

200

250

Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15

Lead

de

po

siti

on

(m

g/kg

)

Offsite Lead Measurements

Leading Indicator 2 3 10 11 12

34

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15

Lead

de

po

siti

on

(m

g/kg

Onsite Lead Measurements

Leading Indicator 1 4 5 6 7 8 9

35

20. APPENDIX H - DUST LEADING INDICATOR DATA – HIVOL

TOTAL SOLID PARTICULATE MEASUREMENTS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

6/0

1/2

01

5

13

/01

/20

15

20

/01

/20

15

27

/01

/20

15

3/0

2/2

01

5

10

/02

/20

15

17

/02

/20

15

24

/02

/20

15

3/0

3/2

01

5

10

/03

/20

15

17

/03

/20

15

24

/03

/20

15

31

/03

/20

15

7/0

4/2

01

5

14

/04

/20

15

21

/04

/20

15

28

/04

/20

15

5/0

5/2

01

5

12

/05

/20

15

19

/05

/20

15

26

/05

/20

15

2/0

6/2

01

5

9/0

6/2

01

5

16

/06

/20

15

23

/06

/20

15

30

/06

/20

15

7/0

7/2

01

5

14

/07

/20

15

21

/07

/20

15

28

/07

/20

15

4/0

8/2

01

5

11

/08

/20

15

18

/08

/20

15

25

/08

/20

15

1/0

9/2

01

5

8/0

9/2

01

5

15

/09

/20

15

22

/09

/20

15

Total Solid Particulates (Hi-Vol)

PEPR Criteria Northern Unit

36

PM10 MEASUREMENTS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1/3

/20

15

1/1

0/2

015

1/1

6/2

015

1/2

2/2

015

1/2

8/2

015

2/3

/20

15

2/9

/20

15

2/1

5/2

015

2/2

4/2

015

3/2

/20

15

3/5

/20

15

3/1

1/2

015

3/1

7/2

015

3/2

3/2

015

3/2

9/2

015

4/4

/20

15

4/1

0/2

015

4/1

6/2

015

4/2

2/2

015

4/2

8/2

015

5/4

/20

15

5/1

0/2

015

5/1

6/2

015

5/2

2/2

015

5/2

8/2

015

6/3

/20

15

6/9

/20

15

6/1

5/2

015

6/2

1/2

015

6/2

7/2

015

7/3

/20

15

7/9

/20

15

7/1

5/2

015

7/2

1/2

015

7/2

7/2

015

8/2

/20

15

8/8

/20

15

8/1

4/2

015

8/2

0/2

015

8/2

6/2

015

9/1

/20

15

9/7

/20

15

9/1

3/2

015

9/1

9/2

015

9/2

5/2

015

10

/1/2

015

PM

10 (

ug

/m3)

PM10(Hi-Vol)

PEPR Criteria Pm10 ug/m3

37

LEAD MEASUREMENTS

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

3/0

1/2

01

5

10

/01

/20

15

17

/01

/20

15

24

/01

/20

15

31

/01

/20

15

7/0

2/2

01

5

14

/02

/20

15

21

/02

/20

15

28

/02

/20

15

7/0

3/2

01

5

14

/03

/20

15

21

/03

/20

15

28

/03

/20

15

4/0

4/2

01

5

11

/04

/20

15

18

/04

/20

15

25

/04

/20

15

2/0

5/2

01

5

9/0

5/2

01

5

16

/05

/20

15

23

/05

/20

15

30

/05

/20

15

6/0

6/2

01

5

13

/06

/20

15

20

/06

/20

15

27

/06

/20

15

4/0

7/2

01

5

11

/07

/20

15

18

/07

/20

15

25

/07

/20

15

1/0

8/2

01

5

8/0

8/2

01

5

15

/08

/20

15

22

/08

/20

15

29

/08

/20

15

5/0

9/2

01

5

12

/09

/20

15

19

/09

/20

15

26

/09

/20

15

Lead

de

po

siti

on

(u

g/m

3)

Lead (Hi-Vol)

EPA Early Indicator Report Limit PEPR criteria Northern Unit

38

21. APPENDIX I – TSF

DECANT POND RL OVER TIME

66.00

67.00

68.00

69.00

70.00

71.00

72.00

73.00

74.00

75.00

76.00

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

3/0

2/2

010

3/0

3/2

010

3/0

4/2

010

3/0

5/2

010

3/0

6/2

010

3/0

7/2

010

3/0

8/2

010

3/0

9/2

010

3/1

0/2

010

3/1

1/2

010

3/1

2/2

010

3/0

1/2

011

3/0

2/2

011

3/0

3/2

011

3/0

4/2

011

3/0

5/2

011

3/0

6/2

011

3/0

7/2

011

3/0

8/2

011

3/0

9/2

011

3/1

0/2

011

3/1

1/2

011

3/1

2/2

011

3/0

1/2

012

3/0

2/2

012

3/0

3/2

012

3/0

4/2

012

3/0

5/2

012

3/0

6/2

012

3/0

7/2

012

3/0

8/2

012

3/0

9/2

012

3/1

0/2

012

3/1

1/2

012

3/1

2/2

012

3/0

1/2

013

3/0

2/2

013

3/0

3/2

013

3/0

4/2

013

3/0

5/2

013

3/0

6/2

013

3/0

7/2

013

3/0

8/2

013

3/0

9/2

013

3/1

0/2

013

3/1

1/2

013

3/1

2/2

013

3/0

1/2

014

3/0

2/2

014

3/0

3/2

014

3/0

4/2

014

3/0

5/2

014

3/0

6/2

014

3/0

7/2

014

3/0

8/2

014

3/0

9/2

014

3/1

0/2

014

3/1

1/2

014

3/1

2/2

014

3/0

1/2

015

3/0

2/2

015

3/0

3/2

015

3/0

4/2

015

3/0

5/2

015

3/0

6/2

015

3/0

7/2

015

3/0

8/2

015

3/0

9/2

015

RL

(m)

Rain

fall (

mm

)

Angas Mine Rainfall Records

Rainfall Actual Water level RL(m) Spillway RL (m) Target RL

39

SEEPAGE DRAIN FLOWS

0

5

10

15

20

25

05

/09

/08

05

/11

/08

05

/01

/09

05

/03

/09

05

/05

/09

05

/07

/09

05

/09

/09

05

/11

/09

05

/01

/10

05

/03

/10

05

/05

/10

05

/07

/10

05

/09

/10

05

/11

/10

05

/01

/11

05

/03

/11

05

/05

/11

05

/07

/11

05

/09

/11

05

/11

/11

05

/01

/12

05

/03

/12

05

/05

/12

05

/07

/12

05

/09

/12

05

/11

/12

05

/01

/13

05

/03

/13

05

/05

/13

05

/07

/13

05

/09

/13

05

/11

/13

05

/01

/14

05

/03

/14

05

/05

/14

05

/07

/14

05

/09

/14

05

/11

/14

05

/01

/15

05

/03

/15

05

/05

/15

05

/07

/15

05

/09

/15

Drain 1 Drain 2 Drain 3 Drain 4 Drain 5 Total Flow (L/min)

40

22. APPENDIX J – TSF MONITORING BORES

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5Ja

n-1

5

Feb

-15

Mar

-15

Ap

r-1

5

May

-15

Jun

-15

Jul-

15

Au

g-1

5

Sep

-15

pH

pH

TSFA TSFB TSFD Leading indicator Leading indicator

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Jan

-15

Feb

-15

Mar

-15

Ap

r-1

5

May

-15

Jun

-15

Jul-

15

Au

g-1

5

Sep

-15

EC (

uS/

cm)

EC

TSFA TSFB TSFD Leading Indicator

41

TSF B has recorded cadmium under detection limits since January 2010

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

Jan

-15

Feb

-15

Mar

-15

Ap

r-1

5

May

-15

Jun

-15

Jul-

15

Au

g-1

5

Sep

-15

As

(mg/

L)

Arsenic

TSFA TSFB TSFD Leading Indicator

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

Jan

-15

Feb

-15

Mar

-15

Ap

r-1

5

May

-15

Jun

-15

Jul-

15

Au

g-1

5

Sep

-15

Cd

(m

g/L)

Cadmium

TSFA TSFB TSF D Leading Indicator

42

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Jan

-15

Feb

-15

Mar

-15

Ap

r-1

5

May

-15

Jun

-15

Jul-

15

Au

g-1

5

Sep

-15

Pb

(m

g/L)

Lead

TSFA Pb TSFB TSF D Leading Indicator

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Jan

-15

Feb

-15

Mar

-15

Ap

r-1

5

May

-15

Jun

-15

Jul-

15

Au

g-1

5

Sep

-15

Zinc

TSFA TSFB TSF D Leading Indicator

Zn (

mg/

L)

43

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Jan

-15

Feb

-15

Mar

-15

Ap

r-1

5

May

-15

Jun

-15

Jul-

15

Au

g-1

5

Sep

-15

Mn

(m

g/L)

Manganese

TSFA TSFB TSFC TSFD

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Jan

-15

Feb

-15

Mar

-15

Ap

r-1

5

May

-15

Jun

-15

Jul-

15

Au

g-1

5

Sep

-15

Fe (

mg/

L)

Iron

TSFB TSFD Leading Indicator TSFA

44

23. APPENDIX K – TSF SEEPAGE DRAINS

45

24. APPENDIX L – WEED AND PEST SURVEY 2015

TERRAMINAUSTRALIALIMITED

AngasZincMineWeedandPestSurvey

July 2015

Angas Zinc Mine Weed and Pest Survey July 2015

1

1 Introduction

The 2015 approved Care and Maintenance Plan requires an annual winter weed and pest survey, to

demonstrate that the site continues to decrease in weeds and pests from previous surveys

conducted in the same season. This survey was conducted by Terramin environmental staff in July

2015, with the results in the report compared to the survey undertaken in the July 2014 winter

survey.

Upon review of the 2014 winter weed and pest survey, it was noted that general environmental

weeds, which are not declared under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA) were

treated as declared weeds in the 2014 report. Strictly speaking this is incorrect and subsequently

resulted in an unusually high percentage of declared weeds versus non‐declared plants and bare

ground/litter in the report. The graphs in this report have been updated in order to rectify this error

and reflect the extent of weeds present onsite. In January of 2015, the Department of Environment,

Water and Natural Resources updated the “declared weeds” status to include 24 new species, and

alter the status of a further 22 species previous declared, including Onion Weed, which is now not

listed in the Act as requiring action. Onion Weed was listed up until 2015 and was included in the

2014 survey as declared.

2 Methodology

Seven step‐point monitoring transects have previously been established within the mining lease

(Appendix 1). GPS co‐ordinates and location descriptions for each site are documented in Table 1.

Step‐point monitoring allows the comparison of relative abundance of weeds and native plants as

well as pest activity over time within each transect area. Repeating step point transects annually

using the same locations and the same number of steps per transect allows direct, simple

comparisons of weed abundance over time to be made. Photo monitoring also allows comparison of

vegetation changes over time (Photos 1‐14).

The step‐point monitoring procedure is as follows;

1. Photo documentation of start point of transect

2. Step out entire transect proceeding in the direction of the end point, doing the same

number of steps as was done the previous year

3. At completion of each right stride, record the species underfoot (declared weed, introduced

plant or native)

4. Pest activity around each area can be observed and noted. Observations can include shells,

droppings, burrows etc.

Table 1: Location and GPS co‐ordinates of step‐point transects

Transect Number

Location Description GPS Co‐ordinates

Start Point End Point

1 Western Paddock 0310427,6096588 South‐west


2

2 STEDS wetland 310639,6097353 310443,6097305

3 Visitors viewing area 310589, 6097165 310774, 6097244

4 North west of exploration house 310334,6096563 310341, 6096702

5 Front entrance 310412, 6097083 310301, 6097013

6 South of the Magazine, along fence line 311220, 6096477 310991,6096454

7 Eastern paddock 311219,6096493 311392,6096513

Weeds are defined as any plant that is declared under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004

(SA) in South Australia. Natives and introduced plants are described as ‘other plants’ in this report. It

is acknowledged that some ‘other plants’ includes agricultural species (e.g. a grain crop plant) or an

introduced plant that is not a declared weed but is potentially a nuisance to biodiversity.


3

3 Discussion and Results

Photo documentation of each transect and graphical representations of the survey results have been

included below (photos 1‐14 and figures 1‐7 respectively). To compare against last year’s results, the

number of declared weeds, other plants, bare ground and litter was recorded at each transect and

divided by the number of steps taken to derive a comparable percentage. These results are then

summarised below in each transect section. A summary of the weed and pest survey is located in

Section 4.

3.1 Transect 1

Transect 1 is located in the northern half of the Western SEB area (Appendix A).

The trend in the increasing abundance of non‐declared plants has continued from 2014 into 2015,

with an increase from 68% to 92%. There has been a substantial increase in grass covering the site,

from 5% to 44%, while the proportion of sow thistles (Sonchus oleraceus) has remained constant

( ͌36%). Significantly, there was no sightings of Black Nightshade (Salanum nigrum) or Horehound

(Marrubium vulgare) within the transect, when compared to 2014. Notably, the occurrence of bare

ground has decreased dramatically over the last 24 months, from 89% to 8%, which is likely to

contribute to healthy nutrient cycling. Throughout the year, there have been observances of

kangaroos in the western SEB area.

Photo 1: Transect 1 – Western Paddock 2014 Photo 2: Transect 1 – Western Paddock 2015


4

Figure 1: Comparisons of transect 1 results between winter surveys of 2014 and 2015

3.2 Transect 2

Transect 2 located in the STEDS wetland continued to have no declared weeds present throughout

the transect. The most significant change in the transect has been the decrease in bare ground, from

47% to 5%, and the emergence of native Saltbush Atriplex sp on the transect. The native wetland

species, Marsh Club‐rush (Bolboschoenus caldwellii) continues to thrive in the area. Rabbit faeces

were also observed along the transect.

Photo 3: Transect 2 –STEDS wetland 2014 Photo 4: Transect 2 – STEDS wetland 2015

30 8

68

92

2 0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

jul‐14 jul‐15

Bare/litter Non‐declared plants Declared weeds


5

Figure 2: Comparisons of transect 2 (wetlands) results between winter surveys of 2014 and 2015

47 5

53

95

0 0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

jul‐14 jul‐15



6

3.3 Transect 3

Transect 3 is located on the eastern side of the entrance, alongside the Visitor’s Viewing area.

Horehound has continued at a steady rate, and as a result of this, will become a focus of weed

spraying in the area in the coming 12 months. There were no occurrences of the declared Skeleton

Weed Chondrilla juncea observed. The continuing trend of decreasing bare ground which has been

seen in the majority of areas continued on transect 3, with a higher percentage of annual and

perennial grasses present. Snails were also observed often along the transect.

Photo 5: Transect 3 – Visitor viewing 2014 Photo 6: Transect 3 – Visitor viewing 2015

59 27

13

44

28 29

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

jul‐14 jul‐15



7

Figure 3: Comparisons of transect 3 (visitor viewing area) results between winter surveys of 2014

and 2015

3.4 Transect 4

Transect 4 is located to the north‐west of the AZM exploration and core shed areas. Transect 4 has

shown a steady decrease in declared weeds over the preceding 24 months, from covering 9% of the

transect to 2%. There has been approximately a 33% decrease in observed occurrences of bare

ground. The occurrences of non‐declared plants has increased steadily, largely due to an increase in

annual and perennial grasses, and a significant decrease in the occurrence of marshmallow and non‐

declared thistles.

Photo 7: Transect 4 – Exploration 2014 Photo 8: Transect 4 – Exploration 2015

Figure 4: Comparisons of transect 4 (exploration shed area) results between winter surveys of

2014 and 2015

3.5 Transect 5

Transect 5 is located to the east of the front entrance.

There has been a significant decrease in declared weeds along transect 5, with the focus of

horehound eradication being successful over the preceding 12 months. Transect 5 has seen a

marked increase in the occurrence of bare ground, largely as a result of weed spraying to eradicate

32 19

59

79

9

2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

jul‐14 jul‐15



8

horehound in the area. The occurrence and size of native trees has increased since 2014, resulting in

a 7% increase along the transect. In 2014, Transect 5 was completed with 86 steps, however in July

2015, it was decided that rather than cease the survey, a 90° turn would be taken south.

Photo 9: Transect 5 ‐ Front entrance 2014 Photo 10: Transect 5 – Front entrance 2015

Figure 5: Comparisons of transect 5 (front entrance) results between winter surveys of 2014 and

2015

3.6 Transect 6

Transect 6 is located along the south east boundary, to the south of the TSF.

The focus of the preceding 12 months in the area surrounding transect 6 has been the eradication of

Skeleton Weed, with the occurrence of individual plants decreasing from 14 to 1 from 2014 to 2015.

11 39

51

60

24

1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

jul‐14 jul‐15



9

There has been a noticeable increase in littered ground along the transect as a result of weed

spraying concentrated on the removal of Skeleton Weed in the area. No evidence of hare, rabbit or

fox populations was observed along the fence line or on the TSF wall, however, ants and their nests

and snails were prevalent.

Photo 11: Transect 6 – Magazine 2014 Photo 12: Transect 6 – Magazine 2015

Figure 6: Comparisons of transect 6 (Magazine) results between winter surveys of 2014 and 2015

5 2481

75

14

1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

jul‐14 jul‐15



10

3.7 Transect 7

Transect 7 is located outside the ML, to the south‐west of the eastern SEB area.

Transect 7 has seen a steady trend of soursob inhabit the area, between 36% and 38% between

2014 and 2015, however there has been a decrease in declared weeds, with no occurrences of

Capeweed or Skeleton Weed in the area. The dominance of bare ground has subsided, to the benefit

of annual and perennial grasses, and native Saltbush Atriplex sp.

There is significant evidence of snail populations along Transect 7.

Photo 13: Transect 7 – Eastern Paddock 2014 Photo 14: Transect 7 – Eastern Paddock 2015

Figure 7: Comparisons of transect 7 (eastern paddock) results between winter surveys of 20134

and 2015

41 14

58

86

1 0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

jul‐14 jul‐15



11

4 Summary

2015 saw an overall reduction in the occurrences of declared weeds onsite, with no declared weeds

along transects 1, 2 and 7. A slight increase of 1% was observed along transect 3, while transects 4, 5

and 6 recorded significant decreases in declared weeds. The majority of sites have recorded a

decrease in available bare ground, and the two instances of increasing bare ground are a direct

result of focussed weed spraying programs focussing on Horehound and Skeleton Weed. Snails

continue to be observed along many of the transects, while instances of rabbit faeces and scratching

have reduced in comparison to 2014.

The focus of the weed spraying programme for the upcoming 12 months will be largely focussed on

eradicating the Horehound which was observed in Transect 3 and continuing to eradicate any

occurrences of Horehound, Skeleton Weed, Boneseed and Salvation Jade that is known to occur.

The continuation of the annual Visual Amenity photographs in the Significant Environmental Benefit

areas, as well as the front entrance has shown growth in native vegetation, and a reduction in the

available bare ground, as a result of increased annual and perennial grasses.

5 References

Moore G, Sanford P & Wiley T (2006) Perennial pastures for Western Australia, Department of

Agriculture and Food Western Australia, Bulletin 4690, Perth.

Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA)

Appendix 1: Step Point Transect Locations


12

Appendix 2: Declared Plants Identified in the July 2014 Monitoring


13

Species name Common name

Transects locations July 2015

Marrubium vulgare Horehound 3, 4

Chondrilla juncea Skeleton Weed 5

Appendix 3: Percentage of individual Declared Weed Plants within Transects

Item

Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3 Transect 4 Transect 5 Transect 6 Transect 7

jul‐14 jul‐15 jul‐14 jul‐15 jul‐14 jul‐15 jul‐14 jul‐15 jul‐14 jul‐15 jul‐14 jul‐15 jul‐14 jul‐15

Steps recorded 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 86 100 100 100 100 100

Non‐declared plants 68 92 53 95 13 44 59 79 51 60 81 76 58 86

Declared weeds 2 0 0 0 28 29 9 2 24 1 14 0 1 0

Bare/litter 30 8 47 5 59 27 32 19 11 39 5 24 41 14

% Declared weed per transect 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28.0% 29.0% 9.0% 2.0% 27.9% 1.0% 14.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0%

quarterly environment report › ... › 2016 › 01 › 2015-quarter-3.pdf · this quarterly...

Documents