MINING PR OPOSAL f or the - der.wa.gov.au

M

Pr

MININKi

(M59

Prepared for s

NG PRirkalockMine

(

9/232, M59

Prepared by:ubmission to

7 M

ROPOka Golde ExpanVersion 2

9/233, M59

: Mount Mago: Departme

March 20

OSAL fd Projension 2)

9/234, L59

gnet South Nent of Mines

013

for theect

9/127)

NL and Petroleu

e

um

Kirkalocka Gold Project Mining Proposal Mount Magnet South NL Mine Expansion

Page ii

No

Mining Proposal Checklist Y/N N/A Page No Comments

Public Availability

1 Are you aware that the mining proposal is publicly available? Y 2 Is there any information in this mining proposal that should not be publicly

available? N

3 If "No" to Q2, do you have any problems with the information contained in this mining proposal being publicly available?

N

4 If "Yes" to Q2, has confidential information been submitted in a separate document/section?

N/A

5 Has the mining proposal been endorsed? See last page Checklist Y

Mining Proposal Details

6 Have you included the tenement number(s), site name, proposal overview and date in title page?

Y

7 Who authored the mining proposal? MMS 8 State who to contact enquiries about the mining proposal? Amy Barker 9 How Many Copies were submitted to DoIR? Hard Copies = 1 Electronic = 1 10 Is the mining proposal to support lease application? N 11 Has a geological resource statement been included (refer section 4.3.2 of

mining proposal guidelines) Y 12

12 Will more than 10 million tonnes of ore and waste be extracted per year? Y 47

State total tonnage: 48.3 Mt 53 13 Will more than 2 million tonnes of ore be processed be year? N 46

State total throughput: 1.95 Mtpa 46 14 Is the mining proposal located on pre‐1899 Crown Grant lands? (not subject to

mining act) N

15 Is the mining proposal located on reserve land? If "Yes" state reserve types in space below.

N

16 Will the mining proposal occur within or affect a declared occupied townsite? N 17 Is the mining proposal within 2km of the coastline or a Private Conservation

Reserve? N

18 Is the mining proposal wholly or partially within a World Heritage Property, Biosphere Reserve, Heritage Site or Soil Reference Site?

N

Tenement Details 19 Are all mining operations within granted or applied for tenement boundaries? Y

20 Are you the tenement holder of all tenements? Y 4 21 If "No" at 20, do you have written authorisation from the tenement holder(s) to

undertake the mining proposal activities (Refer to section 4.2.1 of the Mining Proposal Guidelines)

N/A

22 If "Yes" at 21, then is a copy of the authorisation contained within the mining proposal?

N/A

23 Have you checked for compliance against tenement conditions? Y 82

Location and Site Layout Plans 24 Have you included location plans showing tenement boundaries and mining

operations? Y 3 & 49

25 Have you included site layout plans showing all mining operations and infrastructure in relation to tenement boundaries?

Y 49


Page iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND COMMITMENTS

Mount Magnet South NL (MMS) propose to recommence mining operations at their Kirkalocka Gold Project (KGP) located approximately 500 km northeast of Perth and 70 km south of Mount Magnet. The KGP has been on care and maintenance since 2008 when MMS took over the project from Equigold NL (Equigold). The accommodation camp, aerodrome facilities and administration areas remain in operational condition. The ore processing facilities, Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) and some supporting infrastructure including the original water supply and some of the dewatering infrastructure remain in place; however, these will require varying levels of refurbishment before they can be re‐commissioned.

The proposed mining operations will be located on four tenements 100% owned by MMS. These include principally M59/234, but also M59/233, L59/127 and if required, additional water infrastructure may be installed on M59/232.

This Mining Proposal supersedes the previous NOI’s and describes proposed mining operations:

• Construction of a upstream TSF lift on the existing TSF

• Recommencement of stockpiling, milling and processing of ore

• Recommencement of tailings deposition to the refurbished TSF

• Recommencement of pit dewatering

• A cutback of open pit to the north and to the south and southern extension of the laterite pits

• Recommencement of waste rock placement on the top of the existing waste landform and construction of a new waste landform.

Consultation regarding the proposal has commenced with various stakeholders including the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP), the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), the Department of Water (DoW), the Shire of Mount Magnet, the local pastoralists and Indigenous Claimant group.

The proposed project has a footprint of 412 ha. The majority of the footprint (338 ha) is located within the mining footprint previously described in the original Kirkalocka NOI documents. Additional clearing of 74 ha is required for infrastructure such as the additional waste landform proposed to the north and the development works consisting of the lengthening and deepening the existing Curara Well Pit and laterite pits to become one large pit and associated infrastructure.

It is anticipated that establishment of infrastructure and commencement of mining will be undertaken progressively from mid‐2013.

MMS proposes to extend existing relevant environmental management and rehabilitation commitments associated with previous NOI approvals and the tenement conditions for M59/234, M59/233 and M59/232 to the additions proposed in this Mining Proposal.

Specific commitments related to the recommencement of mining operations at KGP are as follows:


Page v

• designed the project footprint to minimise impacts to the preferred habitat of the I. nigrum

• introduce a ground disturbance permitting procedure to ensure strict clearing controls are in place

• clearing will be progressive and only when required

• sediment bunds will be constructed at the base of the waste landforms to minimise sediment wash into I. nigrum's habitat (ephemeral drainage line and low lying areas)

• a floodway will be included in the design for the haul road to the northern waste landform to minimise interruption to surface water flow

• the stock proof fence will remain in place during the LOM to prevent goats from trampling the I. nigrum's habitat.

• groundwater will be monitored in accordance with the Kirkalocka Groundwater Operating Strategy.

• if salinity levels increase significantly or acid or metalliferous drainage becomes evident in the regional monitoring bores, MMS will discuss remediation measures with DMP and DoW.

• progressive rehabilitation will be undertaken, where possible

• capping material trials will be undertaken to reduce the likelihood of tunnel erosion

• embankments slopes on the waste landforms shall be 20 degrees or less prior to spreading of topsoil

• the waste landform will be designed to encourage maximise rainfall infiltration

• surface water monitoring will be undertaken after large rainfall events to ensure there is no long term ponding of water with the potential to result in vegetation loss

• a weed management plan will be implemented to ensure the existing population of Acetosa vesicaria is restricted to inside the mine footprint and eradicated over the LOM

• daily inspections of the TSF will be undertaken whilst operational to check for trapped fauna

• all environmentally hazardous liquids or chemicals used onsite will be stored in compounds that are fully bunded and which (as appropriate) meet the requirements of the DG Act

• topsoil and subsoil will be stored in stockpiles less than 2 m in height

• minimise the generation of atmospheric emissions (in particular dust emissions), where possible

• ongoing consultation with stakeholders

• review and update the Mine Closure Plan as required

• large diameter tyres that are buried in the waste landform will be buried with a minimum separation area of 0.5 m in all directions around each tyre with appropriate fill material.

• no waste will be placed within 10 m of the edges of either waste landform.


Page vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 OWNERSHIP AND LAND TENURE ........................................................................................................... 4 1.3 HISTORY ................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 EXISTING FACILITIES ............................................................................................................................... 5

2. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 REGIONAL SETTING ................................................................................................................................ 5 2.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGICAL SETTING .......................................................................................................... 8 2.3 LOCAL GEOLOGY AND MINERALISATION ............................................................................................. 10 2.4 MINERAL RESOURCE REPORTING ........................................................................................................ 12 2.5 KGP ORE RESERVE ................................................................................................................................ 12 2.6 SOILS AND SOIL PROFILES .................................................................................................................... 13 2.7 REGIONAL HYDROLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 15 2.8 LOCAL SURFACE HYDROLOGY .............................................................................................................. 15 2.9 LOCAL HYDROGEOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 17

2.9.1 Groundwater Recharge ................................................................................................................... 17 2.9.2 Groundwater Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 18 2.9.3 Dewatering and Water Supply Borefield ......................................................................................... 22 2.9.4 TSF Monitoring Bores ...................................................................................................................... 24

2.10 CLIMATE ............................................................................................................................................... 26 2.11 VEGETATION AND FLORA ..................................................................................................................... 28

2.11.1 Vegetation – Regional Setting .................................................................................................... 28 2.11.2 Vegetation Groups from Previous Local Vegetation Surveys ...................................................... 29

2.12 FAUNA ................................................................................................................................................. 35 2.12.1 Level 1 Vertebrate Fauna Survey ................................................................................................ 35 2.12.2 Habitat ........................................................................................................................................ 35 2.12.3 Significant Faunal Habitats or Ecosystems ................................................................................. 36 2.12.4 Fauna .......................................................................................................................................... 36

2.13 SHORT RANGE ENDEMIC FAUNA ......................................................................................................... 40 2.13.1 Short Range Endemic Fauna of Conservation Significance ......................................................... 41

2.14 SUBTERRANEAN FAUNA ...................................................................................................................... 42 2.14.1 Troglofauna of Conservation Significance .................................................................................. 42 2.14.2 Stygofauna of Conservation Significance .................................................................................... 42

3. SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................................... 43

3.1 EUROPEAN HERITAGE .......................................................................................................................... 43 3.2 ABORIGINAL HERITAGE ........................................................................................................................ 43

3.2.1 Archaeological Survey ..................................................................................................................... 44 3.2.2 Ethnographic Survey ........................................................................................................................ 45 3.2.3 A search of the Department of Indigenous Affairs Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System (AHIS) ...... 45

3.3 NATIVE TITLE ........................................................................................................................................ 45

4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................ 46

4.1 TIMEFRAMES ....................................................................................................................................... 47 4.2 AREA OF DISTURBANCE ....................................................................................................................... 48 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE BOND ............................................................................................ 50


Page vii

4.4 MINING OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 50 4.4.1 Method of Mining ........................................................................................................................... 50 4.4.2 Pit Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 51 4.4.3 Geotechnical Assessment of Proposed Pit Wall and the TSF Interaction with the Pit Wall ............. 53

4.5 PIT DEWATERING ................................................................................................................................. 58 4.6 DRILLING & BLASTING .......................................................................................................................... 59 4.7 WASTE LANDFORMS ............................................................................................................................ 59 4.8 ORE PROCESSING ................................................................................................................................. 60

4.8.1 Process Description ......................................................................................................................... 61 4.8.2 Process Water Supply ...................................................................................................................... 63

4.9 TAILINGS STORAGE .............................................................................................................................. 64 4.9.1 Design and Construction ................................................................................................................. 65 4.9.2 Geotechnical Investigations ............................................................................................................ 68 4.9.3 Environmental Management .......................................................................................................... 68 4.9.4 TSF Operation .................................................................................................................................. 69 4.9.5 Geochemical Assessment ................................................................................................................ 71 4.9.6 Integrated Waste Landform ............................................................................................................ 71

4.10 SUPPORT FACILITIES ............................................................................................................................ 71 4.10.1 Administration/Workshops ......................................................................................................... 71 4.10.2 Laboratory .................................................................................................................................. 71 4.10.3 Accommodation Village .............................................................................................................. 72 4.10.4 Aerodrome .................................................................................................................................. 72 4.10.5 Waste Disposal ........................................................................................................................... 72

4.11 WORKFORCE ........................................................................................................................................ 73 4.12 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS ........................................................................................................... 74 4.13 RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS AND REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE .......................................................... 74

4.13.1 Water Supply ............................................................................................................................... 74 4.13.2 Fuel Supply and Usage ................................................................................................................ 75 4.13.3 Power Supply and Usage............................................................................................................. 76 4.13.4 Dangerous Goods and Hydrocarbons ......................................................................................... 76

5. COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION AND OTHER APPROVALS .................................................................. 77

5.1 COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATION ......................................................................................................... 77 5.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ................................................... 77

5.2 STATE LEGISLATION ............................................................................................................................. 77 5.2.1 Part IV, Environmental Protection Act 1986 – Environmental Impact Assessment ......................... 77 5.2.2 Part V, Environmental Protection Act 1986 – Works Approval and Prescribed Premises Licence ... 78 5.2.3 Part V, Environmental Protection Act 1986 – Clearing Of Native Vegetation ................................. 78 5.2.4 Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 ‐ Application for a Licence to Take Fauna for Education or Public Purposes (Fauna Relocation and/or Education) ........................................................................................... 79 5.2.5 Rights in Water & Irrigation Act 1914 ‐ Water Allocation, Protection and Conservation ............... 79 5.2.6 Road Traffic Act 1974 ‐ Road Transport .......................................................................................... 79 5.2.7 Dangerous Goods Safety Act 1994 ‐ Dangerous Goods .................................................................. 80 5.2.8 Dangerous Goods Safety (Explosives) Regulations 2007 ‐ Explosives ............................................. 80 5.2.9 Mines Safety Inspection Regulations 1995 ‐ Project Management Plan ......................................... 81

5.2.10 MINING ACT 1978 – MINING PROPOSAL ...................................................................................... 81

5.3 TENEMENT CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 81

6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MANAGEMENT ................................................................................ 83

6.1 LAND CLEARING ................................................................................................................................... 83


Page viii

6.2 VEGETATION AND FLORA ..................................................................................................................... 89 6.2.1 Landscape Unit and Sheet Flow ...................................................................................................... 89 6.2.2 Threatened and Priority Flora ......................................................................................................... 90 6.2.3 Vegetation Communities ................................................................................................................. 92 6.2.4 Weeds .............................................................................................................................................. 92

6.3 FAUNA ................................................................................................................................................. 93 6.3.1 Fauna Habitat and Fauna ................................................................................................................ 93 6.3.2 Short Range Endemic Fauna ............................................................................................................ 95 6.3.3 Potential for the TSF to Impact the Health of Fauna ....................................................................... 97 6.3.4 Feral Animals ................................................................................................................................... 98

6.4 SURFACE WATER .................................................................................................................................. 99 6.5 GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................................................ 101

6.5.1 Groundwater Availability/Insufficient Supply ............................................................................... 101 6.5.2 Groundwater Contamination from Mining Operations ................................................................. 102 6.5.3 Regional Groundwater Contamination from TSF Seepage ............................................................ 103 6.5.4 Impacts to Station Bores ............................................................................................................... 104

6.6 TOPSOIL AND SOIL PROFILES .............................................................................................................. 104 6.7 WASTE ROCK MATERIAL AND TAILINGS MANAGEMENT ................................................................... 105

6.7.1 Waste Rock Material ..................................................................................................................... 105 6.7.2 Tailings .......................................................................................................................................... 112 6.7.3 Waste Rock landform and TSF Risk Mitigation ............................................................................. 115

6.8 DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE PRODUCTS ............................................................................... 116 6.9 DANGEROUS GOODS AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ...................................................................... 117 6.10 ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION ................................................................................................................ 118 6.11 NOISE ................................................................................................................................................. 119

7. SOCIAL IMPACTS AND MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 119

7.1 HERITAGE ........................................................................................................................................... 119 7.1.1 Aboriginal Heritage and Native Title ............................................................................................. 119 7.1.2 European Heritage ........................................................................................................................ 120

7.2 LAND USE AND COMMUNITY ............................................................................................................. 120 7.3 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................................................... 126 7.4 WORKFORCE INDUCTION AND TRAINING .......................................................................................... 126

8. MINE CLOSURE AND DECOMMISSIONING .......................................................................................... 126

8.1 POST MINING LAND USE .................................................................................................................... 126 8.2 CLOSURE OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................ 127

8.2.1 Western Australian Government Broad Closure Objective ........................................................... 127 8.2.2 Defined Closure Objectives ............................................................................................................ 127

9. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS ............................................................................. 129 10. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 131


Page ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Status of Mining Tenure ............................................................................................................ 4 Table 2: KGP Existing Infrastructure and Operational Status .................................................................. 5 Table 3: KGP Mineral Resource ‐ July 2012 Annual Report ................................................................... 12 Table 4: Kirkalocka Gold Project April 2012 Ore Reserve ..................................................................... 12 Table 5: Soil Chemical Properties .......................................................................................................... 13 Table 6: Summary of Baseline Information for the KGP Production Bores .......................................... 20 Table 7: KGP Production Bores and Pit Typical Water Chemistry (2007) ............................................. 22 Table 8: KGP Production Bores and Pit Typical Water Chemistry (2012) ............................................. 23 Table 9: Annual Water Abstraction Total ‐ Kirkalocka Production Bores ............................................. 24 Table 10: TSF Monitoring Bore Water Quality Results .......................................................................... 26 Table 11: TSF Monitoring Bore Water Quality Results (2012) .............................................................. 26 Table 12: Mean temperature data for BoM Station 007057 Mount Magnet ....................................... 27 Table 13: Mt Magnet (007057) and Paynes Find (007139) Average Monthly Rainfall ......................... 27 Table 14: Mount Magnet and Paynes Find Mean Monthly Rain Days .................................................. 27 Table 15: Pre‐European and Current Native Vegetation Extent for the Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management Regions Associated with the Proposal Area ................................................... 28 Table 16: Vegetation and flora surveys undertaken in the vicinity of the proposal area. .................... 29 Table 17: Description of Vegetation Units ............................................................................................ 33 Table 18: Impact of Kirkalocka Project on Conservation Significant Fauna (360 2011) ........................ 38 Table 19: SRE Species Collected during the SRE Foraging Survey ......................................................... 41 Table 20: Native Title Claimant Details for the KGP Area ..................................................................... 45 Table 21: KGP Main Project Attributes ................................................................................................. 47 Table 22: Project Timeframes ............................................................................................................... 47 Table 23: Area of Disturbance Summary ............................................................................................... 48 Table 24: Area of Tenements Remaining Undisturbed ......................................................................... 50 Table 25: 2009 Bond Reductions for KGP .............................................................................................. 50 Table 26: Proposed Open Pit Dimensions ............................................................................................. 51 Table 27 : Pit Design Parameters .......................................................................................................... 52 Table 28: BFP Geotechnical Domains .................................................................................................... 54 Table 29: Summary of Defect Sets Identified by BFP ............................................................................ 55 Table 30: Major Structures Identified during Excavation of Curara Well Open Pit 2003 ..................... 55 Table 31: LOM Intermediate Mine Design Parameters (pre October 2012) ......................................... 56 Table 32: Curara Well Pit Cutback Dewatering Bore Details ................................................................. 58 Table 33: Waste Landform Volumes ..................................................................................................... 60 Table 34: TSF Lift Stages Storage Characteristics .................................................................................. 68 Table 35: Estimated Workforce Requirements for the KGP Project Site .............................................. 73 Table 36: Water usage estimates for KGP site ...................................................................................... 75 Table 37: Estimated diesel usage for mining equipment ...................................................................... 76 Table 38: Status of Tenement Conditions ............................................................................................. 81 Table 39: Assessment of the Proposed Activity against the 10 Clearing Principles (Appendix K). ....... 84 Table 40: Process for Reducing the WAD Cyanide in the TSF ............................................................... 98 Table 41: Summary Details, KGP Borefield and Pit Monitoring Bores ................................................ 103 Table 42: Waste Rock AMD Potential Drill Hole Sample Details ......................................................... 105 Table 43: GCA (2011) Acid forming potential sample ratings ............................................................. 108


Page x

Table 44: Estimated quantities of waste rock to be produced from mining ...................................... 109 Table 45: Details of the samples from the TSF (Wave Solutions 2011) .............................................. 113 Table 46: Stakeholders Consulted Regarding the Re‐Commencement of Mining at KGP .................. 121 Table 47: Summary of Significant Environmental Impact & Management Commitments ................. 129

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: KGP Regional Location .............................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 Existing Mine Site Layout .......................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Land Systems of the KGP .......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4: Regional Geology ...................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 5: KGP Geological Domains with the Proposed Pit Boundary .................................................... 11 Figure 6: Surface Water Hydrology ....................................................................................................... 16 Figure 7: Production Bore Location Plan ............................................................................................... 21 Figure 8: TSF Monitoring Bore Locations .............................................................................................. 25 Figure 9: Flora, Vegetation and Fauna Map .......................................................................................... 32 Figure 10: Proposed Kirkalocka Mine Site Layout ................................................................................. 49 Figure 11 : Stage and Final Pit Designs .................................................................................................. 51 Figure 12: Section Evaluated between TSF and 7 Year LOM ................................................................. 57 Figure 13: Treatment Plant Flowsheet .................................................................................................. 63 Figure 14: The General Operational Layout of the TSF Including the Layout of the New Lift. ............. 66 Figure 15: Show Decant Design Located away from Perimeter Embankments .................................... 67 Figure 16: Conceptual Waste Landform Design .................................................................................. 111 Figure 17: Location of the Samples from the TSF. .............................................................................. 113

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Topsoil Analysis Report Appendix B: Level 2 Flora and Vegetation Survey Appendix C: Level 1 Vertebrate Fauna Survey Report Appendix D: SRE Fauna Baseline Survey Appendix E: Idiosoma nigrum Target Survey Appendix F: Subterranean Fauna Assessment for the KGP Appendix G: Geotechnical Assessment of Pit Design and TSF Appendix H: Kirkalocka Groundwater Operating Strategy Appendix I: KGP Environmental Protection Act 1986, Prescribed Premise Licence L7814/2002/5 Appendix J Mining Proposal TSF Kirkalocka Gold Mine Appendix J: DEC EAR for Works Approval for TSF Upstream Lift Appendix K: Vegetation Clearing Permit Approval Appendix L: DEC Advice Regarding Idiosoma nigrum Appendix M: North Waste Landform ‐ Floodway Design Appendix N: Geochemical Characterisation of Mine Waste Appendix O: Kirkalocka Tailings Analysis Report


Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Mount Magnet South NL (MMS) is currently the owner and operator of the Kirkalocka Gold Project (KGP). The KGP is located on the Kirkalocka Pastoral Station, approximately 510 kilometres (km) northeast of Perth and approximately 70 km south of Mount Magnet in the Mid‐West region of Western Australia (WA) (Figure 1).

The KGP is located on Mining Leases 59/232, 59/233, and 59/234 (M59/232, M59/233, and M59/234), with the majority of mining activities located on M59/234. A miscellaneous licence 59/127 (L59/127) has been applied for over the mine site access road and is awaiting approval.

All of the mining activities proposed are within the Shire of Mount Magnet; however, a portion of M59/234 is located within the Shire of Yalgoo.

The KGP includes Kirkalocka Gold Mine (also known as Curara Well Deposit), which is an existing mine site that was operated by Equigold NL (Equigold) between 2002 and 2008.

In May 2009, MMS completed the full acquisition of the KGP assets from Equigold and site has been on care and maintenance since. From 2009 to the present, a number of drilling programs have been undertaken and refurbishment of the processing plant has commenced.

1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

In 2001, a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the KGP was submitted to the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources DMP (now known the Department of Mines and Petroleum or DMP). This was followed a supplementary NOI which was submitted in 2002 for the KGP Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) and Borefield.

The current disturbance footprint on M59/232, M59/233 and M59/234 is approximately 338 ha and includes the following infrastructure:

• open pit void and shallower laterite pit

• run of mine (ROM)/stockpiling area

• a Carbon in Leach/Pulp (CIL/CIP) gold processing plant

• tailings storage facility (TSF)

• waste landform

• heavy equipment workshop/laydown area

• borefield for supply of potable and process water to the operation

• a 110 room camp and sewage treatment system

• aerodrome and 1,800 m airstrip

• power station

• Kirkalocka Access Road.

The existing site layout as at October 2008 (date of aerial photography) is shown in Figure 2.

KirkalockMount M

Figure 1:

a Gold ProjecMagnet South

KGP Regiona

ct NL

al Location

Page 2

MiningMine

g Proposal Expansion

KirkalockMount M

Figure 2 E


Existing Mine

ct NL

e Site Layout

Page 3

MiningMine



Page 4

1.2 OWNERSHIP AND LAND TENURE

The areas referred to in this Mining Proposal are located on tenements M59/232, M59/233, & M59/234 and Miscellaneous Licence Application 59/127. The tenements are 100% owned and operated by MMS as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Status of Mining Tenure

TENEMENT OWNER DATE GRANTED EXPIRY DATE MINERALRIGHTS

M59/234 MMS 04/11/1991 03/11/2012 MMSM59/233 MMS 04/11/1991 03/11/2012 MMSM59/232 MMS 04/11/1991 03/11/2012 MMSL59/127 MMS Pending N/A

1.3 HISTORY

Gold prospecting began in the general area at the end of last century and has continued, intermittently, to the present day. Gold was first discovered at Mount Magnet in 1891 and at Paynes Find in 1911.

Gold was produced from the April Fool Mine, within the Kirkalocka Prospect, during 1936 & 1937. Nickel exploration was carried out in the Kirkalocka area by Arcadia Minerals Ltd, during 1969‐1970 (GSWA M. Series Open File, Roll 299).

The area was mapped by the Geological Survey of WA during regional geological mapping of the Kirkalocka sheet, carried out in 1978 and has been actively explored over a period of at least 20 years.

CRA Exploration Pty Ltd (CRA) commenced involvement in the project in 1989 in joint venture with Austmin Gold NL (subsequently taken over by Burmine Exploration NL (Burmine)). Burmine subsequently merged with Sons of Gwalia Limited, with this company later acquiring all of the CRA interests in the project tenements.

Equigold acquired the project tenements from Sons of Gwalia Limited in November 2001 and commenced their KGP in 2002. Equigold mined the Curara Well Pit and produced 6,585 kilotons of ore (at grade of 1.45 g/t) and 306,892 ounces of gold between 2002 and 2008. Equigold was taken over by Lihir Gold Limited (LGL) in 2008.

MMS commenced acquisition of the KGP from Equigold/LGL in 2008 and obtained full ownership of the project in May 2009. The KGP site has been on care and maintenance since MMS took control.

1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVE

The objective of this Mining Proposal is for MMS to gain approval to recommence mining operations at the KGP. The mining operations proposed by MMS will include elements that were not described in the original NOI documentation hence the requirement for this new Mining Proposal submission.


Page 5

MMS plans to commence operation of their project in mid‐2013 with completion of infrastructure development/refurbishment also planned for quarter 1 & 2 of 2013. The new disturbance area of the will include an additional 74 ha and therefore the total area to be disturbed by the developments in this Mining Proposal is approximately 412 ha.

Of this, there will be 44 ha of new disturbance on M59/234, and 30 ha on M59/233 and the remaining 306 ha of disturbance will be on existing disturbed ground or rehabilitated area.

1.5 EXISTING FACILITIES

Mining at the KGP ceased in October 2005, however the treatment plant continued to process stockpiled ore until August 2008. The site has been on care and maintenance since then and much of the site has been rehabilitated. The type and operational status of infrastructure currently existing at KGP is listed in Table 2.

Table 2: KGP Existing Infrastructure and Operational Status

Infrastructure Type Status

Accommodation camp (~100 man) ActiveAerodrome and associated stormwater diversion drain ActiveCIL/CIP treatment plant (1.2 million tonnes per annum) InactiveOnsite power station and power distribution system InactiveContractors work/laydown area Partially rehabilitated Dewatering and process water supply borefield and associated monitoring bores

Inactive

Curara Well Open Pit InactiveROM/stockpiling area Rehabilitated Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) Inactive/partially rehabilitatedWaste landform Rehabilitated Laterite pits (potential gold resource remains) Rehabilitated Stormwater diversion drain system ActiveAccess and haul road system Partially rehabilitated

These items are shown in Figure 2. It is proposed that the existing KGP infrastructure (including some areas that have been rehabilitated), be utilised in the re‐commencement of operations at KGP.

2. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

2.1 REGIONAL SETTING

The KGP is located in the Murchison Biogeographic Region (bioregion) of the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (or IBRA) (Thackway and Cresswell, 1995). The Murchison bioregion comprises the northern part of the Yilgarn Craton and includes two major components, or subregions; the Eastern Murchison (MUR1), and the Western Murchison (MUR2). The KGP is located within the Eastern Murchison (MUR1) subregion.

The Eastern Murchison subregion is characterised by systems of internal drainage, with extensive tracts of red sand plains, series of salt lake systems that are associated with an occluded


Page 6

Paleodrainage system, broad plains of red‐brown soils, and breakaway complexes (Cowan, 2001). The Eastern Murchison subregion is 7,847,996 ha and comprised the Southern Cross‖ and Eastern Goldfields Terranes of the Yilgarn Craton (Cowan, 2001). Vegetation is dominated by Mulga Woodlands that are frequently rich in ephemerals, hummock grasslands, saltbush shrublands and Halosarcia shrublands (Cowan, 2001).

Land systems of Western Australia are descriptions of the landscape, which takes into, account the landform, the soils, the vegetation, and site types. The project is found entirely within the Woodline land system but is in close proximately to four other land systems: Brooking, Sherwood and Yowie, which are present on the outer edges of the project area (Figure 3).

The Woodline land system consists of wash plains on hardpan with mulga shrublands and was described by Payne, Van Vreeswyk. Pringle, Leighton and Hennig (1998) as being depositional surfaces of broad, nearly level plains that receive runoff from higher systems and concentrated flow zones, generally without channels and minor tracts of sand plain.

KirkalockMount M

Figure 3


: Land Syste

ct NL

ms of the KGGP

Page 7

MiningMine



Page 8

2.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGICAL SETTING

The KGP area lies on the eastern margin of the Murchison granite‐greenstone province at the southern end of the Wydgee‐Meekatharra Greenstone Belt. This greenstone belt varies in thickness from 2 km to 5.5 km in width. The belt is elongate and trends in a north‐south direction (Figure 4). The Achaean aged lithologies have been overprinted by a regional metamorphic event, which have altered the host sequence to lower amphibolite facies.

A series of felsic and mafic volcanics and banded iron lithologies occur within the area and form part of the Luke Creek Group. These lithologies are covered by a series of sedimentary events, which occurred between the Tertiary to the Quaternary.

The KGP area is poorly explored with the majority of exploration drill holes beneath the laterite field terminating approximately 50 m below the surface. Deeper drilling down to 300 m below the surface is focussed on the KGP in the vicinity of the existing Curara Well Open Pit.

KirkalockMount M

Figure 4


: Regional G

ct NL

eology

Page 9

MiningMine



Page 10

2.3 LOCAL GEOLOGY AND MINERALISATION

The mineralisation in the KGP lies within a splay of the Mount Magnet Shear, which runs parallel to the eastern margin of the Wydgee–Meekatharra Greenstone Belt. The splay hosting the KGP gold deposit is a 400 m wide brittle ductile shear zone localised along the contact between the metabasalt and tonalite intrusive (Figure 5). The predominant orientation is north‐northwest, defined in part locally by the metabasalt‐tonalite contact and the felsic intrusive orientation.

The regolith zone is comprised of five units. The topmost unit consists of transported overburden material comprising quaternary sands, grits, gravel and clay. This unit is of variable thickness between 0 m and 40 m, with an average thickness of 11 m. The in situ regolith consists of the shallow supergene, upper saprolite, lower saprolite and saprock units.

The laterite is situated immediately below the transported overburden and consists of Tertiary age transported ferruginous nodular gravels to nodular (pisolitic) duricrust of mottled laterite. The mineralised laterite thickness ranges from 1 m to 4 m thick and has been defined over a 2 km strike and 0.7 km plan width.

Within the upper portion of the saprolite unit there exists a distinctive white clay zone, which is referred to as the pallid zone. Recent drilling has proved the continuance of an extensive supergene zone that occurs typically between 15 m and 20 m below the laterite horizon within the upper saprolite. The supergene zone is extensive and has been interpreted over a north‐south strike of 2 km and east‐west width of 100 m to 250 m. The supergene zone is best developed above the zones of continuous high‐grade primary mineralisation.

The lower saprolite is distinguished from the upper saprolite by its generally darker appearance, with fresh to altered green and purple mineral assemblages present within the rock mass, reflecting a lesser degree of weathering/leaching compared to the upper saprolite.

The transitional zone comprises both lower saprolite and saprock. In most cases, saprolite overlies fresh rock; however, in some areas a saprock is present. Saprock exhibits some weathered characteristics while retaining most of the fresh rock characteristics. Weathering within the saprock is in general restricted to areas adjacent to fractures and jointing within the rockmass.

Mineralisation within the primary zone is hosted in tonalite and amphibolite (after basalt) which follow the local structural trends. The mineralisation typically forms a series of shear hosted zones striking north‐northwest in the immediate vicinity of the existing Curara Well Open Pit with variable dips ranging from 50° to 70° to the east. Narrow felsic intrusives run parallel to stratigraphy and in places cross cut in an east‐west orientation.

The tonalite is characterized by coarse feldspar laths in a fine‐grained mafic groundmass (Berridge 2004). Gold is commonly associated with quartz veining or strong alteration selvedges characterised by silica, sericite, chlorite with pyrite and minor pyrrhotite proximal to felsic intrusives. Discrete mineralisation shoots up to 20 m in width form predominantly along the tonalite contacts and parallel to the felsic intrusives that converge to the south.

KirkalockMount M

Figure 5


: KGP Geolo

ct NL

gical Domai

ns with the P

Page 11

Proposed Pit Boundary

MiningMine



Page 12

The metamorphosed and altered basalt makes up the bulk of the eastern country rock. Gold mineralisation occurs with intense biotite, amphibole, quartz and fine disseminated sulphide (primarily pyrite) alteration. Siliceous selvedges and increasing gold grades are proximal to the felsic intrusives. Gold mineralization follows the general dip of the foliation and is also present in late stage flat lying narrow cross‐cutting quartz veins dipping at 30° to the east.

2.4 MINERAL RESOURCE REPORTING

The KGP Resource Estimate has been classified as Indicated and Inferred in accordance with the JORC Code (JORC, 2004) and associated company updates and is based on the data supplied by MMS.

Snowden has based the resource classification upon a number of criteria, including the integrity of the data, the spatial continuity of the mineralisation as demonstrated by variography, and the quality of the estimation.

The Indicated area was based on blocks, which were consistently estimated within the first or second search pass and where there is reverse circulation and diamond drilling coverage of around 25 m by 25 m. All other material was initially coded as Inferred. Subsequently an optimisation shell was produced by MMS to constrain the classification to the base of the potentially economic portion of the resource estimate.

The Mineral Resource is constrained within an optimisation shell that extends to over 290 m below surface.

The Mineral Resource has been reported above a 0.3 g/t Au cut‐off for the laterite and a 0.5 g/t Au cut‐off for the supergene and primary mineralisation and is shown in Table 3.

Table 3: KGP Mineral Resource ‐ July 2012 Annual Report

Category (JORC, 2004) Tonnes (Mt) Grade (Au g/t) Gold (ounces) Indicated 9.7 1.2 365,000 Inferred 4.1 1.1 141,000 Total 13.8 1.1 506,000

2.5 KGP ORE RESERVE

The Ore Reserve was based on cut‐off grades using a profit algorithm approach. The profit algorithm is a calculation of revenue less fixed, mining, processing and realisation costs.

The orebody has gradational contacts and as such lower gold grade mineralisation has been incorporated as a dilution envelope.

The April 2012 Ore Reserve is provided in Table 4

Table 4: Kirkalocka Gold Project April 2012 Ore Reserve

Reserve Category Dry Tonnes (million) Gold Grade (g/t Au) Gold In Situ (koz)

Probable Reserve 8.2 1.0 250


Page 13

2.6 SOILS AND SOIL PROFILES

Tille (2006) places the KGP project area within the Yalgoo Plains Soil Landscape Zone (YPSLZ), which lies within the Murchison Soil Landscape Province. Tille (2006) describes the general characteristics of the YPSLZ as follows:

“Hardpan wash plains (with some sand plains, stony plains, mesas and granite outcrops) on granitic rocks (with some greenstone) of the Yilgarn Craton (Murchison Domain). Red loamy earths and red shallow loams (often with hardpans) with red deep sands and red shallow sands and some red shallow sandy duplexes. Mulga shrublands with bowgada shrublands (and some halophytic shrublands). Located in the south‐western Murchison from Paynes Find to Cue and Twin Peaks Station.”

The main Curara Well Prospect is gently undulating with extensive red loamy flats in the centre and slightly more elevated sandy areas in the south and to a lesser extent in the north. There is a wash area running southeast‐northwest across the centre of the site but there are no developed drainage channels, and water flow is by massive sheet flow. Water does not pond except ephemerally. To the south, there are very minor exposures of granite. To the north‐east, there are several small claypans, but none of these occur on the project area.

The soil is red loam in the lower areas and grading to more red‐brown away from the lower areas. This loam is soft when wet but hard‐setting. The sandy areas have red‐brown sandy loam grading to pale brown sand in the sandiest sites. The most elevated sites have some quartzite stones and granite exposure, but there are no massive rocks or stony hills.

MMS has undertaken topsoil and subsoil sampling from each disturbance area associated within this Mining Proposal. The average results for these tests are shown in Table 5. Full sampling results are included as Appendix A.

Table 5: Soil Chemical Properties

Parameter Topsoil Average Subsoil Average Range Topsoil Range Subsoil

pH 6 5 2.6 0.6EC (1:5) mS/m 64 47 191 93Total N % 270 255 210 140

Total P mg/Kg 90 86 44 24Ca mg/kg 167 148 190 260Cd mg/Kg <0.1 <0.1 0 0Co mg/Kg 2 4 2 6Cu mg/Kg 8 8 3 3Fe mg/Kg 15429 16750 6000 3000K mg/Kg 142 75 107 28Mg mg/Kg 53 38 90 50Mn mg/Kg 78 201 75 516Mo mg/Kg <1 1 <1 <1Na mg/Kg 66 17.75 130 30Ni mg/Kg 4 4.25 2 2S mg/Kg 37 50 40 20


Page 14

Parameter Topsoil Average Subsoil Average Range Topsoil Range Subsoil

Zn mg/Kg 8 8 5 4As mg/Kg <2 <2 <2 <2Pb mg/Kg 5.71 7 4 4Al mg/Kg 4957 5325 1400 1300

Emerson class 6 5‐6 1 1ESP % 10 4 21 8

The findings of the main characteristics of the topsoil and subsoil analysis are described by PEK Enviro in the Mine Closure Plan as follows:

• Both the topsoil and subsoil is considered non‐saline. Salinity should not cause any problems for plant growth and there should be no issue with saline drainage.

• Generally, topsoil and subsoil pH ranged from very strongly acid to moderately acid. However in general, soils are not so acidic as to be likely to cause issues with nutrient toxicities or deficiencies (i.e. pH <4.7).

• Soil content for total Nitrogen (N) and total Phosphorous (P) is reasonable and generally typical of WA soils.

• Soil content for Potassium (K) is very low and exchangeable K is low.

• Both aluminium and iron in particular, are elevated within all samples and may indicate that both topsoil and subsoil could be low in availability of nutrients such as phosphate or sulphate due to binding. If soils were to become more acidic then metals release and aluminium and manganese toxicity in particular may become a problem for plant growth.

• Cation exchange capacity (CEC) of all soils is generally very low, meaning soils may have a low resistance to changes in soil chemistry.

• Results of the Emerson aggregate test (EAT) shows that generally most topsoil and subsoil samples are Class 6 (i.e. non‐dispersive with a tendency to flocculate). Interesting, these soils showed an exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP), which indicated that they are moderately to strongly sodic (i.e. ESP >6), which is often an indication that they may be dispersive. An exchangeable Ca:Mg ratio greater than 2 for all of these samples, meaning they are less likely to disperse, may explain the Emerson Class results.

• Topsoil and subsoil samples from two sites showed an EAT of Class 5. This means they are at a slight risk of becoming dispersive. However, the ESP of these soils was very low and the Ca:Mg ratio was very high indicating that they are non‐sodic and may resist dispersion to some degree.

The results of the testing indicate that generally the topsoil and subsoil is suitable for use in rehabilitation and should pose few problems for most native plant species that occur in the area. This is supported by the existing mine site rehabilitation that shows after 4 years there is good vegetation growth.


Page 15

2.7 REGIONAL HYDROLOGY

The area contains alluvial basins, overlying saprolite and crystalline bedrock, being part of the ancient Mongers Lake drainage system. The KGP is located near the confluence of alluvicated “valleys” trending (1) north‐westerly from Canning Hill, (2) westerly from South Wandee Well, and (3) south‐westerly from Kirkalocka. Groundwater is mainly brackish to highly saline. Fresh groundwater is found in some upstream locations such as near Canning Hill. Groundwater levels in the basin areas lie about 5 m to 14 m below ground surface.

The KGP forms part of the highly stable Yilgarn Craton. Regolith development under tectonically and base level stability has existed at least since Cretaceous (Morgan, 1972) prior to and following the break‐up of Gondwana.

The result is formation of a deep saprolite zone up to 80 m in thickness. Palaeoriver systems forming headwaters of the Lake Monger Palaeoriver have been infilled with alluvial‐colluvial sediment. At stages, in the Tertiary, arid cycles of climate resulted in cessation of downward erosion of drainage and development of extensive areas of shallow alluvial‐colluvial sheet wash from a lateritic terrain.

The regolith of sediment and saprolite has developed over a long period and through a range of climate styles with leaching and removal of mineral matter during pluvial cycles and deposition and fixation of oxides during arid cycles. The oxidation blanket exhibits a distinctly layered sequence (Morgan, 1993) both in saprolite formed from crystalline rock as well as an imprint on the Tertiary palaeochannel sedimentary sequence. This regolith layering has significant control on variability in water storage and conductivity.

2.8 LOCAL SURFACE HYDROLOGY

Topography is highly subdued occupying the confluence of three drainage systems within the project area. As described above, the first drainage is from Wydgee Hills from the south; the second is from the east; and the third, Kirkalocka Creek, flows from the northeast.

Following amalgamation of these three intermittent drainage systems near the KGP area, drainage continues west through Nalbarra to form headwaters of the Lake Monger salt lake system.

To the east, the drainage basin is bordered by a line of resistant banded iron formation which occasionally crops out as hillocks, from which strong short creeks discharge onto an alluvial plain, along the main drainage system. Elsewhere minor drainages flow off low granite hills.

There are no wetlands or permanent watercourses located in close proximately to the KGP. The mine site, however, currently sits within the path of an undefined ephemeral drainage line that flows northwest of the project area and is surrounded by vegetation (acacia shrublands) that relies on sheet flow. It is inferred that small flows are dissipated on the plain, and larger flows follow defined drainage lines and then move as sheet flow towards Nalbarra Homestead.

The project area lies generally at an elevation range of 340 to 350 mAHD. The general slope over the project area is gently to the northwest.

Figure 6 shows a general overview of flow directions in the vicinity of the KGP site.

KirkalockMount M

Figure 6:


Surface Wate

ct NL

er Hydrology

Page 16

MiningMine



Page 17

2.9 LOCAL HYDROGEOLOGY

Groundwater drilling in 2002 has confirmed that an extensive alluviated palaeoriver system extends through the length of the mining leases and forms the headwater sections of the Mongers Lake Palaeoriver.

The alluviated palaeoriver section contained within granted mining leases M59/232, M59/233 and M59/234, has a mainstream length of 11.5 km, a saturated width in the order of 1.5 km and channel centre depth in the order of 60 m.

The original average depth to standing water level has been estimated as 7 m below ground level. This depth was taken from each drill section (water exploration program in 2002). The resultant volume of saturated alluvium within the mining leases has been estimated to be 466,337,655 kilolitres (kL).

This aquifer consists of an upper section from water level to approximately 20 m below ground level of layered coarse to medium grained poorly sorted ferruginous sand.

This upper layer is underlain to a depth up to 65 m by dominantly clayey sands to sandy clay, which in places is markedly kaolinitic to arkosic in composition. In places, narrow (0.5 m to 1 m) layers of moderately well sorted sands occur to provide improved drainage sites for bores.

The hydraulic properties of the aquifer indicate that transmissive properties are low to moderate. Although storativity values estimated from test pumping appear to be low, test pumping suggests that considerable additional water will be derived from delayed yield. Application of delayed yield methods suggests a total storativity with values up to 0.195.

Development of similar alluvial aquifers at Mount Keith, Sullivans Creek and Valais Well indicate that, after prolonged pumping, specific yield is in the range of 0.03 to 0.05. If the value of 0.05 is applied to the saturated volume of sediments within the mining leases, it indicates a pumping available stored groundwater resource in the borefield of 23,316,882 kL.

The present borefield is developed in a linear configuration over 4.5 km of the 11.5 km available aquifer on the mining leases held by MMS and, therefore, provides adequate spacing for control of spread of drawdown within the ground held by MMS and for expansion of the borefield should that be required.

No hypersaline water bodies are known to exist below or peripheral to this aquifer and with the high contemporary recharge potentially available to the system, no long‐term detrimental effects on the aquifer or ecosystem are likely to result from the proposed mining activities.

2.9.1 Groundwater Recharge

Recharge to arid zone alluvial aquifers of the KGP type is dependent on one or both types of rainfall conditions listed below:

• prolonged rain to provide wetting of the complete non‐saturated profile to allow transmission of rain water to the phreatic level


Page 18

• high intensity falls that produce run‐off along the alluvial courses in which ponding locations provide for total profile wetting and recharge of the phreatic aquifer.

The second type of recharge condition is more applicable to the KGP aquifer because it is overlain by the confluence of three well‐defined drainages that are known to be subjected to intermittent sheet flooding following intensive rain events.

A second aspect favourable for recharge is that the phreatic surface is at a relatively shallow depth, 4 to 7 mBGL, and a third factor is that the surface soil contains layers of highly permeable ferruginous sand allowing rapid intake of storm rainfall where it is shielded from surface evaporation.

Groundwater salinity at the KGP has a direct relationship to accessing recharge. The lower salinity groundwater is in the mining area where recharge is influenced by run‐off both from a granite mound to the southwest and run‐off from the northward drainage with headwaters in hills near Wydgee.

This recharge capability will have significance with respect to recovery of water levels in the shallow sand beds surrounding the open pit following major storm events. A dewatering system for the shallow sand beds involving bores KP10 and KP11 has been installed to control storm water recharge to the saprolite and fractured rock aquifer forming the pit walls.

A plan showing the production bores in relation to mine infrastructure is included as Figure 7.

2.9.2 Groundwater Characteristics

Baseline data collected by Equigold in 2002, showed that groundwater salinity ranged from 1,200 milligrams per litre (mg/L) total dissolved solids (TDS) (monitoring bore KP22) to 7,800 mg/L TDS (monitoring bores KP15 and KP16). The higher salinity values are associated with thicker sections of the palaeochannel sediment north of the mine. Groundwater surrounding the open pit void is generally less that 2,000 mg/L TDS. The monitoring bores KP15 and KP16 with high TDS (7,800 mg/L TDS) were decommissioned and rehabilitated in 2003.

During 2002 to 2007, groundwater analysis was conducted by Equigold on a monthly basis in accordance with the Kirkalocka Groundwater Operating Strategy. During this time, total salinity of the groundwater in the mine and the borefield, ranged from 1,000 mg/L TDS in monitoring bore KP19 to 6,900 mg/L TDS in monitoring bore KP9 and groundwater pH ranged from 7.05 to 8.77 (Morgan 2007). Sampling undertaken by MMS in 2011 recorded a similar range of salinity levels from 2,400 mg/L TDS in monitoring bore KP10 (monitoring bore KP19 was decommissioned as it was within the pit boundary) to 6,300 mg/L TDS (monitoring bore KP9) and pH levels from 7.4 to 7.8.

Baseline sampling of production bore KP5 near the camp had salinity of 1,520 mg/L TDS. This bore remains the raw water source for the reverse osmosis (RO) treatment plant and potable supply. The chemistry of this bore was sampled in 2011 and recorded TDS of 1,400 mg/L.

Both total salinity and pH values in individual bores ranged between levels expected by seasonal conditions during previous mining activities. No rising or falling trends in salinity and pH was evident to suggest natural change in regional aquifer conditions or change induced by the mining during the activities of Equigold. It is also apparent that there has been little change in metal concentrations for


Page 19

WAD CN, Cu, Ni, Zn and As and that they are well below current Prescribe Premise Licence thresholds.

Baseline water quality from KGP production bores is shown in Table 6.


Page 20

Table 6: Summary of Baseline Information for the KGP Production Bores

Bore Northing (GDA)

Easting (GDA)

Natural surface (m)

Depth (m)

Original water level

(mBGL)

Main aquifer (m)

Yield (m3/ h)

Salinity (mg/L) TDS

Details

KP3 6829146 575538 346.2 40 6.00 6‐40 7.04 PVC cased 200 mm to 49.4 m; slotted 12 to 49 m borefield process water KP4 6831773 574986 346.2 64 8.00 8‐51 7.60 3300 PVC cased 200 mm to 59 m; slotted 12 to 59 m, borefield process water KP5 6826125 574581 349.5 59 6.15 32‐37 5.70 1520 PVC cased 200 mm to 59 m; slotted 12 to 48 m, RO plant raw waterKP6 6831352 575057 346.7 114 7.85 17‐45 8.30 4480 PVC cased 195 mm to 48.25 m; slotted 0 to 48.25 mKP7 6829748 575409 346.1 72 6.75 23‐51 2.00(?) 5680 PVC cased 195 mm to 48.4 m; slotted 0 to 48 mKP9 6830551 575221 346.3 83 35.00 6100 PVC cased 195 mm to 47.5 m slotted 0 to 47.5 mKP10 6828222 575249 346.3 87 5.10 6‐23 20.00 2580 PVC cased 195 mm to 24.45 m; slotted 0 to 24.45 mKP11 6827893 574947 346.1 87 5.45 4‐23 20.00 1340 PVC cased 195 mm to 23.4 m; slotted 0 to 23.4 mKP12 6829153 575180 345.5 114 5.00 6‐47 6.00 3780 PVC cased 195 mm to 48 m; slotted 5.5 to 48 mKP13 6826823 574684 346.6 96 8.30 53‐60 15.00(+) 1280 Steel cased 200 mm to 60 m; 155 mm steel 60 to 78 mKP14** 6830555 576159 347.3 78 14‐84 15.00(+) Abandoned, part 200 mm casedKP15* 6833355 574607 349.0 64 11.00 11‐64 7.90 7800 PVC cased 195 mm to 64 m; slotted 12 to 64 mKP16* 6832861 574604 348.1 92 11.00 15‐63 9.30 7800 Steel cased 200 mm to 72 m; slotted 155 mm steel 72 to 92 mKP17 6827522 575674 346.6 31 5.25 20.00 PVC cased 7.5 m 195 mm, slotted 7 to 31 mKP19* 6827957 574639 344.5 84 9.10 58‐96 15.00(+) 2300 Steel cased 200 mm to 65 m; steel slotted 155 mm 65 to 84 mKP22* 6827913 574326 295.0 64 24‐64 4.00 1200 Steel 200 mm to 42 m; 155 mm steel slotted 42 to 64 mCallaloo 7.60 6480 Dug well Curara 6.00 3460 Dug well

*Water bores have been decommissioned will not be included in the MMS dewatering or groundwater abstraction program **Water bore is not located on a mining lease

KirkalockMount M

Figure 7:


Production B

ct NL

Bore Location Plan

Page 21

MiningMine



Page 22

2.9.3 Dewatering and Water Supply Borefield

According to KH Morgan and Associates (2002), original groundwater drilling confirmed an extensive Palaeoriver system extending the length of the mining leases. The Palaeoriver system forms the headwaters of the Mongers Lake Palaeoriver and is infilled partly with iron oxide cemented Tertiary stream alluvium. The alluvium comprises a layered sequence of loamy to clayey sand, river sand and sandy clay.

KH Morgan and Associates note that the palaeoriver contained within tenements M59/232, M59/233 and M59/234 has a length of ~11.5 km, a saturated width of ~1.5 km and a depth in in the order of 60 m.

A dewatering and water supply production borefield was established at the KGP by Equigold. The borefield was used for mining and processing purposes and camp water supply as well as for dust suppression.

Borefield water quality was monitored from nominated production bores in line with the conditions of the DoW groundwater abstraction licence up until January 2007. Results for January 2007 are shown in Table 7. Note that the results shown for pH were taken in January 2006 while the SWLs were taken in December 2006.

Table 7: KGP Production Bores and Pit Typical Water Chemistry (2007) Bore name KP3 KP5 KP6 KP7 KP8 KP9 KP10 KP11 KP13

SWL (mbgl) (Dec 2006) 9.75 14.20 15.60 15.05 15.00 9.40 9.40 15.88pH (Jan 2006) 7.35 7.40 7.30 7.70 7.40 7.47 7.50 7.30TDS mg/L 4300 1600 6400 5600 6600 6600 2000 3100 1400Al mg/L 0.006 0.005 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.009 0.005 0.005 0.005As mg/L 0.005 0.001 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.001B mg/L 0.0 1.0 2.4 2.2 2.5 2.4 1.6 1.1 0.9Ca mg/L 130 53 160 120 170 160 49 110 34Cd mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001Cl mg/L 1900 610 3100 2400 3000 3000 790 1100 530Cr mg/L 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.002Cu mg/L 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005F mg/L 9.5 7.2 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.1 0.7 0.8Fe mg/L 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 1.000

Fe (Tot) mg/L 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 18.00Hg mg/L 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001K mg/L 47 20 64 57 66 65 34 37 20Mg mg/L 110 48 180 130 180 180 55 110 39Mn mg/L 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.009Na mg/L 1100 390 1700 1400 1700 1700 480 470 280Ni mg/L 0.005 0.009 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005NO3 mg/L 39 46 43 42 43 41 53 40 18Pb mg/L 0.005 0.001 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.001Se mg/L 0.005 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.002 0.003SiO2 mg/L 110 93 98 110 100 100 110 120 59SO4 mg/L 420 140 660 510 680 220 300 160


Page 23

Bore name KP3 KP5 KP6 KP7 KP8 KP9 KP10 KP11 KP13 Sr mg/L 1.40 0.61 1.80 1.30 1.80 1.80 0.60 0.95 0.40Zn mg/L 0.011 0.009 0.007 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.030

Tot CN mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.01WAD CN mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Recent water sampling has been undertaken from a selection of production and monitoring bores at KGP and the Curara Well Open Pit. The results are summarised in Table 8.

Table 8: KGP Production Bores and Pit Typical Water Chemistry (2012)

Bore name KP3 KP5 KP6 KP7 KP8 KP9 KP10 PitSWL (mbgl) 7.94 9.92 8.21 9.45 9.31 7.85 52

pH 8 7.7 8.1 7.7 8.1 8 8.2 8.5TDS mg/L 3900 1500 3000 5400 2200 6200 2700 1700

Cond uS/cm 6500 2300 6100 8400 3400 9300 4500 2800Al mg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02As mg/L <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 0.001B mg/L 1.6 0.94 1.4 2.2 0.88 1.2 1.6 0.94Br mg/L 3.6 <0.5 3.6 5.9 <0.5 8 3.9 2.2Ca mg/L 140 52 56 160 58 150 120 68Cd mg/L <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002Cl mg/L 2000 650 1900 2600 1000 3000 1300 830Cr mg/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Cu mg/L 0.006 <0.005 0.005 <0.005 0.046 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005F mg/L 1.2 0.8 1 0.9 1.2 1 1.2 0.9Fe mg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.11

Fe (Tot) mg/L 0.04 0.03 0.96 0.28 0.13 0.02 0.16 3.2HCO3 mg/L 260 170 130 320 230 270 230 150Hg mg/L <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.00005 <0.0001K mg/L 59 24 33 83 22 47 56 35Mg mg/L 130 48 50 190 51 120 110 59Mn mg/L 0.006 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Na mg/L 1000 280 590 1700 390 1000 1200 500Ni mg/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005NO3 mg/L 40 47 73 25 59 52 66 34Pb mg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.001Se mg/L <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.006SiO2 mg/L 88 100 96 96 84 92 110 62SO4 mg/L 390 390 360 580 230 640 280 270Sr mg/L 1.7 0.41 0.63 2.1 0.65 1.7 1.4 0.66Zn mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Tot CN mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01WAD CN mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Comparison between the historical sampling results shown in Table 7 and the recent sampling results shown in Table 8 confirm current water quality parameters are consistent with those obtained through previous sampling efforts.


Page 24

KH Morgan and Associates (2002) note that dewatering of the Curara Well Pit was to be undertaken by dewatering bores draining water from both the upper palaeochannel alluvium which approximates 20 m thickness at the mine as well from fractured rock structure encountered to a depth of approximately 80 m in the pit footprint.

Production bore KP1 was to be installed in the pit to serve initially for plant construction water supply with a requirement in the order of 400 kL/d. Other production bores were established from 2002 onwards to progress dewatering of the pit throughout the life of the mine.

Between July 2002 and December 2006, a total of 5,559,125 kL was pumped from the dewatering and water supply production borefield at KGP.

Table 9 shows names of the established production bores at KGP and the annual production total for each of these for the period between July 2002 and December 2006.

Table 9: Annual Water Abstraction Total ‐ Kirkalocka Production Bores

Bore name 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total(kL/annum)

KP1 49855 45209 0 0 0 95064KP2 12789 7301 0 0 0 20090KP3 3819 30401 19174 15078 62636 131108KP5 3096 17394 20215 20425 32356 93486KP6 37948 8270 0 3052 40443 89713KP7 11259 42770 1186 9024 158683 222922KP8 12498 807 0 0 6614 19919KP9 66631 67745 44 10974 97249 242643KP10 55764 83204 24441 17729 264064 445202KP11 67028 67930 34256 49126 163499 381839KP13 10011 30089 19379 25671 152858 238008KP17 3700 49715 0 0 0 53415KP18 14259 89663 0 0 0 103922KP19 29561 304681 0 0 0 334242KP20 0 117891 0 0 0 117891KP21 0 93539 0 0 0 93539KP22 0 48673 48091 27798 0 124562

Pit sump 0 447423 1327821 976316 0 2751560Total 378218 1552705 1494607 1155193 978402 5559125

Only some of the bores Table 9 remain in place and those that remain system will be refurbished as a part of the mining operations proposed by MMS.

2.9.4 TSF Monitoring Bores

Operation of the TSF at KGP required that 13 monitoring bores to be installed to monitor the impact that seepage from the TSF may have on the surrounding groundwater aquifer system. The location of these bores in relation to the TSF are shown in Figure 8.

KirkalockMount M

Figure 8:


TSF Monitori

ct NL

ing Bore Locations

Page 25

MiningMine



Page 26

The existing TSF was operational between 2002 and 2008. Table 10 shows the 2007 water quality monitoring results taken from the TSF monitoring bores. These figures were reported in the 2007 DEC annual licence monitoring report.

Table 10: TSF Monitoring Bore Water Quality Results

Bore # TDP3 TDP6 TDP7 TDP8 TDP9 TDP10 TDP11 TDP12 TDP13 Required Range (DEC Licence)

pH 7.68 7.15 7.69 7.95 7.89 7.69 7.65 7.95 7.69 6.0 – 9.0TDS 1850 1300 1400 1600 1400 1400 1400 1300 2600 <2800 mg/LWAD

cyanide 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 <0.5 mg/L

Cu 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.5 mg/LNi 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 1.0 mg/LZi 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 <20 mg/LAs 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.002 <0.5 mg/L

MMS have undertaken sampling from the TSF bores in 2012. Results are shown in Table 11 and except for TDS, the results are similar to those noted in Table 10.

Table 11: TSF Monitoring Bore Water Quality Results (2012)

Bore # TDP3 TDP6 TDP7 TDP8 TDP9 TDP10 TDP11 TDP13 Required Range (DEC Licence)

pH 7.7 7.7 8 8 8 8 7.9 8 6.0 – 9.0TDS 3900 2600 1300 1200 1300 1800 2400 2400 <2800 mg/L

WAD cyanide 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.06 <0.01 0.01 <0.5 mg/LCu <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.5 mg/LNi1 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 1.0 mg/LZi2 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <20 mg/LAs3 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.5 mg/L

Results show that even though there has been an increase in the TDS between the TSF and the pit, the other bores surrounding the TSF have only experience minor changes in groundwater quality. It is evident that the seepage from the TSF is draining into the lower gradient of the pit and therefore it is not having an impact on the surrounding aquifer. This is supported by the monitoring results of the borefield monitoring program, which have remained relatively unchanged since mining commenced in 2002.

2.10 CLIMATE

The KGP area lies about 309 km east of Geraldton and 550 km north of Perth. It lies approximately 70 km south of Mount Magnet and 110 km south southeast of Yalgoo.

1 Practical Quantification Limit for Ni is 0.02 mg/L 2 Practical Quantification Limit for Zi is 0.02 mg/L 3 Practical Quantification Limit for As is 0.05 mg/L


Page 27

Mean monthly temperatures data sourced from the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) Mount Magnet weather station (#007057) is shown in Table 12. This provides a reasonable indication of temperatures that could be expected at KGP during the year.

Table 12: Mean temperature data for BoM Station 007057 Mount Magnet

Element Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Mean daily maximumtemperature ‐ °C

38.2 36.5 34.3 28.9 23.6 19.4 18.7 20.5 24.8 28.9 32.8 36.4 28.6

Mean daily minimum temperature ‐ deg C

22.2 21.8 19.6 15.2 10.6 8.3 6.7 7.1 9.7 12.9 16.5 19.9 14.2

Average monthly rainfall figures for both Mount Magnet and Paynes Find (BoM weather station # 007139) sourced from the BoM website is shown in Table 13. The average between these two stations provides a reasonably reliable indication of the rainfall that could be expected each month at KGP.

Table 13: Mt Magnet (007057) and Paynes Find (007139) Average Monthly Rainfall

Location Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

Mount Magnet 23.1 29.3 25.0 18.9 25.0 31.4 27.4 20.2 9.2 7.6 9.0 12.2 239.1

Paynes Find 18.2 22.9 25.2 25.7 37.9 41.9 35.2 27.0 14.4 9.7 10.0 12.1 282

Average 20.65 26.1 25.1 22.3 31.45 36.6 31.3 23.6 11.8 8.6 9.5 12.15 260.6

Note: All values in mm

The mean monthly number of rain days for both the Mount Magnet and Paynes Find weather stations are shown in Table 14. The average of these figures provides a reasonably reliable indication of the number of days on which rain could be expected each month. This data could obviously be useful for project contingency planning.

Table 14: Mount Magnet and Paynes Find Mean Monthly Rain Days

Location Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

Mount Magnet 2.0 2.3 2.2 2.4 3.1 4.4 4.3 3.2 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.5 29.8

Paynes Find 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.6 2.5 3.5 3.3 2.7 1.7 1.0 0.9 1.0 21.8

Average 1.6 1.7 1.75 2 2.8 3.95 3.8 2.95 1.65 1.2 1.15 1.25 25.8

Generally, temperatures range from approximately 0oC in winter to 45oC in summer with maximum mean temperatures of 23.6oC in July and 38.2oC in January, and minimum means of 6.7oC in July and 22.2oC in January.

Rainfall in the vicinity of KGP can vary considerably, however on average it is approximately 260 mm per year with the majority falling between January and August. This pattern reflects the influence of summer cyclones emerging from northern monsoonal weather patterns as well as winter fronts associated with low‐pressure systems, which affect the southwest land division. Average daily Class A pan evaporation at Mount Magnet varies from 2.6 mm in July to 12.2 in January with mean annual evaporation at 2,580 mm exceeding annual rainfall.


Page 28

Wind direction is dominantly easterly in the mornings with an increase in westerly and northwesterly winds in winter. Afternoon wind directions are more evenly distributed with monthly peaks during the year varying between the centres. Northerly winds are least frequent throughout, especially for Yalgoo in the afternoons.

2.11 VEGETATION AND FLORA

2.11.1 Vegetation – Regional Setting

The KGP area is located within the Murchison (MUR) Interim Biogeographical Region of Australia (IBRA) and the East Murchison Biogeographical subregion (MUR1). It is located within the Austin Botanical District of the Eremaean botanical province. Beard mapped the major structural vegetation units within WA at 1:1000,000 scale (Van Vreeswyk, 1998). According to Beard’s vegetation mapping the KGP area would be located within the “mulga low woodlands” vegetation association, which is vegetation association number 18 (VA18) (Shepherd, Beeston & Hopkins, 2002).

According to the Government of Western Australia(GWA) (2010), both the MUR IBRA region and the MUR1 IBRA subregion still carry 100% of their original native vegetation extent. Client and Natural Resource Information Department of Agriculture and Food W.A. (2007) note that in the Gascoyne/Murchison Natural Resource Management (NRM) sub region which includes the KGP area, as at 2004, of the original native vegetation extent of 33,148,039 ha, it was estimated that 32,100,976 ha remain which is approximately 97%.

According to the GWA (2011) on a statewide basis, the VA18 vegetation association currently has an aerial extent of 19,843,823.01 ha compared to an estimated pre European extent of 19,892,304.80 ha. This means that ~99.76% of this vegetation association remains in place.

The native vegetation extent figures presented here are likely to have remained relatively unchanged since 2011. Table 15 provides a summary of vegetation statistics for the various management regions that are applicable to the proposal area.

Table 15: Pre‐European and Current Native Vegetation Extent for the Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management Regions Associated with the Proposal Area

Management Level Name

Pre‐European Vegetation Extent (ha)

Current Vegetation Extent (ha)

% Remaining

IBRA region Murchison (MUR) 28,120,586.77 28,044,823.42 99.73IBRA sub‐region East Murchison (MUR1) 21,135,083.95 21,065,967.55 99.67Vegetation group IBRA region VA18 MUR 12,403,172.32 12,363,252.50 99.68Vegetation group IBRA sub‐region VA18 MUR1 10,269,896.43 10,234,838.22 99.66Vegetation group (State wide) VA18 19,892,304.80 19,843,823.01 99.76NRM Gascoyne/Murchison region 33,148,039 32,100,976 97(Source: GWA, 2011)


Page 29

2.11.2 Vegetation Groups from Previous Local Vegetation Surveys

Three vegetation and flora surveys have been undertaken in the local vicinity of the proposal area. These are listed in Table 16.

Table 16: Vegetation and flora surveys undertaken in the vicinity of the proposal area.

Survey Title Survey Author Survey Report Date

Kirkalocka Project Ecological Appraisal Hart, Simpson & and Associates Pty Ltd

December 1995

An inventory and condition survey of the Sandstone‐Yalgoo‐Paynes Find area, Western Australia.

Payne et al. ‐ Agriculture Western Australia

March 1998

Level 2 Flora and Vegetation Survey at the Mount Magnet South NL Kirkalocka Gold Project

Niche Environmental Services

October 2011

Due to the lack of detail associated with the original vegetation and flora work included in the original Kirkalocka NOI in 2002 (Kirkalocka Project Ecological Appraisal), this will not be referred to further in this Mining Proposal.

A brief summary of the relevant outcomes of these surveys follows.

2.11.2.1 Agriculture WA – Inventory and Condition Survey

The inventory and condition survey completed by Payne et al. (1998) was a very broad ranging survey, which included an area of 9,470,000 ha and included nearly all of the Sandstone, Youanmi, Barlee, Kirkalocka and Ninghan 1:250,000 scale map sheets and parts of the Yalgoo and Perenjori sheets.

The main purpose of the survey is described by Payne et al. (1998) as follows:

“The purpose of the survey was to provide a comprehensive description and maps of the biophysical resources of the region, together with an evaluation of the condition of the soils and vegetation throughout. The report and the accompanying map at 1:500,000 scale are primarily intended as a reference for land managers, land management advisers and land administrators, the people most involved in planning and implementing land management practices. The report and map will also provide researchers and the public with a basic reference on landscape resources of the survey area. The survey inventory also enables the recognition and location of land types with particular land use, habitat or conservation values for land use planning. Maps at other than the published scale can also be generated on request.

Monitoring of vegetation change is well established in the Western Australian rangelands. This report provides the base habitat descriptions necessary for the strategic location of monitoring sites and provides some information for the assessment of resource condition of those habitats.”

According to the land system survey work completed by Payne et al. (1998) the proposal area is largely located within the Woodline Land System (WLS). Payne et al. (1998) note that historically this


Page 30

land system was extensively cut for timber to supply the mining industry although the system has now largely recovered.

Much of the WLS (~85%) is located on what Payne et al. (1998) describe as hardpan plains/loamy plains which receive sheet flow from granite uplands and include deep red earths over hardpan. Payne et al. (1998) describe the vegetation on the hardpan unit as being made up of “Scattered to moderately close (10‐30% PFC4) Acacia tall shrublands, dominated by Acacia aneura (mulga), A. ramulosa or A. grasbyi (miniritchie) (HPMS5, HCAS), often with an A. aneura tree layer (MUBW, PLMS). Occasionally closed (>50% PFC) Acacia woodlands (GRMU).”

The WLS also includes what Payne et al. (1998) describe as drainage tracts, which are mostly unincised and carry more concentrated sheet flow off the hardpan plains. These make up approximately 10% of the WLS area. Drainage tracts generally include deep red earths on hardpan (ferricrete) or occasional shallow hardpan loams. Payne et al. (1998) describe the vegetation on the drainage tract unit as comprising “Moderately close to close (20‐50% PFC) A. aneura or A. ramulosa tall shrublands or A. aneura woodlands (DRAS)”.

2.11.2.2 Niche Environmental Services – Level 2 Survey

A level 2 flora and vegetation survey was conducted over the KGP by Niche Environmental Services in September 2011 (Appendix B). The survey covered approximately 4,000 ha surrounding the KGP (Figure 9). The results of the survey are detailed in the report titled Level 2 Flora and Vegetation Survey at the Mount Magnet South Kirkalocka Gold Project and is summarised in the following sections.

2.11.2.2.1 Vegetation

Four broad association levels of vegetation were defined within the survey area, with the associations grouping based on substrate. The main substrates identified were:

• Wash plains – vegetation in this broad association was characterised by being located on wash plains of shallow clay loams over hardpan, or clays. Within this association, there was also an area of vegetation defined as being shallow clay over calcrete.

• Granite – vegetation in this association was characterised by being located on shallow clays over granite, with occasional sections of outcropping granite.

4 PFC refers to projected foliar cover 5 Habitat Description (Payne et al 2008)

• HPMS – hardpan mulga shrubland • HCAS – hardpan plain acacia shrubland • MUBW – hardpan plain mulga and bowgada shrubland or woodland • PLMS – plain sandy loam mulga shrubland • GRMU – hardpan plain mulga grove • DRAS – drainage tract Acacia shrubland


Page 31

• Ridges of Banded Ironstone Formation – vegetation in this association was characterised by being located on low ridges of banded ironstone and associated gibber slopes.

• Sand plains – vegetation in this association was characterised by being located on coarse sands

Within the four broad associations, there were nine vegetation units that were described and delineated. Details of the vegetation types found in each of the broad landforms within the survey area are discussed in Table 17.

KirkalockMount M

Figure 9:


Flora, Vegeta

ct NL

ation and Fauna Map

Page 32

MiningMine



Page 33

Table 17: Description of Vegetation Units

Vegetation Unit

Vegetation Description

W1 Open Low Woodland B to Low Woodland B of Acacia aneura var. aneura, A. ramulosa var. ramulosa and Acacia fuscaneura over Open Low Scrub B of mixed species over Very Open Low Grass of Aristida contorta, Austrostipa elegantissima and Monachather paradoxus and Very Open herbs to Herbs of mixed species on sand loam to clay sand loam.

W2 Open Low Woodland B to Low Woodland B of Acacia aneura var. aneura, A. ramulosa var. ramulosa and Acacia fuscaneura over Open Low Scrub B of mixed species over Very Open Low Grass of Aristida contorta, Austrostipa elegantissima and Monachather paradoxus and Very Open herbs to Herbs of mixed species on clay loam to clay within unchannelled ephemeral drainage lines.

W3 Low Woodland B of Acacia aneura var. aneura, A. ramulosa var. ramulosa and A. fuscaneura over Open Low Scrub B of Eremophila spuria and E. forestii subsp. forestii over Herb of Swainsona affinis on sand loam

G1 Open Low Woodland B of Acacia fuscaneura, A. tetragonophylla and A. ramulosa var. ramulosa over Open Dwarf Scrub C of Ptilotus obovatus, Eremophila punicea and Solanum lasiophyllum over Low Grass of Aristida contorta on red clay and outcropping granite.

G2 Low Woodland B of Acacia ramulosa var. ramulosa, A. tetragonophylla and Acacia craspedocarpa over Dwarf Scrub C of Ptilotus obovatus, Solanum lasiophyllum and Eremophila georgei over Low Grass of Aristida contorta on red clay.

B1 Open Low Woodland B of Acacia tetragonophylla, A. aneura var. aneura and A. incurvaneura over Low Scrub A of Aluta aspera subsp. hesperia, Thryptomene decussata and Micromyrtus sulphurea on ridges of banded ironstone formation (BIF).

B2 Open Low Woodland B of Acacia aneura var. aneura. A tetragonophylla and A. fuscaneura over Open Low Scrub B of Aluta aspera subsp. hesperia on banded ironstone gibber slopes

B3 Low Woodland B of Acacia ramulosa var. ramulosa, A. aneura var. aneura and A. fuscaneura on gibber slopes on red clay.

S1 Open Woodland of Eucalyptus kochii subsp. plenissima and E. horistes over Open Low Woodland B of Acacia ramulosa var. ramulosa, A. aneura var. aneura and Acacia burkittii over Open Dwarf Scrub C of Ptilotus obovatus and mixed species over Very Open Low Grass of Eragrostis eriopoda, Austrostipa elegantissima and Aristida contorta on coarse sand loam.


Page 34

2.11.2.2.2 Conservation Significant Vegetation

Conservation Significant Vegetation is refers to vegetation that is protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and the Wildlife Protection Act 1950.

Under state legislation a Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) is defined as “a naturally occurring biological assemblage that occurs in a particular type of habitat ‐ which is found to fit into one of the following categories; “presumed totally destroyed”, “critically endangered”, “endangered” or “vulnerable”” and listed TECs are defined under the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 as environmentally sensitive areas. For an ecological community to be classified as a TEC, there is a requirement for detailed biological surveys to be completed. The Department of Environment and Conservation maintains a list of Priority Ecological Communities (PECs) that have been identified as possible TECs but have not been adequately surveyed or evaluated under the TEC listing criteria. PECs are ranked in order of priority, with Priorities 1, 2 and 3 denoting the order of priority for further investigation (DEC 2007).

A search of the DEC database that contains details of the TECs and PECs was conducted and no TECs or PECs were identified as occurring within the project area.

Niche Environmental Services concluded that because a significant portion of the vegetation within the survey area had been historically impacted by disturbances from both mining and pastoral activities, the vegetation units occurring within their survey area were not considered to have any intrinsic conservation significance.

2.11.2.2.3 Flora

A total of the 150 flora taxa (including species, subspecies and varieties) comprising 38 families and 83 genera have been recorded during the survey. The flora was dominated by; Fabaceae with 26 species from three genera; Asteraceae, with 20 species from 17 genera; Chenopodiaceae, with 11 species from four genera, and; Poaceae, with 10 species from seven genera. Of the 150 specimens collected, four could be identified to genus only.

2.11.2.2.4 Conservation Significant Flora

The Commonwealth EPBC Act, provides for the protection of Threatened taxa. Where taxa meet the criteria and are subsequently listed for protection under the EPBC Act they become Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) in accordance with the provisions of the EPBC Act.

A search of the EPBC Protected Matters database (Commonwealth) and the DEC database (State) was conducted to identify if there were likely to be any threatened (declared rare) flora or priority flora in the survey area. The EPBC Protected Matters database identified that one threatened species

• Ricinocarpos brevis

While the DEC records (State) identified that no Threatened (Declared Rare) Flora have been recorded in or close to the KGP but four Priority taxa have been recorded within the Eastern Murchison region:


Page 35

• Acacia subsessilis A.R. Chapman & Maslin (P3)

• Banksia rosserae Olde & Marriott (P1)

• Grevillea kirkalocka Olde & Marriott (P1)

• Pseudactinia sp Bungalbin Hill (F.H & M.P. Mollemans 3069) (P3).

No threatened (declared rare) flora or priority flora were recorded during the level 2 flora and vegetation survey that was conducted over KGP and based on the information provided by the DEC and SEWPaC, few if any species of conservation significance are expected to be located within the proposal area.

The species that were recorded during the survey were considered common with widespread distributions across the Murchison bioregion.

Niche Environmental Services (2011) have provided a comprehensive species matrix showing species occurring within each vegetation unit identified during their survey (Appendix B). This list is useful as a target list for rehabilitation purposes as it is specific to the proposal area.

2.12 FAUNA

2.12.1 Level 1 Vertebrate Fauna Survey

A level 1 vertebrate fauna survey was conducted over the KGP by 360 Environmental in September 2011 (Appendix C). The survey covered approximately 2,800 ha surrounding the KGP. The results of the survey are detailed in the Report titled Kirkalocka Gold Mine ‐ Level 1 Vertebrate Fauna Survey and is summarised in the following sections.

2.12.2 Habitat

Five broad fauna habitats were recorded in the KGP survey area and included the following:

• Habitat A was considered the dominant vegetation within the survey area was classified as a Woodland of Acacia species. Due to minor variations, this woodland was considered to be separated into two units.

o Woodland of Acacia species on shallow sandy‐loam soils over hardpan (dominant vegetation unit).

o Woodland of Acacia species with emergent Callitris columellaris and Eucalyptus kochii subsp. plenissima on clays (minor vegetation unit).

• Habitat B was described as a low Woodland of Acacia species over scrub of Aluta aspera subsp. hesperia over Low scrub of Micromyrtus sulphurea on low ridges of Banded Ironstone Formation.

• Habitat C was located to the south western section of the survey area consisted of open low Woodland of Acacia species on shallow soils over granite.

• two additional habitats of disturbed ground was identified and both of these habitats were considered of significantly lower value to fauna and included:


Page 36

o Habitat D ‐ an Ephemeral Lake

o Habitat E ‐ previously disturbed Acacia Woodland.

2.12.3 Significant Faunal Habitats or Ecosystems

The fauna habitat types identified during the survey is well represented within the survey area and surrounds, particularly Acacia Woodland.

A search of the DEC database was undertaken to identify if there were any TECs or PECs in the survey area. The search did not identify any TECs or PECs in the survey area, however it did identify that there were two PECs listed as occurring within a 40 km radius of the survey. Neither of the PECs are likely to occur within the survey area.

None of the 5 broad habitats described from the survey were identified as a TEC, PEC or fauna habitat of conservation significance.

2.12.4 Fauna

The survey identified forty nine (49) bird species, three (3) native mammals and one (1) reptile species. No frogs were recorded during the survey and evidence of three species of introduced mammals were observed:

2.12.4.1 Birds

The following bird species were recorded during the survey:

• Spiny‐cheeked Honeyeater (Acanthagenys rufogularis )

• Inland Thornbill (Acanthiza apicalis)

• Chestnut‐rumped Thornbill (Acanthiza uropygialis)

• Red Wattlebird (Anthochaera carunculata)

• Australasian Pipit (Anthus novaeseelandiae)

• Southern Whiteface (Aphelocephala leucopsis)

• Wedge‐tailed Eagle (Aquila audax)

• Masked Woodswallow (Artamus personatus)

• Pallid Cuckoo (Cacomantis pallidus)

• Pied Honeyeater (Certhionyx variegates)

• Horsfield's Bronze‐cuckoo (Chalcites basalis)

• Rufous Songlark (Cincloramphus mathewsi)

• Chestnut‐breasted Quail‐thrush (Cinclosoma castaneothorax)

• Grey Shrike‐thrush (Colluricincla harmonica)

• Black‐faced Cuckoo Shrike (Coracina novaehollandiae)

• Little Crow (Corvus bennetti)

• Australian Raven (Corvus coronoides)


Page 37

• Stubble Quail (Coturnix pectoralis)

• Pied Butcher Bird (Cracticus nigrogularis)

• Emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae)

• Galah (Eolophus roseicapillus)

• Crimson Chat (Epthianura tricolor)

• Australian Kestrel (Falco cenchroides)

• Western Gerygone (Gerygone fusca)

• Welcome Swallow (Hirundo neoxena)

• White‐winged Triller (Lalage sueurii)

• Singing Honeyeater (Lichenostomus virescens)

• Splendid Fairy‐wren (Malurus splendens )

• Budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulates)

• Rainbow Bee‐eater (Merops ornatus ) – Migratory and Marine species protected under Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act

• Cockatiel (Nymphicus hollandicus)

• Crested Pigeon (Ocyphaps lophotes)

• Crested Bellbird (Oreoica gutturalis)

• Rufous Whistler (Pachycephala rufiventris)

• Tree Martin (Petrochelidon nigricans)

• Red‐capped Robin (Petroica goodenovii)

• Common Bronzewing (Phaps chalcoptera)

• Tawny Frogmouth (Podargus strigoides)

• White‐browed Babbler (Pomatostomus superciliosus)

• Mulga Parrot (Psephotus varius)

• Redthroat (Pyrrholaemus brunneus)

• Grey Fantail (Rhipidura albiscapa)

• Willie Wagtail Rhipidura leucophrys)

• Weebill (Smicrornis brevirostris)

• Laughing Turtle Dove (Streptopelia senegalensis)

• Australian Shelduck (Tadorna tadornoides)

• Zebra Finch (Taeniopygia guttata)

• Red‐backed Kingfisher (Todiramphus pyrrhopygius)

• Little Button Quail (Turnix velox)

2.12.4.2 Native Mammals

The following three native mammal species were observed during the survey:

• Western Euro (Macropus robustus)


Page 38

• Red Kangaroo (Macropus rufus)

• Western Grey Kangaroo (Macropus fuliginosus)

2.12.4.3 Amphibians and Reptiles

No frog species were recorded during the survey.

One species of reptile was observed during the survey:

• Gould’s Goanna (Varanus gouldii)

2.12.4.4 Introduced Species

Evidence of the following introduced species was observed during the survey:

• Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)

• Goat (Capra hircus)

• Cat (Felis catus) – tracks.

2.12.4.5 Conservation Significant Fauna

A search of the DECs Threatened and Priority Fauna Database, NatureBase, the EPBC Protected Matters Database, regional sources and the desktop survey was undertaken to identify specially protected fauna under State and/or Commonwealth legislation that are predicted to occur within a buffer of approximately 20 km surrounding the survey area.

The Desktop Study revealed eleven (11) bird, five (5) native mammal and three (3) reptile species currently listed as conservation significant under State and/or Commonwealth legislation and/or the DEC Priority list that are predicted to occur within the survey area. No amphibians of conservation significance are predicted to occur within the Midwest region and/or the Project area.

Table 18 provides an assessment and summary of the potential impact of the proposed Kirkalocka Project on Conservation Significant Fauna which are predicted to potentially occur within the Project area.

Table 18: Impact of Kirkalocka Project on Conservation Significant Fauna (360 2011)

State Federal

Species Scheduled / Priority EPBC Act Potential Impact

Australian Bustard (Ardeotis australis) Priority 4 Low. May infrequently be seen in the area, however,

clearing vegetation is unlikely to impact on this species.

Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis)* Vulnerable Negligible. Unlikely to be seen in Project area.

Bush Stone‐curlew (Burhinus grallarius) Priority 4 Low. May infrequently be seen in the area, however,



Page 39

State Federal

Species Scheduled / Priority EPBC Act Potential Impact

Carnaby’s Black Cuckatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris)*

Vulnerable Vulnerable Negligible. Unlikely to be seen in Project area.

Fork‐tailed Swift (Apus pacificus) Migratory

Marine Low. May infrequently be seen in the area, however, clearing vegetation is unlikely to impact on this species.

Great Egret, White Egret (Ardea alba)

Migratory Marine. Migratory Wetland

Low. May infrequently be seen in the area, however, clearing vegetation is unlikely to impact on this species.

Major Mitchell’s Cockatoo (Cacatua leadbeateri)* Scheduled Low. May infrequently be seen in the area, however,


Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) Scheduled 1 Vulnerable Low. May infrequently be seen in the area, however, clearing vegetation is unlikely to impact on this species.

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) Scheduled 4 Negligible. Unlikely to be seen in Project area.

Rainbow Bee‐eater (Merops ornatus) Migratory

Wetland Low. May infrequently be seen in the area, however, clearing vegetation is unlikely to impact on this species.

Slender‐billed Thornbill (Acanthiza iredalei iredalei) Vulnerable Low. May infrequently be seen in the area, however,


Mammals Chuditch, Western Quoll (Dasyurus geoffroii)* Vulnerable Negligible. Unlikely to be seen in Project area.

Crest‐tailed Mulgara (Dasycercus cristicauda)* Scheduled 1 Vulnerable Negligible. Unlikely to be seen in Project area.

Ghost Bat (Macroderma gigas) Priority 4 Negligible. Unlikely to be seen in Project area.

Greater Bilby (Macrotis lagotis)* Vulnerable Negligible. Unlikely to be seen in Project area.

Long‐tailed Dunnart (Sminthopsis longicaudata)* Priority 4 Negligible. Unlikely to be seen in Project area.

Reptiles

Gilled Slender Blue‐tongue (Cyclodomorphus branchialis)

Threatened Negligible. Unlikely to be seen in Project area.

Western Spiny‐tailed Skink (Egernia stokesii badia) Threatened Low. May infrequently be seen in the area, however,


Woma Python (Aspidites ramsayi)* Scheduled Low. May infrequently be seen in the area, however,

clearing vegetation is unlikely to

Of the total 53 species recorded, only one species of conservation significance was recorded. This was Merops ornatus which was observed only once during the five day trip. This sighting was of a bird in flight overhead in the north western corner of the 360 (2011) survey area which is approximately 2.5 km from the proposal area. 360 (2011) note that the proposal area does not contain any areas of preferred foraging or breeding habitat and that the proposal is unlikely to significantly impact on the species.


Page 40

None of the native mammal or reptile species recorded during the survey are currently listed as specially protected fauna under State and/or Commonwealth legislation.

360 (2011) recommend that other species of conservation significance that are noted as potentially occurring in the area are unlikely to be significantly impacted by the proposal. This is principally due to three main reasons as follows:

• The proposal area was outside the known distribution range of the species.

• Suitable habitat was not identified in the proposal area.

• The species was considered to be broadly dispersed and thus unlikely to be impacted by the proposal due to large areas of habitat similar to that proposed for disturbance occurring adjacent to the proposal area.

2.13 SHORT RANGE ENDEMIC FAUNA

Two short‐range endemic (SRE) surveys were undertaken by ecologia during September and October 2011. The results of the surveys are detailed in the following reports and described below:

• Mount Magnet South NL, Kirkalocka Goldmine Project, Short Range Endemic Fauna Baseline Survey (Appendix D)

• Mount Magnet South, Kirkalocka Gold Mine Project, Idiosoma Nigrum Targeted Survey (Appendix E).

Endemism refers to the restriction of species to a particular area, whether it is at the continental, national or local level (Allen, Midgley and Allen 2002). Short‐range endemics (SRE) are dominated by invertebrate species, which are historically understudied and in many cases lack formal descriptions. An extensive, reliable taxonomic evaluation of these species has begun only relatively recently and thus the availability of literature relevant to SREs is relatively scarce.

Short Range Endemism is influenced by numerous processes, which generally contribute to the isolation of a species. A number of factors, including the ability and opportunity to disperse, life history, physiology, habitat requirements, habitat availability, biotic and abiotic interactions, and historical conditions, influence not only the distribution of a taxon, but also the tendency for differentiation and speciation (Ponder and Colgan 2002).

The level of differentiation and speciation between populations is determined by the relative magnitude of these factors, with the extent of migration generally being the strongest determinant.

Migration is often hindered by the poor dispersal ability of the taxon as well as geographical barriers to impede dispersal. In summary, those taxa that exhibit Short Range Endemism are generally characterised by poor dispersal, low growth rates, low fecundity and reliance on habitat types that are discontinuous (Harvey 2002).

A total of 84 invertebrate specimens were collected during the survey, representing six orders, nine families and 14 species and are detailed in Table 19.


Page 41

Table 19: SRE Species Collected during the SRE Foraging Survey

Class (Order) Family Taxa SRE6 Arachnida (Araneomorphae) Gnaphosidae Unknown no

Arachnida (Mygalomorphae) Barychelidae Synothele sp. potential Idiopidae Idiosoma nigrum schedule1

Arachnida (Pseudoscorpionidae)

Chthoniidae Austrochthonius`sp. nov. 8` no Austrochthonius sp. no Olpiidae `Genus indet.` potential Austrohorus sp. potential Beierolpium`sp. 8/4 lge` potential Beierolpium`sp. 8/2` potential

Chilopoda (Geophilida) Schendylidae Unknown potential

Malacostraca (Isopoda) Armadillidae Acanthodillo" sp. " no Buddelundia sulcata no Philosciidae Laevophiloscia yalgoonensis no

Molluscs (Gastropoda) Pupillidae Gastrocopta margaretae no

2.13.1 Short Range Endemic Fauna of Conservation Significance

A database search (Ecologia 2011a) and review of previous surveys from within 100 km of the KGP and other relevant records from the Murchison Bioregion identified a total of 55 invertebrate species with the potential to occur within the KGP area, of which 50 are recognised as species of conservational significance. Of these, 28 were arachnids, comprising 19 spiders, three scorpions and six pseudoscorpions, six were molluscs, seven were crustaceans and nine were insects.

Of the 84 invertebrate specimens collected during the survey, one species collected was listed under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 as Schedule 1 species and is known as the Shield‐back Trapdoor Spider (Idiosoma nigrum). Six species were also considered potential SREs (pseudoscorpions Austrohorus sp., Beierolpium ‘sp. 8/4 lge’ and Beierolpium ‘sp. 8/2’, an unidentified centipede, and a spider from genus Synothele). Under the precautionary principle, all unknown and potential SREs should be treated as confirmed SREs.

Following on from the SRE survey, a further targeted survey for Idiosoma nigrum was undertaken by ecologia (ecologia 2012b) in October 2011 to better understand the impact the recommencement of mining at KGP may have on the species. The key findings of the survey were as follows:

• The recording of this species within the proposal area represents new distribution data within the known geographical range of the species.

• Idiosoma nigrum burrows were located exclusively under Acacia sp. within drainage line habitat predominantly on coarse sand.

The full ecologia (2012a) SRE survey report is included as Appendix E of the MCP.

6 Under the precautionary principle, all unknown and potential SREs should be treated as confirmed SREs


Page 42

None of the habitats in which the potential SRE species were located are unique to the proposed impact areas and they extend beyond the limits of the mapped area. Thus, on the scale of impact ranging from high ‐ moderate ‐ low, the impact from the Project development on the potential SRE species is expected to be moderate to low.

2.14 SUBTERRANEAN FAUNA

There are two kinds of subterranean fauna: troglofauna and stygofauna. Troglofauna are air‐breathing and live in the air spaces in small fissures and cavities of the underground matrix, whereas stygofauna are aquatic and live in the same kinds of spaces in groundwater aquifers. As a consequence of living underground, subterranean species usually have limited capacity to disperse and therefore, often have localised distributions (Gibert and Deharveng 2002; Harvey 2002). The conservation significance of subterranean fauna, as a result of the high proportion of species with restricted ranges, has been recognised by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).

A Troglofauna pilot study and Stygofauna desktop assessment was undertaken by Bennelongia Environmental Consultants in September 2011 (Appendix F).

Troglofauna samples were collected from 25 drill holes at the KGP, with 15 samples collected from within the drawdown areas associated with the proposed mine pits and 10 samples from areas to the north and south of the proposed pit areas. Scrapes were also taken at the time when the traps were set. The traps collected on 9 November 2011.

Troglofauna sampling results obtained through the collection of scrapes and trapping, confirmed that the risk to troglofauna is low, with only single troglofauna species of centipede Cryptops sp. was collected by scraping and no troglofauna species was collected by trapping.

The risk to stygofauna was also considered low, with two stygofauna species were collected as by‐catch during a troglofauna survey of the project area. These species were the cyclopoid copepods Mesoscyclops sp. (probably the very widespread M. brooksi) and Australocamptus sp., which is also likely to be widespread (Karanovic 2004).

2.14.1 Troglofauna of Conservation Significance

A search of the WA Museum databases showed few records of troglofauna within 50 km of KGP. Only two species have been collected. These were a thysanuran and a symphylan. Both species were collected in the north‐west corner of the search area, located some 60 km from the project site, where there is an area of calcrete.

No calcrete is present on the project area.

2.14.2 Stygofauna of Conservation Significance

A search of the Western Australian Museum databases revealed several records of stygofauna occurring within a search area extending 50 km around KGP (28.20‐29.11oS, 117.26‐118.29oE). A search of the DEC database showed a number of PECs in the region:

• Priority 1 Priority PEC, the Yoweragabbie Calcrete.


Page 43

• Priority 1 PEC Challa and Wondinong calcrete (located east of the Yoweragbbie Calcrete)

• Two other PECs located south of Paynes Find.

At least 10 species of six higher groups have been recorded within the search area, including amphipods, ostracods, copepods, syncarids, dytiscid beetles and platyhelminth worms. One species of ostracod was found within a calcrete deposit approximately 53 km north northwest of the project area and species of cyclopoid was found within the Yoweragabbie calcrete, situated approximately 48 km north. All other stygofauna records are from calcretes situated in the northwest corner of the search area.

3. SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

The main primary producing activities at Mount Magnet area include pastoral and mining and tourism. The population of the area has a strong Aboriginal representation.

There appears to be a high level of cooperation within the community in all aspects of interfacing of the industries and the broader public interests.

3.1 EUROPEAN HERITAGE

The results of a search on the Heritage Council of WA database in May 2011 revealed that are no sites of recognised European Heritage value within the vicinity of the KGP.

The results of a search of the Australian Heritage database on the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities (DSEWPC) website in May 2011 for the Shire of Mount Magnet revealed that there are no Heritage sites listed in the vicinity of the KGP.

3.2 ABORIGINAL HERITAGE

Aboriginal Heritage is different from Native Title and refers to matters protected under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 and Regulations. The Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 was introduced to protect the following:

• any place of importance and significance where persons of Aboriginal descent have, or appear to have, left any object, natural or artificial, used for, or made or adapted for use for, any purpose connected with the traditional cultural life of the Aboriginal people, past or present

• any sacred, ritual or ceremonial site, which is of importance and special significance to persons of Aboriginal descent

• any place which, in the opinion of the Committee, is or was associated with the Aboriginal people and which is of historical, anthropological, archaeological or ethnographical interest and should be preserved because of its importance and significance to the cultural heritage of the State.

Aboriginal sites are places of importance and significance to Aboriginal people and to the cultural heritage of WA. Aboriginal sites are significant because they link Aboriginal cultural tradition to place,


Page 44

land and people over time. Aboriginal sites are as important today as they were many thousands of years ago and will continue to be an integral part of the lives of Aboriginal people and the heritage of WA (DIA 2010b).

Human interference to Aboriginal sites is an offence, unless authorised by the Aboriginal Heritage Act, 1972, as outlined in Section 17 of the WA Aboriginal Heritage Act, 1972 and therefore it is important to undertake heritage surveys to ensure impacting sites is avoided.

Sites can be a diverse range of places and generally grouped into two basic but overlapping categories:

• Archaeological sites are places where material remains are associated with past Aboriginal land use

• Anthropological sites are places of spiritual importance and significance to Aboriginal people.

All sites generally have both archaeological and anthropological aspects.

In order to minimise the risk of impacting heritage sites, archaeological and ethnological surveys are undertaken by qualified archaeologist and anthropologist in consultation with the Badimia. These surveys are usually organised by Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation (YMAC), however the case of KGP, the surveys were undertaken for the original mining activities and included the following:

• Report on a Desktop Survey for Aboriginal Sites at the Kirkalocka Project Area, South of Mt Magnet (1996)

• Report on an Archaeological Survey for Aboriginal Sites, Kirkalocka Joint Venture Project, Kirkalocka, WA (1996)

• An Ethnographic Heritage Survey for the M59/232, M59/233, M59/234, M59/261 & M59/367 Kirkalocka Tenements (2002).

A summary of the survey findings are as follows:

3.2.1 Archaeological Survey

An archaeological survey for Aboriginal sites at the Kirkalocka Joint Venture Project Area was commissioned by CRA Exploration Pty Ltd (a previous project holder) in 1996. This survey was undertaken by Quartermaine Consultants.

The archaeological survey strategy involved an investigation of previous research within the vicinity of the designated survey area, a systematic field survey consisting of pedestrian transects and predictive sampling of selected areas, and the recording of any archaeological material located. A method which distinguishes between concentrations of artefacts and background scatter was implemented.

The field survey was completed using a GPS and aerial photo. Access was possible to most areas either by 4WD vehicle or on foot. Disturbance was in the form of existing tracks, fence‐lines, pastoral activities and drilling.


Page 45

The results of the survey did not reveal any archaeological sites within the proposal footprint.

3.2.2 Ethnographic Survey

An ethnographic survey was undertaken by the Yamatji Land and Sea Council (Tony Farnham) for Equigold in 2002. The survey covered all of M59/233 and 234 and parts of M59/232 and 261.

No sites of significant were found within the proposal footprint.

3.2.3 A search of the Department of Indigenous Affairs Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System (AHIS)

A search of the Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System (AHIS) on 23 October 2012 revealed that there are no sites of Aboriginal Heritage significance on either of the main project tenements M59/234 or M59/233. There are two aboriginal heritage sites listed as occurring on M59/232 (sites 15122 and 5912). These sites are located on the very far northern boundary of the tenement and will not be impacted by the re‐commencement of mining at the KGP.

3.3 NATIVE TITLE

Native Title is a form of land title that recognises the unique ties some Aboriginal groups have to land. Australian law recognises that native title exists where Aboriginal people have maintained a traditional connection to their land and waters, since sovereignty, and where acts of Government have not removed it (DIA, 2010).

Native title was first recognised by the High Court of Australia in 1992 with the Mabo Decision. The Mabo Decision overturned the idea of 'terra nullius’ that the Australian continent did not belong to anyone at the time of Europeans' arrival. It recognised for the first time that Indigenous Australians may continue to hold Native Title and to be uniquely connected to the land. Native Title can co‐exist with other forms of land title (such as pastoral leases) but is extinguished by others (such as freehold) (DIA, 2010).

The Native Title Act 1993 (NTA 1993) recognises and protects native title. It provides that Native Title cannot be extinguished contrary to the Act and essentially, covers:

a. acts affecting native title (past acts and future acts)

b. determining whether native title exists and compensation for acts affecting native title.

There is one registered native title claim and one non registered native title claim over the KGP tenement area. Details are shown in Table 20.

Table 20: Native Title Claimant Details for the KGP Area

NNTT file # Application Name Registration Status Applicant Representative

WC96/98 Badimia People Registered Badimia Land Aboriginal Corporation WC12/5 Badimia #2 Not Registered Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation

Mount Magnet South NL is in a unique position whereby it is exempt from Native Title, in accordance with the NTA 1993 as the mining leases were established in 1991 and therefore are a valid “past acts”.


Page 46

4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

MMS is proposing to recommence mining operations at KGP. A brief description of the mining operations proposed is as follows:

• Cutback of the Curara Well Pit

• Deeper mining of the area directly south and north of existing Curara Well Pit (below the laterites)

• Ore processing throughput of 1.6 ‐ 1.95 million tonnes per annum. The Company is currently assessing the potential for additional tailings facility located as part of the Northern waste landform facility. Approval for this facility will be sought in a separate Mining Proposal.

• Upstream lift of the existing TSF from the current height of 15 m to 30 m

• Redesign the existing waste landform and increase the height from 30 m to 60 m

• An additional waste landform (37 ha) to be positioned north of the pit

• Complete the refurbishment of the existing Treatment Plant

• Recommission the existing power station

• Recommission the existing borefield

• Refurbishment of the existing accommodation village.

• Recommission the airstrip.

• Recommission the magazine area.

The surface mining operations are planned to be carried out using conventional open pit mining methods. The pit is currently designed to the approximate crest dimensions of 1400 m long by 650 m wide with a maximum depth of 240 m. The life of mine is expected to be six years.

Ore sourced from the open pit will be crushed and screened prior to being treated in the refurbished treatment plant.

The treatment plant consists of:

• ROM pad area

• multiple stage crushing

• semi‐autonomous grinding (SAG)/Ball mill and classification

• CIP & CIL leaching circuit

• intense leach reactor in the gravity circuit

• carbon elution circuit

• gold room

• reagent storage areas

• laboratory

• water ponds


Page 47

The nominal capacity of the treatment plant will be 1.6 to 1.95 million tonnes per annum of ore feed.

Tailings shall be deposited into the TSF.

Ancillary infrastructure required to support the operational activities include:

• office complexes

• workshops and stores

• powerhouse

• borefield

• accommodation village

• airstrip.

A summary of the main project attributes are shown in Table 21.

Table 21: KGP Main Project Attributes

Element Description Life of Project 6 yearsSize of orebody: Pit cutback 10.3 Mt

Mining Method: Open pitDepth of Pit: Pit cutback Maximum depth 240 m (Main Cutback) Southern Pits to 120 mDepth to water table 52 mTotal area of disturbance 74 haOre + Waste mining rate (peak) 14.6 Mt per annumTotal waste rock 38 million tonnesDewatering rate (approximate): Initial dewatering rate first 1 – 2 years Borefield (supplementary supply after year 2)

3 GL/a 1.5 GL/a

Power generation Diesel generatorOperating hours 24 hours a day, 7 days a week Construction 4 months

4.1 TIMEFRAMES

The proposed timeframes for the project are detailed in Table 22:

Table 22: Project Timeframes

Activity Commencement Date

Construction/Refurbishment Quarter 1 & 2, 2013 Commissioning Quarter 1 & 2, 2013 Mining Operations Quarter 2, 2013 Processing Quarter 3, 2013


Page 48

4.2 AREA OF DISTURBANCE

Table 23 provides a summary of the total area of disturbance proposed on each tenement and Table 24 details the portion of the tenements remaining undisturbed. The proposed site layout is shown in Figure 10.

Table 23: Area of Disturbance Summary

Tenement Domain Name Domain Details Total

Existing Disturbance

Total Additional Disturbance Proposed

Total Domain Area (ha)

M59/234 Open pit Pit walls 55.23 20 75.23

Waste landforms Waste landform north 0 12.44 12.44

Waste landform west 67.2 0 67.2

Administration and operational infrastructure

Borefield/roads 12.45 0 12.45

Haul roads 2.42 5.82 8.24

Flood bunds 6.31 0 6.31

Aerodrome bund/drainage 41.15 0 41.15

Village waste facility/flood bunds 10 0 10

Plant area/ROM/workshops 22.59 0 22.59

Tailings storage facility Tailings storage facility 79.84 0 79.84

Topsoil storage Stockpiles 9 46.1 15.1

Sub‐total 306.2 44.4 350.6

M59/233 Waste landform north Waste landform north 0 24.56 24.56

Administration and operational infrastructure

Borefield/roads 24.97 0 24.97

Haul roads/magazine area 2.13 1.05 3.18

Topsoil storage Stockpiles 0 4 4

Sub‐total 27.1 29.6 56.7

M59/232 Administration and operational infrastructure

Borefield/roads 2 0 27

Sub‐total 2 0 2

L59/127 Mine access road Mine access road 3 0 3

Sub‐total 3 0 3

Total 338.3 74 412.3

7 Disturbance has been rehabilitated but may be reutilised if required

KirkalockMount M

Figure 10


0: Proposed K

ct NL

irkalocka Minne Site Layout

Page 49

t

MiningMine



Page 50

Table 24: Area of Tenements Remaining Undisturbed

Tenement Area (ha)

Proposed Disturbance (ha)

Remaining Undisturbed (ha)

% of Tenement Remaining Undisturbed

M59/234 995.7 350.6 645.1 64.79

M59/233 999 56.7 942.3 94.32

M59/232 985 2 983 99.80

L59/127 5 3 2 40.00

Total 2,985 412 2,572 86.19

4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE BOND

The existing bonds for the KGP are $1,435,000 for M59/234 and $50,000 for M59/233.

The KGP was partially rehabilitated in 2008. The site was inspected by DMP in 2009 and a bond reduction was provided. The bond reduction is shown in Table 25.

Table 25: 2009 Bond Reductions for KGP

Tenement Description Area (ha) Bond Rate $ per ha

Current Bond ($)

Bond After 2009 50%

Reduction ($)

2012 Bond Amount

($) M59/234 Waste Dump 67.2 12,000 806,000 403,200 403,200 TSF 79.84 12,000 958.08 958.088 958,080 Roads 8.26 5,000 41.3 20.65 20,650 Satellite/Laterite pits 10.8 10,000 108,000 54,000 54,000Sub Total 1,435,000 M59/233 Roads 14.74 5,000 73,700 36,850 36,850 Magazine 2.13 12,000 25,560 12,780 12,780 Sub Total 50,000 Total Bond Liability 1,485,000

4.4 MINING OPERATIONS

4.4.1 Method of Mining

The KGP is suitable for open pit mining. The configuration of the ore body, proximity to surface and relatively low grade suggest that this is the most suitable method. Open pit mining allows access to ore close to surface within a very short period of commencing mining.

Mining shall consist of typical excavator and haul truck open pit mining method and will include the use of the following machinery:

• excavators

• haul trucks

8 No bond reduction was given for the TSF, as the structure still requires capping and final rehabilitation.

KirkalockMount M

• d

• g

• w

• l

The scalconsidernecessartime as t

4.4.2

The exisshallow proposinopen pitincluding

The propdimensio

Figure 11

Table 26:


dozers

graders

water carts

loaders

e of the minrations such ry to start mthe stripping

Pit Design C

sting Curara extension ong to expandt void. The g haul roads

posed open ons of the pi

1 : Stage and F

: Proposed Op

Stage

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

ct NL

ning operatias the stripp

mining at a hig ratio reduce

riteria

Well Open of laterite md the existingfinal open pand windrow

pit design int stages are

Final Pit Desig

pen Pit Dimen

on is dictateping ratio, vegher mininges.

Pit consists mining to theg mine footppit void foows and a ma

cludes four mshown in Ta

gns

nsions

Length(m) 250 400 150 600

Page 51

ed by the treertical advang rate (appro

of an opene south, whprint by wideotprint is antaximum widt

main pit stagble 26.

eatment plance rate andximately 500

pit void aphich is approening, lengthticipated to th of 710 m.

ges and show

Width(m)300

450‐54260600

nt throughpd the pit desi0,000 BCM p

pproximatelyoximately 30ening and debe approxim

wn in Figure

h

0

MiningMine

put rate and ign. In this cper month) u

y 160 m dee0 m deep. Meepening themately 1460

11. The app

Dept(m)1207090235


practical case, it is until such

ep with a MMS are e existing 0 m long

proximate

th ) 0

5


Page 52

The overall design of the open pit is based on the rough shells generated by the Gemcom Whittle Pit Optimisation Software. Pit stages for the development of the pit in an orderly fashion are based on intermediate whittle shells.

Ramp widths and gradients are based on safe trafficking for the size of equipment envisaged for the operation (90 t dump trucks).

Batter angles and berm widths are based on geotechnical guidelines.

The final limits pit design has the following features:

• The pit intersects natural surface at approximately 347.5 mRL and has total depth of approximately 245 m

• The ramp exit is at the north of the pit a distance of approximately 200 m from the primary waste dump entry point

• The ramp width is 24 m from surface at 347.5 mRL to 170 mRL. From 170 mRL to 140 mRL the ramp width is 18 m. From 140 mRL to the base of the pit at 105 mRL the ramp is 12 m wide

• The ramp gradient is 1 in 9 from surface to the base of the pit

• The ramp widths should allow two way traffic for 90 t dump trucks to the 170 m RL. The volume that it to be mined below this level is relatively small (approximately 5% of the total volume to be mined).

• The batter angle and berm configuration is described in Section 4.4.3.4. These are based on the original guidelines from BFP Consultants and have been reviewed by Ground Control Engineering.

Table 27 details the pit design parameters.

Table 27 : Pit Design Parameters

Parameter Unit Value

Bench height m 2.5

Approx. Surface RL mRL 347.5

Minimum mining width m 20

Ramp Grade NA 1:9

Average Strip Ration Ore: Waste NA 1:3.5

Truck Width m 6.5

Width between truck & ramp m 1.5

Width between trucks m 2.5

Windrow width m 5

Single Lane Ramp m 15

Double Lane Ramp m 24

Berm width m Refer to table 30


Page 53

Parameter Unit Value

Vertical Distance between Berms m Refer to table 30

Pit Depth m 245

Pit Exit to ROM Pad m 1000

Pit Exit to Waste Landform m 150‐350

Waste Landform Height m 60

Waste Landform Batter Angle degree 15 to 20

Total ore and waste material mined is anticipated to be 10.3 Mt and 38 Mt respectively.

The mining rate is close to 500,000 BCM per month for the first 31 months. After that, the mining rate reduces to around 250,000 BCM per month for the next 17 month. Over the last 3 months, the mining rate reduces gradually as the pit base gets too small to maintain a reasonable vertical advance rate.

4.4.3 Geotechnical Assessment of Proposed Pit Wall and the TSF Interaction with the Pit Wall

BFP Consultants (BFP) investigated the ground conditions for the existing Curara Well Open Pit between 2001 and 2003 and provided slope design parameters, which were adopted for the Equigold open pit design.

Four main pit wall failures were recorded by Equigold during the 2002‐2005 mining operations. These pit wall failures all occurred in the “Pallid Zone” geotechnical domain (as defined by BFP) and were caused by the combination of low intact material (“rock”) strength in the Pallid Zone, intersection of unfavourably orientated structural discontinuities and the significant impact of groundwater pressure and high water inflows in the saturated clay saprolite material comprising the Pallid Zone.

MMS engaged Ground Control Engineering Pty Ltd (GCE) to review the geotechnical conditions in the existing Curara Well Pit and to complete a preliminary field verification of the geotechnical model with respect to the BFP slope design parameters. As a result of this preliminary review, GCE recommended that the BFP pit design parameters be adopted for the current pit optimisation and mine design work, based on the assumption that the proposed KGP pit will be adequately dewatered. Further analysis, review, and validation, as part of a detailed mining geotechnical investigation and assessment, is currently underway by GCE. The results of this detailed geotechnical assessment are required to verify the pit slope design parameters for input to final pit optimisation and design. As such, the current (BFP) pit design parameters outlined in Section 4.4.3.4 are considered preliminary and subject to detailed geotechnical assessment.

GCE has also completed a preliminary pit slope stability assessment with respect to the proposed raising of the exiting TSF and completed a major hazard management plan for the management and minimisation of geotechnical risks associated with the KGP.

Given that the one of the significant contributing factors to pit wall instability during excavation of the existing Curara Well Pit was groundwater fluid pressure and high groundwater inflows, ongoing hydrogeological evaluation and assistance has been provided by KH Morgan and Associates. KH Morgan and Associates involvement extends from the initial development of the KGP in 2002, to the


Page 54

end of mining in 2006, followed by closure groundwater reporting in 2007, and recently, a hydrogeological assessment completed in October 2012.

4.4.3.1 Geotechnical Domains

The geotechnical domains (zones) defined by BFP for the existing Curara Well Open Pit are based on lithology and wall orientation as outlined in Table 28.

Table 28: BFP Geotechnical Domains

Zone Depth(m) Pit Sector

Alluvials 0 – 20 All walls

Pallid zone 20 – 40 All Walls

Highly to moderately weathered rock 40 – 80 All walls except south west wall‐ south

west wall dip direction 040° to 080°

Fresh rock 80 to base of pit All walls, except south west wall

The pallid zone laterites were tested as part of a geotechnical assessment completed by BFP for the original TSF in 2002. This testing involved evaluation of Emerson class and classification. Further testing of the Pallid Zone and the saprolite clays comprising this zone was conducted by BFP in late 2002 during excavation of the upper pit walls of the existing pit. The testing identified high moisture contents, greater than the plastic limit, in the clay samples. Further laboratory testing, including triaxial strength testing of Pallid Zone materials is currently underway as part of the detailed mining geotechnical study being conducted by GCE. The results of this testing will be incorporated in the slope stability analysis and subsequent verification of slope design parameters.

4.4.3.2 Structural Model

Geotechnically significant structures are those that are mechanically weak compared to the surrounding rock mass. These structures can include:

• Faults

• Shears

• Joints

• Foliation planes and schistosity

• Bedding planes

• Lithology contacts

• Veins

• Dykes.

BFP’s geotechnical assessment for the existing Curara Well Open Pit identified the structural orientations shown in Table 29. This work is based upon BFP logging of geotechnical drill holes.


Page 55

Table 29: Summary of Defect Sets Identified by BFP

Type Set Dip/dip direction Comments

Joint 1 27/202 SW dipping – pervasive joint set cross‐cutting the foliation, lithology contacts and quartz veins. Potential wedges with Defect Set 2.

Foliation 2 59/057 Steep easterly dipping – NNW strike. Potential stability issues on NE and SW walls where parallel to dip direction.

Joint 3 54/350

Joint 4 20/099

Joint 5 90/305

In 2003, BFP also completed a study into major structures that controlled pit wall failures in the Curara Well Open Pit. The structure type and orientation and relevant details are provided in Table 30.

Table 30: Major Structures Identified during Excavation of Curara Well Open Pit 2003

Major Structure Associated Failure Type Dip/dip

direction Description Domain Pit Wall

Location Interval Timing Type

Fault 60/018 Southern release plane. Impacts water inflow to pit

Pallid Zone

West wall adjacent to ramp entry to pit

325 mRL to 300 mRL

21 March 2003 to 13 April 2003

Rotational or undercut failure

Fault 62/088 Rear release plane. Localised feature, approximately 30° west of dominant foliation trend?

Fault 86/180 Northern release plane. Possibly impacts water inflow to pit

Fault 25/180 North eastern /rear release plane. Possibly water bearing.

Pallid Zone

North West corner of pit below ramp

325 mRL to 305 mRL

9 to 12 April 2003

Structurally controlled circular failure. Characterised by steep back scarp approximately 6‐8 m high.

Fault (regional)

60/120 South western release plane. Possibly water bearing.

Undefined 45/270 Possible rear release plane. (from Ref. 4)

Four pit wall failures were recorded by Equigold and monitored by BFP. Additional information on likely failure mechanisms was also subsequently mapped and recorded by GCE.

Failure type was either rotational; circular failure, undercut failure or planar structure failure. The failures were all within the Pallid Zone between 325 mRL to 300 mRL. Each of the failures was in excess of 200 t.


Page 56

4.4.3.3 Hydrogeology

Hydrogeological characteristics have been assessed in the proposed mine design and as such KH Morgan and Associates has been commissioned to provide advice on the groundwater dewatering strategy. This includes:

• dewatering will commence in advance of the commencement of the mining within each stage of the pit

• using vertical and/or horizontal depressurisation holes

• using in‐pit pump and sumps.

Experience during excavation of the existing Curara Well Pit indicates that the installation of horizontal pit wall drainage holes had a significant impact in reducing the risk of major wall failure.

The current geotechnical design parameters assume that the pit walls will be dewatered.

4.4.3.4 Geotechnical Design Parameters

The geotechnical parameters used for the pit designs are provided in Table 31. These design parameters were based upon recent verification mapping of the existing pit, BFP design parameters and GCE evaluation and site visit of the existing pit in 2011. As part of the staged mining approach proposed for the expansion and redevelopment of the KGP, the geotechnical information gathered during stages 1, 2 and 3 of production will be used to further define the geotechnical parameters for the final pit design. It may be necessary to re‐run optimisations and re‐design the final pit design should the geotechnical conditions differ from those currently expected.

Table 31: LOM Intermediate Mine Design Parameters (pre October 2012)

Zone Approximate Depth (m)

Batter Angle (°)

Berm Width (m)

Berm Height (m)

Pit Sector

Alluvials 0 – 20 60 7.5 20 All walls

Pallid Zone 20 – 40 35 7.5 20 All walls

Highly to Moderately Weathered Rock

40 – 80 60 5 10 All walls except for southwest

wall

60 5 10 Southwest wall (dip direction of 040° to 080°)

Fresh Rock 80 – base of pit 75 10 30 All walls except southwest wall

GCE has conducted a preliminary review of the original BFP pit design parameters, in the context of the proposed KGP redevelopment and pit expansion. This review was primarily based on the reported experience and slope stability performance of the existing Curara Well Open Pit.

A Ground Control Management Plan has been compiled as part of assessing the risks associated with this element of the KGP.

KirkalockMount M

Additionpart of tuniaxial

4.4.3.5 L

A geotecpotentiafacility. and TSF possible

Figure 12

GCE evaThese in

• c

• nw

These faand for pThe resuthe propprelimin

GCE aregeotech


nal geotechnthe final pit compressive

LOM Pit Des

chnical risk aal of the desGCE complein an area, LOM pit des

2: Section Eva

aluated two cluded:

circular failu

non circular wall stability

ailure types wpoint two, toults, based oposed desigary study ar

e further assnical informa

ct NL

ical core samwall stabilitye strength an

sign with Res

assessment sign interacteted a slope swhich represign (Figure 1

luated betwe

potential fa

re through u

polyline to y.

were assesseo evaluate if n the ‘most gn configurate provided in

sessing the ation genera

mples were cy analysis. And defect she

spect to Rais

of the maxition with thstability anaesented the c12).

een TSF and 7

ailure mecha

upper soil lik

assess the f

ed due to prthe surcharglikely’ modetion and incn full in Appe

interaction ated in quart

Page 57

collected in Odditional intear strength

sing Existing

mum LOM pe proposed lysis throughclosest inter

Year LOM

anisms, whic

e units (alluv

factor of saf

revious expege loading ofel scenario, increased TSFendix G.

of proposedter 4 2012.

October 201tact rock testesting for f

g Tailings Sto

pit design wextension ah a cross secraction point

ch were app

vial and palli

fety (FOS) of

rience of faif the TSF wondicate that in the area

d mine desig

12 of the neating will be cuture slope d

orage Facility

as undertakand uplift oftion betweet between th

plied to asse

d zone) and

f deep seate

lures occurruld impact othe slope wa assessed.

gn and TSF

MiningMine

ar surface mcompleted, design of fin

y

ken to assessf the tailingsen the designhe infrastruc

ess pit wall

ed failure an

ing in the paoverall slopewould be stab The result

based on t


aterial as including al walls.

s the risk s storage n pit crest cture and

stability.

d overall

allid zone stability. ble under ts of this

he latest


Page 58

4.5 PIT DEWATERING

Dewatering shall be based predominantly on a series of in pit and outer pit dewatering bores designed to lower the water table in advance of the mining. The dewatering production bores have been established and were successfully used for dewatering during the Equigold operation. MMS propose to utilise the existing bores as well as construct additional bores in the southern mining area to dewater ahead of mining for the pit cutback. Dewatering the open pit void will also include the installation of a floating pontoon pump to directly abstract water out of the open it void.

Depressurisation of pit walls shall be achieved using sub‐horizontal drain holes at intervals and in locations recommended by Kevin Morgan and Associates. Pit sumps will be used where required to capture and manage any seepage produced from depressurisation bores and from any wet zones within the pit. Details of existing dewatering bores (Figure 7) proposed for refurbishment are included in Table 32. The water from the open pit will be used as part of the process water requirements for the treatment of ore. No water is planned to be discharged to the environment.

Table 32: Curara Well Pit Cutback Dewatering Bore Details

Bore Name

Northing (GDA)

Easting (GDA)

Natural Surface (M)

Depth (M)

Original Water Level (Mbgl)

Main Aquifer (M)

Yield (M3h‐1)

Salinity (mgL‐1) TDS

Type

KP11 6827893 574947.01 346.080 87 5.45 4‐23 20.00 1340 DewateringKP13 6826822.83 574684.39 346.587 96 8.30 53‐60 15.00(+) 1280 Dewatering

Water will be pumped from the pit and associated dewatering bores to the process water ponds supplying the treatment plant and be used for processing, dust suppression, construction and rehab. Dust suppression shall be carried out using sprinklers and water trucks, which shall be in continuous operation in the treatment plant area and on haul roads respectively. Full utilisation of dewatering water is expected and there will be no requirement for an evaporation pond or other water management facility at the site to cater for excess mine dewater.

Both in‐pit and ex‐pit dewatering bores will be refurbished to drain water from both the upper palaeochannel alluvium as well as a fractured rock structure deeper in the open pit.

Dewatering pipelines are expected to be constructed polypropylene pipe of a suitable size and class for duty at its point of application whilst the lines from each individual bore will vary in size depending on their final production capability. Pipelines for the dewatering borefield will either be buried or contained in open bunded trenches. Inspection roads will be installed alongside pipelines to enable regular visual inspections and maintenance to be made.

Monitoring of production, standing water levels and water quality from the dewatering bore and associated monitoring bores will be carried out in accordance with the Groundwater Operating Strategy (current being assessed by DoW) (Appendix H).


Page 59

4.6 DRILLING & BLASTING

Following overburden removal it is expected that open pit blasting will be conducted approximately every day. Drill and blast procedures and designs will be prepared in consultation with blasting specialists to ensure:

• Safety of the mine workforce

• Minimal movement of the ore zones to allow efficient mining and ensure stabilisation of the pit walls

• Adequate fragmentation of the rock.

Drilling and blasting will be undertaken by a mining contractor under the control of a nominated person who is a holder of a Western Australian Shotfirer’s Certificate.

A surface primary explosives magazine and detonator magazine will be established in accordance with the Dangerous Goods Safety (Explosives) Regulations 2007 and is located approximately 700 m to the north of the proposed Curara Well Pit cutback operations (Figure 10).

The contractor will provide and install fencing and earth poles/straps and manage the magazine facility. The contractor will provide 2 x 7,500 kg ‐ 10,000 kg sized magazines. Explosives shall be stored in accordance with Dangerous Goods Safety (Explosives) Regulations 2007.

All explosives will be transported from the magazine to the open pit mine using vehicles which are licensed under the DG Act 2004 and the Australian Code for the Transportation of Explosives by Road and Rail.

4.7 WASTE LANDFORMS

It is estimated that approximately 38 Mt of waste rock will require disposal from the proposed open pit mining operations. The majority of the waste rock from the open pit operations will be produced as a result of construction of the open pit cutback over a period of approximately 6 years.

The original KGP waste rock landform was constructed in lifts, with the base lift being constructed before the second lift commenced. On each lift, waste material was placed on the outer face of the waste rock landform and progressively in‐filled back towards the pit. This enabled batters to be created from the ground up and provided areas for progressive rehabilitation to occur.

Two waste landforms have been included as a part of the infrastructure design for the KGP. The primary waste landform (existing waste landform) will be built on top of the existing waste landform. Topsoil previously placed on this waste landform will need to be stripped and stockpiled before this can proceed. It is planned to keep the primary waste landform within the current footprint (67 ha). This will involve reinstating the 5 m wide bench at 20 m high and hauling waste material to the top of the existing waste landform, approximately 30 m above the surrounding surface and filling in the available space on the waste landform. It is planned to increase the overall slope angle of the second 20 m lift to 18 degrees from the current overall angle of approximately 8 degrees. A 5 m wide berm will be constructed at the 40 m level followed by a further lift at 18 degrees. The final height is planned to be 60 m above the original ground surface.


Page 60

The secondary waste landform (north waste landform) will require clearing of approximately 37 ha north of the existing Curara Well Open Pit and is proposed to be approximately 40 m high. This waste landform will be a similar design with two 20 m batters with a 5 m bench. The overall angle of the waste landform will be 17 to 18 degrees. The base of the waste landform will be rock armoured and a toe drain shall be maintained around the outer perimeter of the waste landform to capture runoff and sediment during rainfall periods.

Both waste landforms have been designed with back sloping benches to reduce runoff and to encourage maximum infiltration into the landforms and to minimise erosion down the embankments. The top of the landforms will be designed to be water collecting rather than shedding. Batter and bench stabilisation techniques such as contour ripping and installation of cleared vegetation and mulch will be utilised wherever possible.

The waste landform volumes are detailed in Table 33. The existing waste landform volume does not include the volume of waste currently stored.

Table 33: Waste Landform Volumes

Waste Landform Unit Volume

Proposed North Waste Landform m3 8,686,000 Existing Waste Landform m3 12,060,000

Drill samples representing the different waste lithologies were sent to Graeme Campbell and Associates (GCA) for acid and metalliferous drainage risk assessment. The results of the waste characterisation assessment indicated that there is no acid and metalliferous drainage risk. More detail is provided in Section 6.7.1.

4.8 ORE PROCESSING

The KGP has in place a 1.2 Mtpa CIL/CIP treatment plant licensed by DEC. The CIL/CIP treatment plant has been in Care and Maintenance since MMS took over the project in 2008. This facility will be refurbished to enable the facility to be bought back into operations in a safe and effective manner.

The mine plan has identified the need to increase the throughput of the treatment plant to enable the production targets to be met. This increase is to be achieved with the addition of suitably sized equipment to the comminution section of the treatment plant as the current leaching and adsorption sections capacity has been deemed of an appropriate size for the increased throughput.

The focus for the upgrade to the comminution facility is to improve (reduce) the transfer size from the crushing section to the existing SAG/ball mill. To achieve this improvement, it is planned that a tertiary crushing circuit consisting of a stockpile and reclaim system, product screen and two appropriately sized vertical shaft impactor (VSI) type crushing units. In addition to the above changes, oxide material will be crushed and stockpiled separately to the harder laterite and fresh material. This will enable the oxide material to be fed directly to the mill feed conveyor as there is not the need to reduce this material to the same particle size as the harder ores.


Page 61

4.8.1 Process Description

Ore from the open cut mine will be delivered directly to a 500,000 tonne ore ROM stockpile area located near the treatment plant. This ore storage facility is the only provision within the circuit against mining schedule delays.

The ROM hopper is protected by a 500 mm aperture flat square grizzly suitable to handle the feed from a 988 CAT loader. The oversize from the grizzly will be stockpiled for later breakage by a rock breaker. The ore is extracted from the coarse ore bin by an apron feeder. The feeder, driven by a variable speed hydraulic motor, discharges directly into a single toggle jaw crusher to provide the primary breakage of the ore. The primary crushed ore is discharged directly from the crusher onto a discharge conveyor, which transports the ore to the feed conveyor for the secondary crushing circuit. The conveyor is equipped with a weightometer to control throughput, a zero speed switch and associated safety equipment.

For fresh/hard ore, the secondary crusher feed conveyor discharges onto the secondary screen where the undersize material is conveyed onto the ore bin/stacker feed bin. The oversize material from the screen is fed directly into the secondary crusher. The crusher product is fed back onto the secondary crusher feed conveyor via two transfer conveyors where the product is then screened along with the fresh feed.

Oxide ore follows the same route as the hard ore, except the screen undersize material is diverted onto a stacker conveyor which feeds the dedicated crushed oxide stockpile, which has a reclaim tunnel conveyor system for the recovery of the stockpiled material and feed to the mill feed conveyor.

The secondary crusher product is fed to the fine ore bin/emergency feed bin where it is diverted onto the ore stacker conveyor. This conveyor discharges onto the fresh ore stockpile. The crushed fresh ore is recovered by a reclaim tunnel conveyor which feeds then to the tertiary crusher circuit.

The inclusion of two separate crushed ore stockpiles avoids the problems associated with storage of the different ore types. All hard ores will be blended as required at the crusher feed and fed onto the tertiary crushed feed stockpile, while the oxide material will be crushed and stockpiled separately and fed to the mill feed conveyor directly at the desired feed rate.

With the excess installed crusher capacity, this arrangement allows the crusher to be operated for only one shift per day while mill feed is provided continuously (at a lower rate than the crushing rate) from the two available stockpiles.

The SAG mill feed rate is controlled by mill operator via the mill feed conveyors and will be a combination of the tertiary crusher product (fed direct to the mill discharge chute as a slurry) and crushed oxide feed.

The SAG mill is operated with a reverse spiral trommel screen having a 12.7 mm aperture. The trommel screen undersize (and tertiary crusher product) flows to the cyclone feed sump, from where it is pumped to the cyclone classification system. The cyclone underflow is sent to the SAG mill feed throat. The cyclone overflow advances through a trash screen, past a sampling system, then to the


Page 62

first leach tank. The 0.6 mm aperture trash screen removes foreign materials such as wood chips and blasting materials which would otherwise be retained in the carbon adsorption tanks.

To assist in the metallurgical performance of the circuit, a portion of the cyclone underflow material will be bled from the return stream to a gravity concentration circuit. The objective of this circuit is to recover any free gold in this stream for separate processing in the gold room area. Tailings from this area are returned to the mill feed chute with the balance of the cyclone underflow.

The leach/adsorption circuit consists of a total of six tanks, sized to provide approximately a total of 24 hours slurry retention time. The first tank is a pure leach tank with cyanide addition and oxygen injection. The remaining five tanks function as combined leach and adsorption tanks. Sodium cyanide solution is added to the leach feed distribution box to provide the required cyanide concentration for efficient gold leaching. Primary pH control is achieved through lime addition to the mill feed conveyor. Additional adjustment is provided by return eluate addition and lime slurry addition to the leach circuit at various locations.

The leach/adsorption tanks are equipped with mechanical sweep, Minproc type cylindrical carbon retaining screens.

The slurry flows through the adsorption stages by gravity, the carbon inventory in each stage being retained by the carbon retention screens. Activated carbon is advanced from stage to stage by a recessed impeller pump or airlift pump, countercurrent to the main slurry flow. Eluted and regenerated carbon is fed to the number six adsorption tank, and as it advances to the number one stage, it absorbs soluble gold from the leached ore slurry. The slurry becomes progressively depleted of soluble gold as it travels down the adsorption stages. Slurry overflowing from the number six stage is gravity fed to the tailings pump hopper via a carbon safety screen, following which the tailings slurry is pumped to the TSF.

The gold‐loaded carbon is recovered from the first or second adsorption stage on an external screen and water washed to remove ore fines. It is then ready for acid washing, elution and thermal regeneration.

In the elution process, the loaded carbon is loaded into the elution column where it is first acid washed with a 3% hydrochloric acid solution to remove clays, ore fines and absorbed calcium and magnesium ions. This cleaning operation is to condition the carbon so that it is amenable to effective gold elution and removes materials, which could contribute to fouling of the heat exchanger and failure of the regeneration furnace tube. Waste acid stream will be discharged with the tailings stream in a controlled manner such that the pH of the discharge slurry is not adversely impacted by the dilute acid addition. The volume of acid solution discharged in this manner would be less than 2000 L and would be diluted by up to 280,000 L of pH 10 slurry over a one hour period.

Following acid washing, the carbon is water washed and then eluted with an elution solution consisting of 0.5% sodium cyanide and 2% sodium hydroxide is circulated through the carbon in the elution column at 130oC and 200 kPa. The heating of the solution is provided by a modern gas fired boiler and an oil to water heat exchanger.

KirkalockMount M

The loadheat recwhere treturnedthrougho

FollowindewatertreatmeRegener

The goldsmelted grinding

Process

Figure 13

4.8.2

The treapurposeother pitthen a sto the nrequirem


ded solution covery heat he eluted gd to the leaout the gold

ng elution, tred, then regnt removes rated carbon

d deposit on with appro circuit. Bull

flow diagram

3: Treatment

Process Wat

atment plants. As noted t dewateringupplementanorth of thements reduce

ct NL

(pregnant eexchanger aold is deposach circuit tostripping cir

the carbon generated inorganic con is quenched

the steel woopriate fluxelion bars are

ms for the tre

Plant Flowsh

ter Supply

t is expectedprocess watg activities. Tary supply we mine. Wate.

eluate) is theand treated sited onto so recover arcuit.

is transferrn an Ansac Hntaminants fd in potable w

ool cathodess and pouretransported

eatment plan

heet

d to typicallyter will be soThis will meeill be soughtter requirem

Page 63

en cooled toin batch mosteel wool cny residual

red to the Horizontal Kfrom the cawater and d

s from the eed into cast d to a refiner

nt are includ

y use 6,600 ourced initiaet the water t by reinstatments will de

below atmoode throughcathodes. Bgold and re

regenerationiln. The thearbon and rischarged di

lectrowinniniron ingot

ry for final re

ded in Figure

m3 of make‐ally from therequiremening the existecline over

osphere boilh a series of arren electreagents. Po

n kiln feed ermal regeneestores its grectly to the

ng cell is calcmoulds. Slaefining and sa

13

‐up water pee Curara Wents for the firting productthe LOM of

MiningMine

ling temperaf electrowinnrowinning sootable wate

hopper wheration (reacgold‐loading adsorption

cined or acidag is recycleale.

er day for prell Open Pit rst 1.5 to 2 yion borefieldf mine as pr


ature in a ning cells olution is r is used

here it is ctivation) g activity. circuit.

washed, ed to the

rocessing Void and years and d located rocessing


Page 64

Pumping from the process water supply borefield will be with submersible pumps in boreholes powered from the site power station and a network of overhead power lines. Water from the borefield will be pumped to the plastic lined water storage pond located at the treatment plant, which incorporates a high level alarm to prevent overflow.

Nine production bores were established along the paleaodrainage system to the north of the mine and three were constructed to assist with dewatering the pits. The details of these bores are included in Table 6.

It is anticipated that existing borefield footprint will be sufficient and no additional clearing is required for the refurbishment of water supply pipelines, access roads and borefield pumps. Figure 7 shows the locations of the process and village water supply borefields.

Process water supply borefield pipelines will be constructed with HDPE pipe of a suitable class for duty at its point of application whilst the lines from each individual bore will vary in size depending on their final production capability. Pipelines for the production borefield will be contained in open bunded trenches or buried. Existing pipeline access tracks will be used to enable regular visual inspections and maintenance to be undertaken.

As for the dewatering bores, monitoring of production, standing water levels and water quality from each dewatering bore will be carried out in accordance with the Groundwater Operating Strategy approved by the DoW.

4.9 TAILINGS STORAGE

Tailings from processing of ore at the treatment plant are proposed to be disposed of in the KGP TSF. The existing TSF facility is situated on the eastern side of the KGP site (Figure 2 and 3). The facility was designed and constructed by BFP Consultants in 2002 and was operational between 2002 and 2008.

The existing facility comprises a square stand‐alone paddock type impoundment with a surface area of approximately 49 ha. The total footprint of the facility is approximately 80 ha. The facility comprises a starter embankment only with walls constructed using zoned earth techniques. The top surface is approximately 13‐15 m above the natural surface (Coffey, 2011).

The existing TSF reached full capacity during Equigold’s operation of the project and a new lift of the existing TSF is required to cater for tailings produced from MMS’ proposed operations. It is proposed that the new lift will be constructed on top of the existing facility using the upstream lift method with a final height of 30 m with individual lifts of no more than 2.5 m.

The proposed tailings throughput of the treatment plant will be a maximum of 1.7 Mtpa. The specific gravity of the tailings material is expected to be 1.5 t/m3. This is equivalent to approximately 1.066 million m3 per of tailings produced per annum. A total of 9.9 Mt or 6.6 million m3 of tailings are expected to be produced and discharged over the life of the project (Coffey 2011).

Coffey Mining (Coffey) were contracted to complete the design of the TSF lift and associated works. Coffey have undertaken a review of the existing TSF and including the evaluation of the key aspects of the TSF design and operation:


Page 65

• completion of field testing to determine current phreatic surface and in‐situ tailings strength utilising electric friction cone penetrometers test unit

• laboratory analysis of samples taken of the deposited tailings. Laboratory analysis included the following tests:

o particle size distribution

o Atterberg limits

o standard maximum dry density

o consolidated undrained tri‐axle test

• from the collected data and test results, the following analysis were conducted:

o stability analysis to confirm design factor of safety for stability above the ANCOLD minimum requirements

o liquefaction assessment.

A summary of Coffey’s findings are provided in Section 4.7.1.

4.9.1 Design and Construction

The design and construction of the TSF lift stages will meet the standards required by the design documents and will incorporate the following main features:

• construction of 6 x 2.5 m lifts to contain tailings produced over the proposed life of the KGP (Figure 14).

• one new lift constructed each year (approximately) for 7 years.

• construction via upstream embankment techniques.

o each lift embankment to be constructed of compacted tailings borrowed from within the existing facility.

o the embankment walls will be capped with benign waste rock produced from mining operations to improve wall stability, reduce erosion potential and provide a growth medium substrate for rehabilitation.

o wall angles of 1:2.75 for the downstream embankment and 1:2 (vertical to horizontal) for the upstream embankment. The walls will include a 6 m wide crest.

• a final TSF height of approximately 375.5 mRL (i.e. approximately 30 m above natural ground surface).

• construction of a tailings discharge pipeline system and a central decant tower and return pipeline.

• TSF designed such that the decant pond pools away from the perimeter embankments (Figure 15).

• seepage analysis shows that the total seepage flow rate from the final TSF lift stages surface will be negligible at approximately 6 m3 per day.

• the TSF lift stages have been designed with a total of 0.5 m freeboard. This is comprised of 0.3 m operational freeboard and a 0.2 m beach freeboard.

KirkaMou

Figur

alocka Gold Project nt Magnet South N

re 14: The General

NL

Operational Layou

ut of the TSF Including the Layout of th

Page 66

he New Lift.

Mining PropoMine Expansi

osal ion

KirkaMou

Figur


re 15: Show Decant

NL

t Design Located awway from Perimeteer Embankments

Page 67


osal ion


Page 68

• the TSF lift stages is designed to temporarily store water produced from a 100 year 72 hour ARI storm event. The maximum storage volume is approximately 62,000 m3. This requires an additional freeboard allowance of 0.4 m above the operational level of the decant pond.

• the final TSF landform will assume the form of a truncated pyramid with a depressed cone in the top surface.

The TSF lift stages storage characteristics as provided by Coffey (2011) are shown as follows in Table 34.

Table 34: TSF Lift Stages Storage Characteristics

Stage Embankment Crest RL (m)

Maximum Height (m)

Total Earthworks Volume (m3)

Tailings Storage Estimated Life (Years) Volume (Mm3) Capacity (mt)

Existing 360.5 15.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Stage 1 363 17.5 95,000 1.2 1.7 1.2Stage 2 365.5 20.0 95,000 1.2 1.7 1 (2.2)Stage 3 368 22.5 90,000 1.1 1.7 1.2 (3.4)Stage 4 370.5 25.0 90,000 1.1 1.6 1.3 (4.7)Stage 5 373 27.5 90,000 1.0 1.5 1.3 (6.0)Stage 6 375.5 30.0 85,000 1.0 1.5 ‐Total 530,000 6.6 9.9

4.9.2 Geotechnical Investigations

Coffey have undertaken a geotechnical investigation of the existing TSF to determine its suitability as a base for the construction of the TSF lift stages. The main conclusions of the study are as follows:

• The existing tailings mass comprises an upper layer of silty sand material overlying a lower layer of clayey material.

• The existing TSF will be stable under both static and seismic conditions, with factors of safety above the recommended minimum values.

• Liquification of tailings within the facility is unlikely.

• The decant pond should be located away from the perimeter embankments to minimise the risk of tailings liquification and embankment instability.

The general conclusion was that the existing TSF will provide a satisfactory base layer for the construction of the proposed TSF lift stages.

4.9.3 Environmental Management

4.9.3.1 Tailings Management Plan (TMP)

Coffey have developed a Tailings Management Plan (TMP), which includes an Operations Manual (OM) for treatment plant staff. The OM has been developed in accordance with Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR, 2007) publication “Guidelines on the Development of an Operating Manual for Tailings Storage”. The TMP (and OM) are included as attachments as a part of Coffey’s (2011) Mining Proposal, Tailings Storage Facility.


Page 69

The TMP and OM provide details on recommended monitoring and inspection regimes and the OM details an Emergency Action Plan should there be a problem with the TSF. The TMP is designed for treatment plant management staff responsible for the overall operation and compliance of the site. The OM is designed for use by treatment plant staff and provides further detail on the required operational procedures for day‐to‐day running of both the plant and the TSF.

These documents will be reviewed and updated as required over the life of the mine dependant on the monitoring results and performance of the TSF.

4.9.3.2 External Auditing

An audit to provide a status report of progress measured against Mining Proposal and licence expectations will be conducted as a minimum of every 2 years by Company Engineering or Geotechnical consultants.

4.9.3.3 Existing DEC licence conditions

A works approval has been approved by DEC for the construction of the TSF upstream lift. MMS will continue to operate in accordance with the KGP Prescribed Premise Licence (Appendix I).

4.9.4 TSF Operation

The TSF will be operated in accordance with the Licence, the TMP and OM. Coffey (2011) note that the TSF lift stages have been designed with the following outcomes in mind:

• to optimise the recovery of surface water from the facility.

• to maximise the tailings density and storage capacity by discharging tailings at regularly changed depositional points.

• to reduce environmental impacts.

The tailings depositional method is described by Coffey (2011) as follows:

• tailings in the form of slurry will be discharged sub‐aerially from open end discharge points on the perimeter embankments of the storage facility.

• tailing slurry will have characteristics similar to those produced during the Equigold operation as follows:

o slurry density: 40% ‐ 50% w/w

o tailings slurry pH: 9.5 ‐ 9.9

o tailing return water pH: 8.5

o free cyanide in tailings slurry: 110 mg/L

o WAD cyanide in tailings slurry: 100 mg/L

o free cyanide in return water: <100 mg/L

• tailings will be deposited in discrete layers from multiple locations. The discharge point will be regularly changed to ensure an even development of the tailings beach.


Page 70

• tailings discharge to be carried out such that the supernatant water pond is maintained around the decant pump at the centre of the facility.

• in‐situ tailings to have a density of approximately 1.5 tonnes per m3.

• on decommissioning, the TSF will remain as a permanent feature of the landscape and will drain to create an increasingly stable mass.

• tailings discharge pipeline to be contained within a bunded “V drain” to enable capture and containment of leaks or spills.

Tailings decant recovery as described by Coffey (2011) will incorporate the following:

• tailings deposition will be completed in a manner to enable a pond of free supernatant water to pool at the centre of the TSF. It is proposed that the supernatant decant water recovery system comprise a pump located within a stack of slotted concrete well liners (decant tower).

• return water will be pumped back to the process water pond or tank near the treatment plant for re‐use in the CIL/CIP process.

• a start‐up decant pond volume of 165,000 m³ is proposed, which corresponds to an approximate pond radius of 250 m assuming a conical pond geometry and 1% tailings beach slope. This results in a minimum separation distance of 50 m between the perimeter embankment and pond extent.

• The tailings return water pipeline is to be contained within a bunded “V drain” designed to capture and contain any leaks or spills..

Monitoring and inspection regimes will continue as per the DEC Prescribed Premise Licence conditions.

The Emergency Action Plan and subsequent incident reporting procedure as detailed in the OM will be initiated should an incident involving the TSF occur. Reportable incidents will include:

• any fauna death on or near the TSF (not including vehicle collision)

• any uncontrolled release of tailings slurry or return water and the cause (eg. pipe break)

• overtopping, pump malfunction, automatic switch malfunction, operator error)

• impact from seepage (vegetation distress, soil contamination, water quality changes

• defects to TSF covering such things as the embankments, decant, process water tank

• changes in water quality that exceed prescribed conditions of licence criteria

• increases in production tonnages.

MMS’ senior staff will investigate any significant incidents or breach of licence conditions and the MMS’ Environmental Department will report to relevant government regulatory authorities, where necessary.

The TSF lift design report completed by Coffey Mining has been included as Appendix J of this Mining Proposal. TSF construction will be supervised by a Geotechnical Engineering specialist and a


Page 71

completion report produced containing the results of all testwork required during construction. A copy of the completion report will be forwarded to DMP upon finalisation.

4.9.5 Geochemical Assessment

Wave Solutions managed a geochemical assessment of the material within the TSF to assess the potential for acid and metalliferous drainage. Nine tailings samples were taken from the existing TSF to represent the different lithologies at different depths within the TSF.

This methodology was used as the samples show a true representation of potential for the tailings to produce acid and metalliferous drainage rather than using a lab trial and given that the results show that the existing tailings are non‐acid forming, it is highly unlikely that the tailings from future mining of the same lithology’s will be an acid or metalliferous drainage risk. Figure 5 in Section 2.3 shows the pit perimeter and the continuation of the same lithologies.

4.9.6 Integrated Waste Landform

MMS are investigating the opportunity increase production and subsequently tailings production. In order to accommodate the potential increase in tailings, MMS has commissioned Coffey to design and review the prospect of converting the proposed northern waste landform into an integrated tailings storage facility and waste landform.

As Coffey has not yet completed their design, approval for this facility will be sought in a separate Mining Proposal and an additional Works Approval.

4.10 SUPPORT FACILITIES

4.10.1 Administration/Workshops

The mine site offices are located at the entrance of the fenced treatment plant area and includes a reception area, six offices, a map/meeting room and a boardroom.

The maintenance workshops and stores are located inside the fenced area next to the treatment plant and include a maintenance office, crib room and toilet facilities.

The heavy vehicle workshops are located in the heavy vehicle laydown area near the proposed open pit. This area includes the waste oil storage tank, the washdown bay, offices & core storage area.

4.10.2 Laboratory

The laboratory facilities are located adjacent to the processing plant and behind the main administration building. These facilities have been sized to be able to process the exploration, grade control and processing samples for the whole site. The facilities consist of the following main areas:

• Sample preparation. Sample preparation takes up the largest portion of the laboratory building and is located in the northern portion of the building with sliding door access for sample delivery and personnel access doors from the undercover veranda area and through to the wet lab and metallurgist office areas. This area consists of sample drying ovens and storage racks as well as preparation tables and pulverisers. A total of four pulverisers are


Page 72

installed along with sample preparation stations, all incorporating dust extraction from the single bag house located externally at the rear of the laboratory.

• Wet Lab. The wet lab structure is a lined building built within the main laboratory shed structure. The wet lab consists of the sample preparation benches as well as appropriately sized sample digestion stations within designated fume enclosures. The fume enclosures are provided with extraction via a dedicated laboratory wet scrubbing system located immediately behind the fume hoods external to the building. Acid storage and waste acid and DIBK collection bunds and tanks are located external to the building adjacent to the scrubbing system. The wet lab has its own emergency shower/eyewash station appropriately located within the area.

• AAS room. Coming off the Wet Lab is a room dedicated to the set up and operation of the AAS machine. Gas supply for the AAS is located external to the building adjacent to this room.

• Office/storage. Two small areas are supplied within the wet lab for the lab supervisor and for sample/document storage.

4.10.3 Accommodation Village

The existing accommodation village consists of 110 rooms, two 3 bedroom houses, wet mess, dry mess facilities, 2 laundries, reverse osmosis plant, car park, basketball court, gym and TV room.

4.10.4 Aerodrome

The KGP site aerodrome has remained operational and maintained in good condition. It is approximate 1,800 m long and 115 m wide gravel airstrip. It will be utilised fully to cater for the mostly fly in fly out workforce. The aerodrome will also be used to evacuate personnel in the event of an emergency.

The aerodrome is suitable for RFDS aircrafts to land at the site if required.

4.10.5 Waste Disposal

4.10.5.1 Putrescible and Industrial Waste

All inert waste generated from mining activities at the KGP will either be buried in a designated place within the waste landform or removed from site to an approved facility. All non‐hazardous (putrescible and inert) domestic waste generated at the KGP will be either buried at the onsite waste disposal facility which is currently licenced to take up to 200 m3 of putrescible waste per day or it will be removed from site and disposed of at an approved waste disposal site. MMS estimates that generation of putrescible waste at the KGP site will be within the licensed volume.


Page 73

4.10.5.2 Sewerage

Sewage is currently managed on site by septic tanks at the mine offices or by an anaerobic pond system followed by an infiltration area for village (Figure 10). Septic sludge is currently collected from septic tanks as required by a licensed controlled waste contractor and disposed of at a licensed facility. The wastewater treatment systems have been designed and are operated in compliance with the health requirements of the Department of Health WA, DEC Prescribed Premise Licence and the Shire of Mount Magnet.

4.10.5.3 Tyres

Waste tyres that are unsuitable for re‐treading will be either buried in the waste rock landform at the KGP site or where possible removed from the site by a licenced controlled waste contractor to an approved recycling or other disposal facility.

4.10.5.4 Hazardous Waste

Hazardous waste generated at the KGP will be comprised mainly of solid and liquid hydrocarbon wastes generated from vehicle maintenance activities. These wastes will be removed from site to an approved waste disposal site or recycling facility. Where required a licensed waste disposal contractor shall be used for transport of such wastes. Soil impacted by hydrocarbons as well as solids from triple interceptor traps will be treated on‐site at a small (nominally 50 m x 50 m) clay bunded bioremediation pad.

4.11 WORKFORCE

The total project workforce has been estimated on the basis of construction workforce, mining, milling and administration (including camp). Expected personnel numbers are presented in Table 35.

Table 35: Estimated Workforce Requirements for the KGP Project Site

Project Phase

Personnel Type Refurbishment Mining Milling Admin ‐ Management 1 4‐ Administration 1 2‐ Accounts 1‐ OHS/Training 1 2‐ Environmental 1‐ Mine management 1 ‐ Engineering 1 2* ‐ Geology 2 ‐ Trade assistants/ Pit Tech 3 ‐ Surveying 2 ‐ Supervisory 3 3 ‐ Operators:

‐ Excavator 6 ‐ Truck 30 ‐ Bulldozer 3


Page 74

Project Phase

Personnel Type Refurbishment Mining Milling Admin ‐ Grader 3 ‐ Watercart 0

‐ Drill & blast 12 ‐ Metallurgist 1 ‐ Gold Room Superintendent 1 ‐ Production Superintendent 1 ‐ Operators:

‐ Crusher Loader 2 ‐ Crusher 2 ‐ Mill 3 ‐ Leach 3

‐ Laboratory 2 ‐ Maintenance Superintendent 1 1 ‐ Fitters/welders 3 9 6 ‐ Electricians 2 3 ‐ Trade assistants 5 ‐ Auto electrical 1 ‐ Camp management 2 14TOTAL 17 66 29 23

The majority of personnel are expected to be housed within the camp and will be FIFO from Perth. Some personnel may elect to live in Mount Magnet in either company provided housing where available or in private accommodation.

Additional personnel may be brought in on occasions to provide services during maintenance shutdowns and for exploration activity such as RC or Diamond drilling to supplement reserves.

4.12 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS

Construction, mining, consumable and other items will be either transported to/from site through Perth via the Great Northern Highway or transported to/from site through Geraldton via the Geraldton – Mt Magnet Road. Some items may be flown to site on the regular FIFO charter. Ore and waste will be hauled from the open pit to either the ROM area at the mill or to the waste landform as appropriate via the internal haul road system (Figure 10). Light vehicle tracks will be installed on the site to allow for access to areas such as borefields, power lines and explorations areas. Establishment of haul roads and access tracks will not impact on existing tracks owned and operated by Kirkalocka Station.

4.13 RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS AND REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE

4.13.1 Water Supply

Accommodation camp and treatment plant potable water has been historically been supplied by production bore KP5, which continues to be used for this purpose. Between 2002 and the end of


Page 75

2006, a total of 93,486 kL of water was abstracted from KP5 for camp purposes with an average abstraction rate of 18,698 kL per annum.

KH Morgan and Associates have recommended 500,000 kL of water for dust suppression, construction road maintenance and rehabilitation.

Treatment plant requires approximately 2,400,000 kL per annum of water.

A simplified water balance for the KGP is as follows Table 36.

Table 36: Water usage estimates for KGP site

Use Source Requirement

Potable Water KP5 via RO plant ~ 20,000 kL/annum

Dust Suppression Raw water pond ~ 500,000 kL/annum

Fire water Raw water pond/Village raw water tank ~ 200 kL/annum

Power station Potable ~ 50 kL/annum

Treatment Plant Dewatering pit ~ 2,400,000 kL/annum

Total ~ 2,920,250 kL/annum

Raw bore water from KP5 is filtered and sanitised through a Reverse Osmosis (RO) plant located at the camp before being distributed to the kitchen and selected potable water distribution points around the camp and the mine. The camp rooms, garden retic and any tap not signed potable water is supplied by water from the KP5 raw water tank. This water is not treated by the RO but is good quality water that meets the water quality requirements of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. MMS are developing a Drinking Water Management Plan in line with the Department of Health (DoH) requirements for potable water supply to mine sites and exploration camps.

4.13.2 Fuel Supply and Usage

A fuel farm consisting of four 65 000 L tanks is currently licenced for storage and handling of diesel in accordance with the Dangerous Goods Safety Act 2004. This facility provides fuel for the power station and light vehicles.

A second fuel farm incorporating two 65,000 L bunded diesel tanks will be set up to supply fuel to site machinery and be located in the heavy machine laydown area. This fuel farm facility will also be licenced under the Dangerous Goods Safety Act 2004 through the DMP Resources Safety division.

The annual site requirement is expected to be approximately 4 gigalitres of diesel. An estimated breakdown of diesel usage is provided in Table 37.


Page 76

Table 37: Estimated diesel usage for mining equipment

Equipment Type Estimated Diesel Usage per Annum (Kl)Haul Trucks 2,690 Excavator 430 Dozer 200 Loader 80

Light vehicles 50 Water cart 185 Grader 105 Drill rigs 210 Total 3,950

240,000 L of LPG will be consumed per annum through operation of the project.

A 7.5 kL LGP bullet will be set up at the camp to supply the kitchen.

4.13.3 Power Supply and Usage

Electrical power for the project will be supplied by a power station consisting of 14 diesel generators, close coupled to Stamford 415 V alternators complete with fuel and exhaust systems, tanks, meters, main switchboard and an air conditioned control room housing the control panel.

The maximum power requirements for the site are 3 MW and therefore the power station does not require licensing in accordance with the EP Regs. Power will be supplied to remote facilities such as the borefield pumps and the camp through the existing overhead power line system.

Backup power for the camp will be in the form of 500 kW standalone diesel powered genset.

It is estimated that 22,000 Megawatt hours (MWhrs) of power will be consumed per annum through operation of the project.

4.13.4 Dangerous Goods and Hydrocarbons

Four bulk 65,000 L diesel tanks will be required for light vehicles and two 65,000 L diesel tanks for the heavy vehicles. An appropriately designed apron and spillage containment system will be set up adjacent to the tanks for vehicle refuelling. The workshop washdown bay will include a hydrocarbon separator to draw contaminated water from the triple interceptor system, which will be located next to the wash down pad. All bulk hydrocarbons (with the exception of bulk diesel) will be stored in bunded areas adjacent to the workshop. Storage areas will be capable of containing 110% of the largest container stored and 25% of the aggregate of all containers stored. Waste oil will be stored in a bunded compound incorporating either a 10,000 L waste oil storage tank or a series of 1000 litre bulk containers and will be collected by a licensed waste oil recycler (eg.


Page 77

Wren Oil) as required. Other hazardous wastes will be removed from site by suitable licenced contractors as required. The explosives magazine will be located to the north of the open pit (Figure 10).

5. COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION AND OTHER APPROVALS

5.1 COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATION

5.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

A search of the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities (SEWPaC) Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) revealed that there are two threatened species protected under the EPBC Act 1999, Acanthiza iredalei iredalei (Slender‐billed thornbill) and Ricinocarpos brevis that according to the search have potential to occur in the area. The PMST also noted that there were three listed migratory species Apus pacificus, Ardea alba (modestus) and Merops ornatus which are protected under the EPBC Act and which have potential to occur in the area. The results of a Vertebrate Fauna Survey (Sections 2.12.4.5) shows that they it is unlikely that these species will be significantly impacted by the implementation of the KGP proposal. For this reason, the proposal has not been referred to the SEWPaC for assessment.

5.2 STATE LEGISLATION

5.2.1 Part IV, Environmental Protection Act 1986 – Environmental Impact Assessment

The original KGP was assessed by the DMP in 2001 and 2002 was not considered to have a detrimental significant impact on the environment and therefore the original project was not referred to the EPA for assessment.

MMS has undertaken a number of baseline studies and has identified the presence of a Schedule 1 species listed under the WC Act. This species is known as Idiosoma Nigrum (the Shield‐back Trapdoor Spider).

A targeted survey was undertaken to evaluate the projects potential impacts on the species. The results of this survey indicate that project expansion will not have a significant impact on the species population. More detail regarding the management of this species is provided in Section 6.3.2.

Given that the majority of proposed mining operation is within the same footprint as the previous operations and that the project is not likely to have a significant impact on the Schedule one species Idiosoma Nigrum, MMS believes that the KGP expansion is unlikely to trigger the requirement to be referred to the EPA.


Page 78

5.2.2 Part V, Environmental Protection Act 1986 – Works Approval and Prescribed Premises Licence

MMS currently holds a Prescribed Premises Licence (L7814/2002/5) issued by the DEC for the KGP site. The licence includes:

• Category 5 – Processing of beneficiation of metallic or non‐metallic ore; • Category 54 – Sewage facility; • Category 89 – Putrescible landfill site.

The project expansion requires a Works Approval to increase the storage capacity of the existing TSF. The Works Approval for the upstream lift of the TSF was approved by DEC on 28 June 2012 and the approval letter is included in Appendix K.

If MMS decide to proceed with the integrated TSF/waste landform an additional Works Approval will be submitted to DEC early 2013.

A licence amendment for an increase in production from 1.2 Mtpa to 1.95 Mtpa is also required. This application is proposed to be lodged early 2013.

5.2.3 Part V, Environmental Protection Act 1986 – Clearing Of Native Vegetation

The clearing activities associated with the original KGP proposal were subject to the requirements of the Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 and the Mining Act 1978. A total of 360 ha was approved for clearing at KGP under these Acts. The site has remained compliant with the clearing allowances approved for the project under these Acts. As of the 8th of July 2004, the assessment and approvals requirements for clearing of native vegetation were included under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act 1986) (by the Environmental Protection Amendment Act 2003 (WA)) and the new Clearing Regs came into force. Under the clearing laws, a clearing permit is generally required for activities involving any clearing of native vegetation within Western Australia. MMS has applied for a clearing permit to clear 74 ha of vegetation. This Native Vegetation Clearing Permit was approved by the DMP’s Native Vegetation Branch on 28 April 2012. The approval has been included as Appendix L.

Upon development of the Mine Closure Plan, it was noted that there was no area allocated to stockpile capping material for the closure of the waste landforms and the TSF. Therefore, an additional 18 ha of clearing is needed and a second Vegetation Clearing Permit will be submitted to the Native Vegetation branch of DMP.


Page 79

5.2.4 Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 ‐ Application for a Licence to Take Fauna for Education or Public Purposes (Fauna Relocation and/or Education)

A search of the DEC’s Naturemap website and a literature review has revealed that the KGP proposal is not likely to impact on DRF or priority listed flora species or on threatened, other specially protected or priority fauna species .

The Short Range Endemic Survey, however, identified the presence of a Schedule 1 Species is known as Idiosoma Nigrum (the Shield‐back Trapdoor Spider). MMS has held discussion with the DEC Species and Communities Branch and they have advised the following (Appendix M):

“Principal Zoologist, Species and Communities Branch that the potential impacts on Idiosoma nigrum from the proposed Kirkalocka Gold Mine Expansion should be able to be managed under Regulation 15 of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. The proponent will need to provide an estimate of the number of I. nigrum likely to be impacted and clearly identify the area of habitat likely to be impacted. Further surveys of the proposed impact area should not be required for this, as the information already gathered should be adequate to provide an estimate of the number of burrows per hectare and therefore an estimate of the likely number of the number of I. nigrum that may be impacted”.

MMS will be submitting an Application for a licence to take fauna for education or public purposes (fauna relocation and/or education) to DEC parallel to the Mining Proposal.

MMS is also developing an Idiosoma nigrum Management Plan to ensure MMS minimise their impacts on the species.

5.2.5 Rights in Water & Irrigation Act 1914 ‐ Water Allocation, Protection and Conservation

MMS are in the process of obtaining a Groundwater Abstraction Licence for 3 GL per annum in line with the requirements of Section 5C of the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (RIWI Act 1914). A 5C licence application was submitted to DoW (Geraldton) in December 2011. DoW responded to the application in February 2012 requesting that the licence application be separated into two Licences; one for the dewatering of the Curara Well Open Pit and one for reinstating the existing borefield.

MMS has submitted the Section 5C Licence application for the dewatering the Curara Well Open Pit and given that the Curara Well Open Pit has approximately 1.5 to 2 years supply of water, MMS proposes to apply for the borefield licence application during the first year of production when more refined information is known regarding the site water requirements.

A licence in accordance with Section 26D of the RIWI Act 1914 was submitted and approved by DoW in December 2011. This licence is about to expire and will be resubmitted for the proposed dewatering bore exploration programme early 2013.

5.2.6 Road Traffic Act 1974 ‐ Road Transport

Under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1974 and associated Regulations, the operation of all heavy vehicles classed as Restricted Access Vehicles (RAVs) require a relevant permit for operation


Page 80

throughout the state. The necessary RAV permits associated with KGP operations will be in place upon commencement of any relevant haulage operations and will be available for review if required.

5.2.7 Dangerous Goods Safety Act 1994 ‐ Dangerous Goods

A review of the dangerous goods storage and handling attributes and requirements has been undertaken by Brian Peoples. Four 65,000 L bulk diesel fuel tanks with a maximum capacity of 55,000 L each are housed in a safe, fully bunded area constructed and managed in accordance with Australian Standard AS1940‐2004 – The Storage and Handling of Flammable and Combustible Liquids. Other dangerous goods stored and handled onsite above manifest quantities include:

• 30% Sodium Cyanide solution • Solid sodium cyanide • Sodium Hydroxide (Caustic Soda) • Hydrochloric acid • Bulk LPG

These will be stored and handled in line with the general requirements of the Dangerous Goods Code and relevant Australian standard. To assist in the design and commissioning for the various DG installations, industry experts and supplier representatives will be contracted to work with MMS design Engineers to ensure that the completed installation meets all legislative and regulatory requirements. In addition to meeting the regulatory and legislative requirements, the involvement of industry experts will enable to plant to be designed towards industry best practice (for example the Cyanide Code) in line with the operational requirements of the site. At the completion of the design phase and again at the completion of the facility installation, MMS will conduct an independent audit of the facility against the design criteria as a means ensuring compliance is achieved.

An application for a Licence to Store Dangerous Goods for Diesel has been submitted to the Resources Safety Division of the DMP and was approved on 16 May 2012. A second application for a Licence to Store Dangerous Goods for the remaining dangerous goods will be submitted early 2013.

5.2.8 Dangerous Goods Safety (Explosives) Regulations 2007 ‐ Explosives

A surface primary explosives magazine and detonator magazine will be located approximately 700 km to the north north west of the KGP in an existing disturbed area that was used previously for this purpose. The magazines are constructed in accordance with the Dangerous Goods Safety (Explosives) Regulations 2007 and the Australian Standard AS2187 Part 1 ‐ Explosives ‐ Storage, Transport and Use. The KGP will be licensed to store explosives and magazines in accordance with the Dangerous Goods Safety (Explosives) Act 2004. Drilling and blasting on site will be undertaken by a contractor under the control of a nominated person who is a holder of a Western Australian Shotfirer’s Certificate. Blasting is only conducted at the times set by MMS in accordance with the Dangerous Goods Safety (Explosives) Regulations 2007.


Page 81

5.2.9 Mines Safety Inspection Regulations 1995 ‐ Project Management Plan

A Project Management Plan for the KGP was submitted to the DMP Resources Safety Branch on 19 November 2012 in accordance with Regulation 3.13 of the Mines Safety Inspection Regulations 1995.

5.2.10 Mining Act 1978 – Mining Proposal

A Letter of Intent for the clearing of an additional 18 ha for capping material stockpiles will be submitted to the DMP following this Mining Proposal once the second Clearing Permit is approved.

If MMS decide to proceed with the integrated TSF/waste landform an additional Mining proposal will be submitted to DEC early 2013.

5.3 TENEMENT CONDITIONS

All of the existing tenement conditions have been reviewed and addressed where necessary (Table 38).

Table 38: Status of Tenement Conditions

Tenement Cond No Condition Start Status

M59/234 M59/233 M59/232

1 1 1

Survey. 4/11/91 Complete

M59/234 M59/233 M59/232

2 2 2

Compliance with the provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act, 1972 to ensure that no action is taken which is likely to interfere with or damage any Aboriginal Site.

4/11/91 Complete

M59/234 M59/233 M59/232

3 3 3

All surface holes drilled for the purpose of exploration are to be capped, filled or otherwise made safe after completion. 4/11/91 Complete

M59/234 M59/233 M59/232

4 4 4

All costeans and other disturbances to the surface of the land made as a result of exploration, including drill pads, grid lines and access tracks, being backfilled and rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the Environmental Officer, Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR). Backfilling and rehabilitation being required no later than 6 months after excavation unless otherwise approved in writing by the Environmental Officer, DoIR.

12/8/05 Active

M59/234 M59/233 M59/232

5 5 5

All waste materials, rubbish, plastic sample bags, abandoned equipment and temporary buildings being removed from the mining tenement prior to or at the termination of exploration programme

4/11/91 NA

M59/234 M59/233 M59/232

6 6 6

Unless the written approval of the Environmental Officer, DoIR is first obtained, the use of scrapers, graders, bulldozers, backhoes or other mechanised equipment for surface disturbance or the excavation of costeans is prohibited. Following approval, all topsoil being removed ahead of mining operations and separately stockpiled for replacement after backfilling and/or completion of operations.

12/8/05 In Progress

M59/234 M59/233 M59/232

7 7 7

No developmental or productive mining or construction activity being commenced until the tenement holder has submitted a plan of the proposed operations and measures to safeguard the environment to the Director, Environment, DoIR for assessment; and until his written approval has been obtained.

12/8/05 In Progress

M59/232 8 Mining on any road, road verge or road reserve being confined to below a depth of 15 metres from the natural surface. 4/11/91 NA


Page 82


M59/234 M59/233 M59/232

8 8 9

The construction and operation of the project and measures to protect the environment being carried out generally in accordance with the document titled:

• "Equigold NL< Kirkalocka Notice of Intent" dated December 2001 (NOI 3924) and retained on Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources File No. 5132/02.

• Notice of Intent 3954 "Kirkalocka TSF and Borefield" dated April 2002, and retained on Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources File No. 5132/02.

Where a difference exists between the above document(s) and the following conditions, then the following conditions shall prevail.

11/7/02 Active

M59/234 M59/233 M59/232

9 9 10

The development and operation of the project being carried out in such a manner so as to create the minimum practicable disturbance to the existing vegetation and natural landform.

13/5/02 To note for further operations

M59/234 M59/233 M59/232

10 10 11

All topsoil being removed ahead of all mining operations from sites such as pit areas, waste disposal areas, ore stockpile areas, pipeline, haul roads and new access roads and being stockpiled for later respreading or immediately respread as rehabilitation progresses.


M59/234 M59/233 M59/232

11 11 12

At the completion of operations, all buildings and structures being removed from site or demolished and buried to the satisfaction of the State Mining Engineer. 13/5/02

To note for further operations

M59/234 M59/233 M59/232

12 12 13

All rubbish and scrap is to be progressively disposed of in a suitable manner. 13/5/02 To note for further operations

M59/234 M59/233 M59/232

13 13 14

At the completion of operations, or progressively where possible, all access roads and other disturbed areas being covered with topsoil, deep ripped and revegetated with local native grasses, shrubs and trees to the satisfaction of the State Mining Engineer.


M59/234 M59/233 M59/232

14 14 15

Any alteration or expansion of operations within the lease boundaries beyond that outlined in the above document(s) not commencing until a plan of operations and a programme to safeguard the environment are submitted to the Director, Environment, DoIR for his assessment and until his written approval to proceed has been obtained.


M59/234 M59/233 M59/232

16 16 17

The lessee submitting to the State Mining Engineer, a brief annual report outlining the project operations, minesite environmental management and rehabilitation work undertaken in the previous 12 months and the proposed operations, environmental management plans and rehabilitation programmes for the next 12 months. This report to be submitted each year in:

• March.

13/5/02 Active

M58/234 M59/233

17 17

The construction of the tailings impoundment starter embankment shall be supervised by an engineering/geotechnical specialist. 11/7/02

To note for further operations

M58/234 M59/233

18 18

The construction details of any tailings storage embankment shall be documented by an engineering or geotechnical specialist and confirm that the construction satisfies the design intent. The construction document shall include the records of all construction quality control testing, the basis of any method specification adopted, and any significant modifications to the original design together with the reasons why the modifications were necessary. The construction document shall also present as‐built drawings for the embankment earthworks and pipework. A copy of the construction document shall be submitted to MPR for its records.


M58/234 M59/233

19 16

The tailings storage facility shall be checked on a routine daily basis by site personnel during periods of deposition to ensure that the facility is functioning as per the design intent.


M58/234 M59/233

20 20

An engineering or geotechnical specialist shall audit and review the active tailings storage facility on a biennial basis. The specialist shall review past performance, validate the design, examine tailings management, and review the results of monitoring. Any deficiencies noted in the audit and review report shall be suitable addressed and improved. The audit and review report shall be submitted to the SME with the annual environmental review, and shall be accompanied by a recent survey pick‐up of the facility and an updated tailings storage data sheet.



Page 83


M58/234 M59/233

21 21

At the time of decommissioning of the tailings storage facility and prior to rehabilitation, a further review report by a geotechnical or engineering specialist will be required by the State Mining Engineer. This report should review the status of the structure and its contained tailings, examine and address the implications of the physical and chemical characteristics of the materials, and present and review the results of all environmental monitoring. The rehabilitation stabilisation works proposed and any on‐going remedial requirements should also be addressed.


M59/234 M59/233 M59/232

22 22

A Mine Closure Plan is to be submitted in the Annual Environmental Reporting month specified in tenement conditions in the year specified below, unless otherwise directed by an Environmental Officer, DMP. The Mine Closure Plan is to be prepared in accordance with the "Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans" available on DMP's website:

• 2014

20/4/12 Included in Mining Proposal

6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MANAGEMENT

MMS is in the process of developing an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the KGP site. The EMP will include a comprehensive risk assessment of project attributes in relation to the risk they pose to the environmental values of the site. The EMP will help MMS to identify those risks that have the most significant potential to impact on the environmental values of the KGP site and to identify mitigating strategies to reduce the risk to what is hopefully and acceptable level for the project. The EMP is a work in progress and once completed can be provided to the DMP on request. The following sections provide a general description of the likely impacts associated with the implementation of the project and the commitments and general management strategies that will be implemented by MMS to mitigate any detrimental environmental impacts.

6.1 LAND CLEARING

Land clearing involves the clearing of vegetation and topsoil in preparation for mining. This activity has the potential to cause land degradation and increase soil erosion, salinity, and weed infestation.

The proposed project is largely restricted to the disturbance areas of the previous operations. The original KGP NOI approval included an allowance for disturbance of 360 ha. To date, approximately 338 ha has been disturbed with approximately 128 ha having been partially rehabilitated. The proposed project is expected to have a footprint of 412 ha. Approximately 44 ha of the new disturbance is on M59/234 and 30 ha is on M59/233.

Schedule 5 of the EP Act defines 10 Clearing Principles against which the potential impacts of the removal of native vegetation should be assessed. The construction of the proposed mine expansion has been assessed by DMP against the 10 clearing principles as a part of the Clearing Permit application and the results are shown in Table 39.


Page 84

Table 39: Assessment of the Proposed Activity against the 10 Clearing Principles (Appendix L).

Clearing Principle Assessment

(a) Native vegetation should not be cleared if it comprises a high level of biological diversity.

Proposal is not likely to be at variance to this PrincipleThe application area was surveyed as part of a larger Level 2 flora and vegetation survey conducted between 30 August and 1 September 2011 over an area of approximately 4,000 ha.

The majority of the vegetation was found to be in good to excellent condition (Niche, 2011). Niche (2011) noted that vegetation had been impacted by mining, exploration and pastoral activities. Niche (2011) added that the condition of the vegetation improved rapidly with distance from the disturbance.

The application area consists of wash plains dominated by Acacia species (Niche, 2011). Two vegetation units, W1 and W2, were identified within the application area. These were similar structurally and floristically with the key difference being density of species and substrate, linked to changes in hydrology (Niche, 2011). W1 covered an area of approximately 2,654 ha and occurred on sand loam to clay sand loam. W2 covered an area of approximately 970 ha and occurred on clay loam to clay within unchannelled ephemeraldrainage lines that lacked channel or bank development. Mount Magnet South (2012) proposes to clear 42 ha of W1 vegetation and 32 ha of W2 vegetation and states that approximately 40% of the proposed clearing is in already disturbed ground. According to Niche (2011), the wash plains vegetation was considered to be common and widespread in a local and regional context.

A total of 150 species (including subspecies and variants) from 83 genera and 38 families were recorded from the survey area with the dominant families including Fabaceae, Asteraceae, Chenopodiaceae and Poacae (Niche, 2011). Niche (2011) noted that a high number of annual species were recorded, indicating the survey was conducted at the right time of the year. According to Niche (2011), vegetation in the survey area contains species that are common, with widespread distributions across the Murchison bioregion.

Four introduced species were recorded within the survey area including Acetosa vesicaria , Purslane (Portulaca oleracea), Pentaschistis airoides subsp. airoides and Cleretum papulosum subsp. papulosum (Niche, 2011). Of these weeds, Niche (2011) identified Acetosa vesicaria as having the capacity for environmental impacts. This species was recorded within or adjacent to existing pits and waste landforms (Niche, 2011). None of the weeds recorded are a 'Declared Plant' under the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act 1976 (DAFWA, 2012). Potential impacts from weeds as a result of the proposed clearing may be minimised by the implementation of a weed management condition. According to available databases (GIS Database) and Niche (2011), no Threatened Flora, Priority Flora or Threatened or Priority Ecological Communities are located within the application area.

A vertebrate fauna survey recorded 49 bird species, three native mammals and one reptile within a 2,800 ha survey area including the application area (360 Environmental, 2011). One conservation significant fauna species, the Rainbow Bee‐eater (Merops omatus) (Marine; Migratory under EPBC Act; Schedule 3), was observed in flight outside the application area. The fauna habitats were found to be well represented within the survey area and surrounding region (360 Environmental, 2011).

A total of 84 specimens representing six orders, nine families and 14 species of invertebrates were collected during a short range endemic (SRE) survey (Ecologia, 2011 a). According to Ecologia (2011 a), the number of species collected was small suggesting the survey area is not species rich. Six species were identified as potential SREs (four recorded within the application area) and one conservation significant species, the Shield back Trapdoor Spider (ldiosoma nigrum) (Schedule 1), was collected within the application area. This occurrence represents new distribution data for the Shield‐backed Trapdoor Spider but is within its recorded distribution range. A targeted survey was subsequently conducted and recorded 131 Shield‐backed Trapdoor Spider burrows within 37 ha, with one burrow recorded inside the application area (Ecologia, 2011 b).

Given the majority of the application, area has been previously disturbed and vegetation is considered widespread on a local and regional basis, it is unlikely that the application area comprises a higher level of biological diversity than surrounding areas.

Based on the above, the proposed clearing is not likely to be at variance to this Principle.


Page 85

Clearing Principle Assessment

(b) Native vegetation should not be cleared if it comprises the whole or a part of, or is necessary for the maintenance of, a significant habitat for fauna indigenous to Western Australia.

Proposal is not likely to be at variance to this Principle

A Level 1 vertebrate fauna survey, SRE Fauna Baseline Survey and Idiosoma nigrum targeted survey have been conducted in the application area. The Level 1 vertebrate fauna survey was conducted within the Kirkalocka area by 360 Environmental and included a reconnaissance survey from 3 to 7 September 2011 (360 Environmental, 2011). The SRE fauna study was conducted by Ecologia in early September 2011 and included dry pitfall trapping, hand foraging and leaf litter collection at 12 sampling sites (Ecologia, 2011a). The Idiosoma nigrum targeted survey was conducted by Ecologia from 28 September to 3 October 2011 (Ecologia, 2011 b).

Two broad habitat types were identified within the application area including woodland of Acacia species (Habitat A) and previously disturbed Acacia woodland (Habitat E) (360 Environmental, 2011). Habitat A is further classified into two units that intergrade across the survey area with one unit associated with an unchannelled drainage line. 360 Environmental (2011) notes there is limited difference between the two from a structural, functional, species and habitat perspective. According to 360 Environmental (2011), the fauna habitat types are well represented within the survey area and surrounding region and none were recognised as restricted fauna habitats.

A total of 49 bird species, three native mammals and one reptile were recorded in the 2,800 ha survey area (360 Environmental, 2011). Large bird tracks possibly belonging to Ibis (Threskiomis sp.), Wedge‐tailed Eagle (Aquila audax) or Malleefowl (Leipoa ocel/ata) (Vulnerable; Schedule 1) were observed in the survey area (360 Environmental, 2011). 360 Environmental (2011) deemed these to be Ibis as the tracks were only located in an isolated area, a large number were observed suggesting a flock of birds and tracks were produced while the soil was still damp suggesting the tracks were made in areas of flooding. 360 Environmental (2011) also compared the tracks against a Malleefowl reference track confirming the tracks were not Malleefowl.

One conservation significant fauna species, the Rainbow Bee‐eater (Marine; Migratory under EPBe Act; Schedule 3), was observed in flight outside the application area (360 Environmental, 2011). This species has a widespread distribution and occurs within a variety of habitats. It is therefore unlikely that this species is dependent on habitats within the application area.

Although not recorded during the survey, several other conservation significant species were identified as having the potential to occur within the survey area. Several of these were identified as likely to occur within the survey area, however, due to the availability of suitable habitat outside the application area, their mobility and/or widespread distribution were considered unlikely to be significantly impacted by the proposed clearing (360 Environmental, 2011).

Based on a desktop study area of 100 km, a total of 55 invertebrate species were identified as having the potential to occur within the survey area with 50 recognized as species of conservation significance (Ecologia, 2011 a). A total of 84 specimens representing six orders, nine families and 14 species of invertebrates were collected during the survey. Six species were identified as potential SREs (four recorded in the application area) and one conservation significant species, the Shield‐backed Trapdoor Spider (Schedule 1), was collected in the application area (Ecologia, 2011 a). Given vegetation within the survey area extends beyond the survey boundaries, Ecologia (2011a) considered it likely that the invertebrate assemblage extends well beyond the survey area. Based on this the proposed clearing is unlikely to have a significant impact on potential SREs.

The Idiosoma nigrum targeted survey involved 1 ha searches at 37 survey sites (ie. 37 ha survey area) which extended over an area of approximately 2,000 ha within vegetation types W1 and W2. The survey recorded 131 burrows resulting in a mean of 3.64 burrows per hectare with a standard error of mean of 1.18 (Ecologia, 2011 b). The burrows were present in 18 ha or 50% of the surveyed area and occurred across most of the survey area with the exception of sites to the north east where there may be a lack of suitable habitat and within the mine site disturbance footprint. Ecologia (2011b) found there was no significant difference in the medians of burrows within and outside the project area indicating that spider density is not dependent on the habitat located inside the project area. According to Ecologia (2011b), the low average density of 3.64 individuals per hectare suggested that successful conservation of the species in vicinity of the project would be directly dependent on the amount of suitable habitat in the area.

The burrows were found within the boundaries of drainage lines and underneath more dense Acacia vegetation which provided maximum shade and moisture harvesting opportunities (Ecologia, 2011b). This


Page 86

Clearing Principle Assessment corresponds with the majority of the burrows being found in the W2 vegetation unit and indicates W2 is possibly the more significant vegetation type for the species in this area (DEC, 2012).

One burrow was recorded within the application area in a survey site located in the northern portion of the application area (Ecologia, 2011 b). Survey sites in the vicinity of this part of the application area recorded the highest number of burrows with 20 and 31 burrows recorded in two survey sites directly adjacent to the application area. This is likely to be related to an ephemeral drainage line that occurs in the area. Mount Magnet South (2012) states it has designed this portion of the application area in response to the information provided in the targeted survey to have the least impact on Idiosoma nigrum. Mount Magnet South (2012 also proposes to minimise impacts through reducing impacts to surface flows, education, feral animal management (Le. fencing to keep out feral animals), bushfire prevention, dust control and minimising clearing (through procedures and clearing in disturbed areas where possible).

The extent and regional significance of the Shield Back Trapdoor Spider population is unknown (DEC, 2012), however, the results of the survey can be used to estimate population size and proposed impacts to the Shield Back Trapdoor Spider from the proposed clearing. Based on the mean burrows per hectare, the proposed clearing of 74 ha may impact on 269 ±1.2 individuals (Mount Magnet South, 2012). This represents 3.7% of an estimated population size of 7,280 ±1.2 individuals where the population estimate is for 2,000 ha (ie. extent over which the survey sites were located). Given vegetation types W1 and W2 appear to extend beyond this area and burrows were found in the periphery survey sites, it is likely this species occurs in surrounding areas of similar vegetation. Based on the estimated impacts, presence of suitable habitat outside the application area, management measures proposed by MMS and the widespread range across which the species has previously been recorded, the proposed clearing is unlikely to have a significant impact on this species.


(c) Native vegetation should not be cleared if it includes, or is necessary for, the continued existence of rare flora.

Proposal is not likely to be at variance to this PrincipleAccording to available databases, there are no records of Threatened Flora within the application area (GIS Database). The nearest record of Threatened Flora is located approximately 70 km south west of the application area (GIS Database).

No Threatened Flora was recorded during the vegetation survey undertaken between 30 August and 1 September 2011 (Niche, 2011).


(d) Native vegetation should not be cleared if it comprises the whole or part of, or is necessary for the maintenance of a threatened ecological community.

Proposal is not likely to be at variance to this Principle According to available databases, there are no known Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs) within the application area (GIS Database). The nearest known TEC is approximately 140 km south west of the application area (GIS Database).

The vegetation survey did not record any TECs (Niche, 2011).



Page 87

(e) Native vegetation should not be cleared if it is significant as a remnant of native vegetation in an area that has been extensively cleared.

Proposal is not at variance to this Principle

The application area falls within the Murchison Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA) bioregion in which approximately 100% of the pre‐European vegetation remains (see table) (GIS Database; Shepherd, 2009).

The vegetation of the application area has been mapped as the following Beard vegetation association (GIS Database):

18: Low woodland; mulga (Acacia aneura).

According to Shepherd (2009), approximately 100% of this Beard vegetation association remains at both a state and bioregional level. Therefore, the area proposed to be cleared does not represent a significant remnant of native vegetation within an area that has been extensively cleared.

Pre.European area (ha)*

Current extent (ha)*

Remaining %*

Conservation Status

Pre‐European % in IUCN Class I‐IV Reserves*

IBRA Bioregion ‐ Murchison 28,120,587 28,120,587 ~100 Least Concern 1.06 Concern Beard veg assoc.‐State18 19,892,305 19,890,275 99.99 Least Concern 2.13Concern Beard veg assoc ‐Bioregion 18 12,403,172 12,403,172 100 Least Concern 0.37

* Shepherd (2009) ** Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002) Based on the above, the proposed clearing is not at variance to this Principle

(f) Native vegetation should not be cleared if it is growing in, or in association with, an environment associated with a watercourse or wetland.

Proposal is at variance to this Principle

There are two minor, non‐perennial watercourses within the application area (GIS Database). These converge and drain in a north‐westerly direction (GIS Database). Aerial photography of the application area shows these drainage lines have been disturbed to some degree by the existing mine site (GIS Database). The drainage line is described as an undefined ephemeral drainage line with a lack of channel or bank development that is surrounded by vegetation that relies on sheet flow (Mount Magnet South, 2012; Niche, 2011). The drainage line flows into Kirkalocka Creek which is located approximately six km north west of the application area (GIS Database).

The vegetation survey identified one vegetation unit (W2) associated with the undefined ephemeral drainage line. The key difference between this vegetation unit and the other vegetation unit (W1) identified within the application area is density of species and substrate which are linked to changes in hydrology (Niche. 2011). The vegetation in the application area was considered to be common and widespread in a local and regional context (Niche, 2011). Given vegetation along the drainage line occurs throughout the application area, it is unlikely that the proposed clearing will result in significant impacts to watercourses within the application area.

Mount Magnet South (2012) states the proposed infrastructure will be positioned to minimise impacts on surface flows and therefore does not anticipate that the proposed mine expansion will have a significant impact on the surface water or downstream vegetation.

Based on the above, the proposed clearing is at variance to this Principle

(g) Native vegetation should not be cleared if the clearing of the vegetation is likely to cause appreciable land degradation.


The application area has been mapped as occurring on the Woodline Land System. The Woodline Land System is described as hardpan wash plains supporting Acacia shrublands and woodlands (Payne et aI., 1998). This land system is generally not prone to accelerated soil erosion, however, impedance to overland flow can cause water starvation effects on vegetation downslope (Payne et aI., 1998). Niche (2011) noted that the wash plains were essentially flat, with a few areas having a very low gradient. The proposed clearing is, therefore, unlikely to lead to appreciable soil erosion.

The average annual evaporation rate is over 13 times the average annual rainfall, so recharge to the groundwater would be expected to be minimal, thereby reducing the likelihood of raised saline water tables occurring as a result of the proposed clearing (BoM, 2012; GIS Database).



Page 88

(h) Native vegetation should not be cleared if the clearing of the vegetation is likely to have an impact on the environmental values of any adjacent or nearby conservation areas.


The application area does not lie within any conservation areas or DEC managed lands (GIS Database). The nearest conservation area is the former Burnerbinmah Pastoral Lease which is now managed by DEC and is located approximately 13 km south west of the application area (GIS Database). Based on the distance between the application area and the nearest conservation area, the proposed clearing is not likely to impact the environmental values of any conservation area.


(i) Native vegetation should not be cleared if the clearing of the vegetation is likely to cause deterioration in the quality of surface or underground water.


According to available databases, the application area is not located within a Public Drinking Water Source Area (PDWSA) (GIS Database). There are no permanent waterbodies or watercourses within the application area, however, there are two minor non perennial watercourses that pass through the application area (GIS Database). The drainage is described as an undefined ephemeral drainage line that has a lack of channel or bank development (Mount Magnet South, 2012; Niche, 2011).

The annual average rainfall for Mount Magnet is 238.2 mm and the average annual evaporation rate for the application area is approximately 3,200 mm (BoM, 2012; GIS Database). Therefore, during normal rainfall events surface water within the application area is likely to evaporate quickly. However, substantial rainfall events create surface sheet flow, which is likely to have a higher level of sediments. During normal rainfall events, the proposed clearing would not likely lead to an increase in sedimentation of watercourses within the application area.

According to available databases, groundwater salinity within the application area is between 3,000 and 7,000 mg/L TDS (GIS Database). This is considered brackish to saline. The proposed clearing is not likely to cause salinity levels within the application area to alter significantly.


(j) Native Vegetation should not be cleared if clearing the vegetation is likely to cause, or exacerbate the incidence of flooding.


The application area is located within the YarraMonger catchment area. Given the size of the area to be cleared (74 ha) in relation to the size of the catchment area (4,182,476 ha) (GIS Database), the proposed clearing is not likely to increase the potential of flooding on a local or catchment scale.

With an average annual rainfall of 238.2 mm and an average annual evaporation rate of 3,200 mm there is likely to be little surface flow during normal seasonal rains (BoM, 2012). Whilst large rainfall events may result in flooding of the area, the proposed clearing is not likely to lead to an increase in incidence or intensity of flooding.


MMS believes that the risks of significant or unacceptable environmental impact occurring associated with further clearing for the KGP proposal are considered to be low. Irrespective, MMS commit to minimising any detrimental environmental impact that implementation of the project could have to the environmental values of the area due to clearing of native vegetation.

MMS propose to minimise the impact that the implementation of the KGP proposal has on the native vegetation at the site by adhering to the following management strategies as necessary to adequately control clearing:

• the site clearing footprint will be minimised as much as is possible

• clearing will be progressive and only when required

• rehabilitated and/or previously disturbed areas will be utilised for the establishment of project infrastructure wherever possible


Page 89

• MMS will operate in accordance with approved Vegetation Clearing Permits to undertake any vegetation clearing

• no clearing will be undertaken without permission from the MMS Environmental Department. Clearing will be managed in accordance with a Ground Disturbance Permit Procedure (to be developed)

• before clearing commences, the areas to be cleared will be well‐defined by the site surveyor and clearly marked with flagging tape and pegs so that over‐clearing will be avoided

• MMS will undertake an assessment of the KGP site in terms of weed load and risk

• cleaning down of machinery prior to movement between clean and infected sites to reduce weed and disease introduction and spread

• induction and supervision (preferably by the site Environmental personnel) of employees undertaking clearing works to ensure disturbance is confined only to the areas delineated

• collect and correctly stockpile cleared vegetation and topsoil in line with accepted guidelines for later use at selected sites

• progressively rehabilitate completed areas or areas not required by the project as soon as practicable

• only use local native plant species in rehabilitation

• waste landforms will be designed with rock armouring and sediment traps to minimise sediment from entering the ephemeral creek system

• source controls and sedimentation ponds will be used to trap runoff from the treatment plan area.

6.2 VEGETATION AND FLORA

The risk to vegetation and flora can be broken down onto following categories:

• Water supply ‐ Landscape unit and sheet flow

• Threatened and Priority Flora

• Vegetation Communities

• Weeds

MMS believes that the proposed mining activities will not have a significant detrimental impact on flora and vegetation as MMS has adequate management procedure to minimise impacts to flora and vegetation.

6.2.1 Landscape Unit and Sheet Flow

The project area has been assessed as being within Beard’s “mulga low woodland” 1:1000,000 vegetation mapping group.


Page 90

It is widely accepted that Acacia communities are not phreatophytic in nature and do not rely on ground water for survival. Instead Acacia communities rely heavily on sheet flow for survival. For this reason, dewatering activities associated with the Curara Well Open Pit cutback are not expected to impact on the health of vegetation. Anecdotal evidence supports this claim with the dewatering undertaken by Equigold apparently having little impact on vegetation adjacent to the KGP.

According to Payne et al. (1998), the project area is within the Woodline Land System. Payne et al. note that the establishment of tracks and other impendence to overland surface flows in the Woodline Land System can result in water starvation effects on the vegetation communities downstream of the disturbance. Water starvation can lead to vegetation health decline and ultimately death.

Water ponding in areas upstream of disturbance areas could also potentially result in a decline in the health of affected vegetation particularly if ponded water remained in situ for a prolonged period of time. A change in the pattern of water flow could also lead to changes in vegetation structure particularly in areas where water flows slow and change direction due to increased accumulation of resources (eg. nutrients) and increased water infiltration.

Overland flows are directed towards the KGP project area from the Wydgee Hills in the south, the BIF in the east; and Kirkalocka Creek from the northeast. The three systems amalgamate northwest of the project area continues west through Nalbarra to form headwaters of the Lake Monger salt lake system. Where the mine footprint intersects the southern ephemeral drainage line (to the south of the TSF), a flood diversion drainage system has been established to protect the footprint of the KGP. Flows are directed around the mine footprint to the east where they join in once again with the main drainage line to the north.

MMS proposes to position a waste landform north of the existing mine. The 100 year ARI flood requirements have been assessed to ensure there is adequate space for the surface water to continue to flow down the ephemeral drainage line. A floodway has been designed for the haul road access to the waste landform to minimise impacts to surface flow during average annual rainfall periods. A number of options were assessed for the floodway design including culverts. Due to the sheet flow nature of the surface water flow, culverts were considered ineffective and it was more practical to build a low‐lying floodway. The floodway has been designed to be no more than 200 mm higher than the natural surface and will be cemented and designed with rock armouring to increase stability of floodway and minimise erosion downstream. The floodway design has been included in Appendix N.

The only areas of vegetation that may be significantly impacted by impedance to overland flows are within the mine disturbance footprint itself. Acacia woodland that remains in situ within the mine footprint could potentially deteriorate in health over time due to reduction in surface water provided by overland flow although anecdotally this does not appear to be the case.

6.2.2 Threatened and Priority Flora

A search of the following databases was undertaken as a part of the desktop assessment for the vegetation and flora survey:


Page 91

• EPBC Act Protected Matters database

• DEC’s Threatened (Declared Rare) Flora database

• the Western Australian Herbarium (WAHERB) database

• Declared Rare and Priority Flora List for rare and priority flora collected from the survey area and surrounds or potentially occurring within the survey area

• DEC’s TEC database for listings of TECs or PEC recorded at or in the surrounds of the survey area.

The EPBC Protected Matters database search identified one protected species, Ricinocarpos brevis potentially occurring within the survey area. This species however was not recorded in the DEC database search for threatened (declared rare) flora or priority flora for the survey area. A review of the distribution of this species was undertaken and it was concluded that this species was highly unlikely to be found in the area.

The DEC database search resulted in no records of Threatened (Declared Rare) Flora having been recorded in or close to the KGP. The search however did identify that four Priority taxa have been recorded close to the survey area:

• Acacia subsessilis A.R. Chapman & Maslin (P3) –There was one record of this species in the database search, approximately 4.5 km east of the southeast corner of the project area.

• Banksia rosserae Olde & Marriott (P1) – The nearest record to the project area was 20 km to the east of the northeast corner of the project area.

• Grevillea kirkalocka Olde & Marriott (P1) ‐ The nearest record to the project area was approximately 13 km to the east of the northeast corner of the project area.

• Pseudactinia sp Bungalbin Hill (F.H & M.P. Mollemans 3069) (P3). The nearest record was in the same areas as the collections of B. rosserae.

None of these Priority flora species or any other priority species were identified during the vegetation and flora survey.

No Endangered or Vulnerable species pursuant to the EPBC Act or plant taxa gazetted as Declared Rare pursuant to the WC Act have been recorded within M59/232, 233, 234 or L59/127.

A search of the DEC TEC database identified that no TECs or PECs were recorded as occurring within the database search area. However, there were two PECs identified within a 40 km radius of the project area:

• Warriedar Hill/Pinyalling vegetation complexes (Banded Ironstone Formation) – Priority 1 Ecological Community.

• Yowergabbie calcrete groundwater assemblage type on Moore Paleodrainage on Yowergabbie Station – Priority 1 Ecological Community.

The proposed development is unlikely to impact on either of these PECs.


Page 92

6.2.3 Vegetation Communities

The vegetation surrounding KGP can be divided into nine different communities. Of these nine communities, only two communities will be directly impacted by the project expansion. Vegetation community W1 (described in Table 17) is the dominant vegetation community and extends for over 3,984 ha within the area surveyed by Niche Environmental (2011). The proposed mining operation is likely to impact approximately 42 ha of this vegetation community which is only approximately 1.05 % of the total vegetation community mapped by Niche Environmental (2011). Vegetation community W2 (described in Table 17) is also likely to be impacted by the project expansion. This vegetation community covered 949 ha of the vegetation survey area and up to 32 ha or 3.4 % is proposed to be cleared by the proposed mining operation.

None of the nine vegetation communities mapped by Niche Environmental (2011) were considered to be PECs or TECs pursuant to the EPBC Act or endorsed by the Minister for Environment.

Even though the KGP is unlikely to impact on any conservation significant vegetation or flora, MMS is proposing to minimise impacts to native vegetation as much as practicable by undertaking the following activities:

• Clearing will be progressive and in accordance with approved Vegetation Clearing Permits

• No clearing will be undertaken without permission from the Company’s Environmental Department. Clearing will be managed in accordance with a Ground Disturbance Permit Procedure (to be developed).

• Minimise clearing new ground for infrastructure, where possible

o The existing waste landform will be raised an additional 30 m in height. This will provide an additional 2 years of waste storage before the northern waste landform will require construction.

o The existing TSF is proposed to be raised an additional 15 m via an upstream lift. This will provide enough capacity for propose life of mine.

o The majority of the proposed mining is in close proximity to the existing pit and therefore has been heavily disturbed by previous mining and exploration drilling.

• Bushfire prevention

o Hot work permits will be required for any activity, which has a risk to bushfire ignition.

o No fires will be permitted outside of designated areas within the camp.

6.2.4 Weeds

Weed species and infestations are present at the mine site. There is a significant risk that weed infestation and in particular infestation by Ruby Dock (Acetosa vesicaria) could significantly impact on rehabilitation efforts at the site.

MMS commits to minimising any detrimental impact that implementation of the project could have on the native vegetation and flora of the area and to minimising the detrimental impact that weed


Page 93

species associated with the project could have on the vegetation and flora of the area and the rehabilitation activities undertaken by MMS as a part of mine closure.

MMS has commenced an eradication programme, which will continue to be implemented through the LOM. In addition to this, MMS proposes to implement the following:

• develop a weed management plan

• implement weed monitoring and maintain the weed control and eradication plan

• ensure all vehicles used for mining purposes will be washed and inspected for soil and seeds before entering and leaving the site.

6.3 FAUNA

The risk to fauna can be broken down into the following categories:

• reduction in fauna habitat and detrimental impact to significant fauna species

• potential for the TSF to impact the health of fauna

• feral animals.

MMS believes that the proposed mining activities will not have a significant detrimental impact on any fauna species as MMS has adequately addressed the above categories and are described in the following sections.

6.3.1 Fauna Habitat and Fauna

A search of the DEC database was undertaken to determine if there were any TECs or PECs in the survey area. The search did not identify any TECs or PECs in the survey area, however it did identify that there were two PECs listed as occurring within a 40 km radius of the survey. Neither of the PECs however, are likely to occur within the survey area.

Five broad fauna habitats were recorded in the KGP survey area. None of these five habitats were identified as a TEC, PEC or fauna habitat of conservation significance.

A search of the DECs Threatened and Priority Fauna Database, NatureBase, the EPBC Protected Matters Database, regional sources and the desktop survey was also undertaken to identify specially protected fauna under State and/or Commonwealth legislation that are predicted to occur within a buffer of approximately 20 km surrounding the survey area.

The desktop study revealed eleven (11) bird, five (5) native mammal and three (3) reptile species currently listed as conservation significant under State and/or Commonwealth legislation and/or the DEC Priority list that are predicted to occur within the survey area.

None of the native mammal or reptile species recorded during the survey are currently listed as specially protected fauna under State and/or Commonwealth legislation.


Page 94

The Rainbow Bee‐eater (Merops ornatus) was the only species of conservation significance observed in flight during the survey and is listed as ‘Migratory Species’ and a ‘Marine Species’ under the EPBC Act.

The Rainbow Bee‐eator is found in a variety of habitats and has been recorded within open woodlands and forests with sandy, loamy soil; sandridges, sandpits, riverbanks, road‐cuttings, beaches, dunes, cliffs, mangroves, rainforest, woodlands, golf courses (Pizzey and Knight 1997). The Rainbow Bee‐eator builds a nest in an enlarged chamber at the end of long burrow or tunnel that is excavated, by both sexes (Comrie‐Smith 1930; Fry 1984 and Morris 1977), in flat or sloping ground, in the banks of rivers, creeks or dams, in roadside cuttings, in the walls of gravel pits or quarries, in mounds of gravel, or in cliff‐faces.

One individual Rainbow Bee‐eater was observed flying over one location within the survey footprint (2.5 km north of the project). The fauna survey however revealed that the Project area does not contain any of the species core foraging (open woodland) or core breeding (loamy soil) habitat. The predominant soil type consists of a shallow layer of sand over ferricrete (partially cemented) soils, which is likely to be a problematic soil type for the Rainbow Bee‐eator to create their burrows.

Given that the soil type is not appropriate for the Rainbow Bee‐eator, the continuous nature of the dominant habitat (Acacia shrublands), and that the species is widely distributed in a wide variety of habitats, it is considered that clearing associated with the Kirkalocka Project is unlikely to significantly impact the species.

MMS proposes to minimise impacts to native fauna by undertaking the following activities:

• minimising the clearing of native vegetation

o where possible, design infrastructure in already cleared or disturbed areas

o avoid clearing large mature ’habitat trees’ (with hollows), where possible.

o all vehicles to remain on existing tracks to minimise damage to understorey vegetation and burrows.

• no clearing will be undertaken without permission from the MMS Environmental Department. Clearing will be managed in accordance with a Ground Disturbance Permit Procedure (to be developed).

• species of conservation significance (Rainbow Bee‐eator) will be described in the site induction to ensure employees and contractors are aware of the protected species and can report any sightings to MMS Environmental Department.

• any future fences built within the mine area will avoid the design that contains two loose wires at the top of the fence. Fences with this design can act as a snare for animals such as Emus

• the proposed mining area will be fenced to keep out larger feral animals such as goats

• a feral animal trapping program may be implemented, if necessary


Page 95

6.3.2 Short Range Endemic Fauna

A database search and review of previous surveys from within 100 km of the Project area and other relevant records from the Murchison Bioregion identified a total of 55 invertebrate species with the potential to occur within the Project area, of which 50 are recognised as species of conservational significance. Of these, 28 were arachnids, comprising 19 spiders, three scorpions and six pseudoscorpions, six were molluscs, seven were crustaceans and nine were insects.

A total of 84 invertebrate specimens were collected during the survey, representing six orders, nine families and 14 species. Of these, one species was listed under the WC Act as Schedule 1 species known as the Shield‐back Trapdoor Spider (I. nigrum). Six species were also considered potential SREs (pseudoscorpions Austrohorus sp., Beierolpium ‘sp. 8/4 lge’ and Beierolpium ‘sp. 8/2’, an unidentified centipede, and a spider from genus Synothele). Under the precautionary principle, all unknown and potential SREs should be treated as confirmed SREs.

None of the unknown pseudoscorpions or centipedes, or the mygalomorph genus Synothele were collected from inside Project footprint and therefore will not be directly impacted by the Project.

The Schedule 1 species I. Nigrum however was found inside and outside the project footprint.

The Shield‐back Trapdoor Spider, I.nigrum is one on the most arid‐adapted mygalomorph spiders in Australia (Main 1982). This is due to a combination of morphological and behavioural attributes, such as a deep burrow, which provides a narrow range of temperature and humidity beneath the surface, ‘twig‐lining’ of the burrow rim to increase the prey foraging area, a sclerotised abdominal cuticle, which reduces evaporative water loss and also plugs the burrow to stop the entry of predators, enlarged eyes which increase visual acuity and relatively long legs that facilitate hunting (ecologia, 2011b). The spider is long lived, with females possibly reaching 20+ years of age. Both males and females reach maturity in a minimum of 5‐6 years, by which time males undergo a final moult, reproduce and subsequently die. The females are probably capable of reproducing every second year until the age of about 20 (Ecologia 2011b). Emergent spiderlings generally establish their burrows within several centimetres of the matriarch female, forming a family cluster typical for all mygalomorph spiders with no aerial dispersal. Gene flow is facilitated by male‐biased dispersal (≤ 500 m) (Main 1968), as males only leave their burrows in search of females, while females spend their entire life in the burrow and its proximity. It is unclear whether only the virgin females mate with emergent males or whether adult females mate repeatedly throughout their life (ecologia, 2011b).

The Shield‐back Trapdoor Spider typically inhabited the clay soils of eucalypt woodlands and Acacia vegetation (Main, 1996, 2003).

To develop an understanding of the species’ distribution and the potential impact from proposed mine expansion, a targeted survey was undertaken. The result of the targeted survey identified the following:

• Idiosoma nigrum has been found in the Midwest as far north as Jack Hills; specimens from this survey provided new distribution data within the current geographical boundaries of the species


Page 96

• 131 burrows were recorded during the survey and all were located under Acacia species within the boundaries of ephemeral drainage lines and predominantly on coarse sand

• The sites surveyed consisted of homogeneous habitat and I. nigrum was present at 50% of the area sampled.

Using population extrapolation, it was estimated that Kirkalocka’s mining leases consists of approximately 9,676 ± 1.2 individuals and given that the project involves clearing of approximately 74 ha, only approximately 270 ± 1.2 individuals are potentially at risk of impact from the Project expansion. This is approximately 2.78% of the population within the KGP mining leases (not including exploration licenses) and therefore it is unlikely that the mine expansion will have a significant impact on the species.

None of the habitats in which the potential SRE species were located are unique to the proposed impact areas and they extend beyond the limits of the mapped area. Thus, on the scale of impact ranging from high ‐ moderate ‐ low, the impact from the Project development on the potential SRE species is expected to be low.

The potential impact from has been discussed with DEC’s Species and Communities Branch and they have advised “potential impacts on I. nigrum from the proposed Kirkalocka Gold Mine Expansion should be able to be managed under Regulation 15 of the WC Act “ (Appendix M).

Even though the expected impact is likely to be low, MMS proposing to minimise impacts to the Schedule 1 species by undertaking the following activities:

• Minimise impacting areas with healthy populations

o Where possible, design infrastructure in existing cleared or disturbed areas

o The proposed north waste landform has been designed and located in response to the information provided in the targeted survey to have the least impact on I. nigrum

• No clearing will be undertaken without permission from MMS’ Environmental Department. Clearing will be managed in accordance with a Ground Disturbance Permit Procedure (to be developed).

• Species of conservation significance (shield‐back spider) will be described in the site induction to ensure employees and contractors are aware of the protected species and can report any sightings to the Environmental Department.

• The proposed mining area will be fenced to keep out larger feral animals such as goats, to minimise grazing/trampling.

• Minimise impacts to surface flows

o The proposed waste landform will be positioned to minimise impacts on surface flows.

o In areas of anticipated surface water flows, haul roads will be designed to have minimal impacts on average annual rainfall and will be designed without windrows.

o Sediment traps have been included in the design of the north waste landform to minimise sediment runoff.


Page 97

o Progressive rehabilitation will be implemented to stabilise the embankments of infrastructure to minimise erosion. As well as rock armouring and sediment trap to minimise sediment from entering the ephemeral drainage system

• Bushfire prevention

o Hot work permits will be required to undertake any activity, which has a risk to bushfire ignition.

o No fires will be permitted outside of designated areas within the camp.

• Dust kept to minimum using water carts and sprinklers.

6.3.3 Potential for the TSF to Impact the Health of Fauna

The TSF has the potential to negatively impact fauna species during the operational phase of the project due to the potential presence of Weak Acid Dissociable (WAD) cyanide concentrations of greater than 50 mg/L within the tailings sediment and supernatant water. WAD cyanide levels below 50 mg/L are generally considered to be safe to wildlife (Donato, Nichols, Possingham, Moore, Ricci and Noller, 2007).

To determine an approximate WAD cyanide level of the expected tailings, cyanide speciation work was conducted on a sample of tailings generated during a laboratory metallurgical test program. The results indicated a WAD cyanide concentration of up to 90 mg/L was likely directly from the leach tanks. This value was used in the Coffey Mining Proposal and the approved Works Approval. This value however is considered conservatively high as the sample represents a sample directly from leach tank prior to the discharge to the TSF and therefore it had not been aerated, beached or undergone cyanide optimisation and thus, the WAD cyanide concentration is likely to be closer to 50 mg/L when deposited in the TSF. The effect of these processes on the tailings is explained in Table 40.


Page 98

Table 40: Process for Reducing the WAD Cyanide in the TSF

Treatment Plant Process

Process Description

Aeration of slurry prior to pumping to TSF

The tailings line from the CIL tanks discharge onto a carbon safety screen immediately above the tailings discharge pumps. The purpose of this screen is to recover any activated carbon from the circuit that has bypassed the CIL tanks internal screens. As a result of the screening action, the discharge slurry is aerated significantly which results in an elevated level of HCN in and around the tails screen. This aeration will act to reduce the levels of WAD within the discharged slurry.

Beaching of slurry on TSF surface

The discharge of the tailings slurry onto the TSF surface is managed to ensure that the flow rate of the slurry from the discharge points in minimised resulting in the slurry spreading out and forming a beach at the tailings wall. This dispersion of the slurry generates a large slurry surface area and significant aeration between the discharge point and the supernatant pond and also exposes the slurry to significant amounts of sunlight and wind. All of these factors combine to decompose and remove cyanide from the slurry, thereby reducing the WAD level of the water that makes its way to the decant pond.

Optimisation of process cyanide addition

It is the intention for operations to reduce and manage the cyanide addition to the circuit and thereby minimise the cyanide levels in the CIL tank discharge. This will be achieved by the multi‐point addition of cyanide to the leach circuit and frequent monitoring of the cyanide levels versus gold recovery to enable to minimum cyanide addition requirements to the circuit to be met.

Given that, the potential presence of WAD cyanide levels in the TSF above 50 mg/L presents a risk to native fauna (through absorption and ingestion pathways), MMS proposes to minimise the risk to native fauna through implementation of, as necessary, the following management measures:

• Implement WAD cyanide management protocols and procedures onsite that are consistent with the requirements of the International Cyanide Management Code such as:

o Daily inspections of the TSF whilst operational to check for trapped fauna

o Maintenance of a fauna impact register

o Where practicable establishment of fauna discouragement measures on or around the TSF

o Reducing the amount of cyanide used in processing operations to the minimum level achievable and ensuring that the WAD cyanide within the tailings discharge is kept as low as possible.

6.3.4 Feral Animals

There are a number of feral fauna species that could potentially occur within the vicinity of the project area. These include:

• Feral goat (Capra hircus);

• Feral cat (Felis catus)

• European fox (Vulpes vulpes);

• Feral/wild dogs (Canis familiaris).


Page 99

Feral goats can have a significant impact of the structure and health of native vegetation communities and on the success of rehabilitation in an area. Unfortunately, goats are the livelihood of the station owner and therefore MMS is only able to protect the vegetation and fauna habitat within the fenced mining area.

Feral cats and foxes can impact significantly of native fauna species and wild dogs can impact significantly on pastoral and agricultural stock animals such as sheep. Most neighbouring station owners implement a wild dog and fox baiting program in order to protect their livestock.

There is a risk that operation of the project could improve the survival chances of feral species in the local area through the provision of improved movement pathways (eg. tracks), access to resources such as fodder in the form of newly establishing rehabilitation and palatable weed species (eg. Ruby Dock), food scraps, water sources and shelter. MMS proposes to minimise the potential benefits that these species could receive from operation of the project through implementation, where appropriate, of the following measures:

• fencing of rehabilitation where it is considered that rehabilitation success could be impacted by grazing from feral goats

• ensuring that palatable weed species such as ruby dock are controlled and eradicated to discourage foraging by feral goats and to help prevent spread

• ensuring that rubbish bins have lids and that these are used so as to minimise access to food scraps by feral cats, foxes and dogs

• ensuring that the site putrescible waste disposal facility is covered with soil or other suitable material on a regular basis to reduce availability of food scraps to feral animals, consideration will be given to fencing the facility to exclude both feral and native animals

• ensuring that artificial ponding of rainwater runoff around the site is minimised to reduce the availability of water resources to feral animals

• if feral cats become present in mine site area, implement a feral cat trapping programme.

6.4 SURFACE WATER

MMS has undertaken a surface water risk assessment of the KGP. Mining operations at the proposed KGP potentially pose the following issues with regard to surface water quantity and quality:

• degradation of surface water runoff quality at the KGP site from increased sediment load and turbidity as a result of construction and mining activities

• contamination of surface runoff water from hydrocarbons (eg. workshop area), acidic drainage (eg. from the ROM pad or waste landform) or other contaminants

• overtopping or breach of the TSF walls resulting in contamination of adjacent areas by tailings supernatant and sediment

• erosion and subsequent downstream sedimentation due to changes in volumes of run‐off from establishment and operation of mine landforms, infrastructure and drainage diversion structures


Page 100

• water starvation effects on vegetation downstream of mine infrastructure due to impedance of sheet flow

• ponding of surface water runoff leading to degradation in the health of native vegetation and in the provision of a resource, which could aid in the survival of feral animals.

MMS propose to implement the following management/mitigation measures as required to minimise the risk of impact on surface water quality and the downstream environment:

• maintenance of the existing diversion drainage system to divert surface water flow in the adjacent drainage line around the mine

• following significant rainfall and flow events, visual monitoring will be undertaken of the diversion bunds and downstream drainage lines. Should substantial erosion of the bunds or detrimental impact to adjacent or downstream vegetation occur the erosion/deposition/impact areas will be rehabilitated as appropriate, and measures implemented to prevent further erosion, deposition or impact

• the waste landform will be designed with back sloping benches to reduce runoff and to encourage maximum infiltration into the landforms and to minimise erosion down the embankments. The top of the landforms will be designed to be water collecting rather than shedding

• sediment bunds will be installed around the base of the waste rock landform to capture any sediment runoff and to prevent detrimental impact to rehabilitated areas downslope

• if any potentially acid forming waste materials are identified they will be encapsulated in a clay lined cell located in the centre of the waste landform

• the treatment plant and active stockpiling areas will be graded and suitably bunded as appropriate to prevent impacted surface water runoff from entering the surrounding environment

• all environmentally hazardous liquids or chemicals used onsite will be stored in compounds that are fully bunded and which (as appropriate) meet the requirements of the DG Act and the relevant Australian Standards (i.e. AS1940‐2004) for storage and handling of such substance

• bulk diesel will be stored onsite in self bunded tanks or in a lined bund with an appropriately designed refuelling apron draining to a catch tank/sump will be established to capture any spillage and subsequent runoff. The sump/tank will be inspected regularly and captured spillage will be disposed of at the site bioremediation area

• any spills of contaminants, such as oil or fuel, which occur outside of bunded areas will be cleaned up immediately to prevent potential impact to surface water runoff. Contaminated soil will be disposed of at the site bioremediation facility

• implementation of procedures and protocols for storage and handling of cyanide onsite that are consistent with the requirements of the International Cyanide Management Code

• re‐establishment of (as far as is practicable) the original overland sheet flow drainage patterns and rehabilitation of any native vegetation areas identified as being detrimentally impacted by water starvation


Page 101

• ensuring that the potential for artificial water ponding in areas of native vegetation is minimised. Rehabilitation of areas of native vegetation identified as being detrimentally impacted by water ponding

• ensuring that a daily inspection of the operational TSF is undertaken to ensure tailings discharge supernatant is below the required freeboard levels and that the walls remain in good condition

• more frequent inspections of the TSF will be undertaken following significant rainfall events. The interceptor drainage system established around the TSF to capture seepage and contaminated runoff will be inspected regularly and maintained in good condition

• MMS will comply with the conditions of the DEC prescribed premises licence with regard to the storage and handling of environmentally hazardous chemicals and materials onsite

• the waste landform has been positioned 300 m north of the flood bund wall to allow a 100 ARI rainfall event to occur without breaching the flood bund and to prevent back flowing of water

• the northern haul road has been designed with a floodway to minimise impacts on annual rainfall events.

6.5 GROUNDWATER

The potential risks to groundwater associated with the proposed mining activities include the following:

• groundwater availability/insufficient supply

• contamination to the local groundwater by hydrocarbon or chemical spillage

• contamination of the regional aquifer from TSF seepage

• reduction of water available to station owners.

MMS commits to minimising any detrimental environmental impacts to groundwater resources in the local and regional area that could occur through implementation of the KGP.

6.5.1 Groundwater Availability/Insufficient Supply

The hydrogeological assessment undertaken by KH Morgan and Associates also assessed the quantity of groundwater available in the open pit void and borefield and whether there was a sustainable quantity of groundwater available large enough to supply the proposed mining activities. In order to undertake the proposed mining activities, MMS is proposing to abstract 3 GL/a of water over 6 years. The hydrogeology assessment concluded that there is approximately 23.3 GL of water available in the borefield and 3.8 GL currently stored in the open pit void.

The risk of either insufficient supply for the project or significantly impacting the quantity of water available in the borefield is considered low. MMS will have approved water meters attached to all the production bores ensuring a sustainable abstraction rate is maintained based on individual bore capabilities. Also the borefield is established in the northerly oriented palaeochannel system, which receives recharge both from northerly and westerly directed surface drainages. It is expected that


Page 102

similar to the past couple of years that on cessation of pumping, this borefield will again recover readily from flood events that occur almost annually along these surface flow systems. These flood events are capable of transmitting floodwater into permeable alluvial sediments to the shallow depth groundwater system.

The low risk of the Company depleting the supply of groundwater surrounding the pit is also supported by historical data from previous mining activities. Equigold abstracted approximately 7 GL to enable the mining operations between 2002 and 2007. During this time, the open pit void experienced a drawdown of approximately 150 m AHD and borefield experienced an average water level drawdown of approximately 8 m locally around each bore. The drawdown in the pit was highly localised and did not extend outside of the mine site footprint. On cessation of mining, open pit void water level commenced recovery as a result of inflow of groundwater and direct rainfall catchment9.

Six years after mining ceased at the KGP (ie from 2006 to 2012), the open pit void has accumulated an estimated 3.8 GL of water to a height of 284 m AHD. This level is approximately 52 m below the original groundwater level of 336 m AHD prior to mining the open pit void. The current void water level of 284 m AHD is potentially approaching a static state as a result of a balance being attained from the rate of inflow of groundwater plus rainfall catchment equalling loss by evaporation from the void water surface.

MMS does not propose to discharge any water to the environment as it is expected that all water abstracted from dewatering operations will be consumed by the treatment plant.

Given this, it is unlikely that the Company’s proposed abstraction will have a significant impact on the surrounding aquifer. However, to ensure that the Company minimises any potential impacts, MMS has implemented a monitoring program to monitor groundwater levels and quantity of water abstracted as described in Section 6.5.3.

6.5.2 Groundwater Contamination from Mining Operations

Soil contamination from both major and minor spillage of liquids such as oil and fuel and other liquids used onsite for mining operations have the potential to occur over the LOM. MMS propose to implement the following management measures as required to ensure that seepage of surface contaminants does not impact on the quality of the underlying groundwater aquifer:

• all dangerous goods used onsite will be stored in fully bunded compounds in line with the requirements of the DG Act and the relevant Australian Standards (AS 1940‐2004)

• bulk diesel will be stored onsite in self bunded tanks or approved bunded area with an appropriately designed refuelling apron draining to a tank/sump will be established to capture any spillage and subsequent runoff. The sump/tank will be inspected regularly and captured spillage will be disposed of at the site bioremediation area

9 It is assumed that pit bunds prevented inflow of surface storm water runoff from entering the void from natural drainage


Page 103

• any spills of contaminants, such as oil or fuel, which occur outside of bunded areas will be cleaned up immediately to prevent potential impact to surface water runoff. Contaminated soil will be disposed of at the site bioremediation facility

• monitoring including sampling and analysis of water quality from the existing monitoring bores at the site in line with the Kirkalocka Groundwater Operating Strategy will help to identify if any significant contamination has/is occurring

• MMS will comply with the conditions of the DEC prescribed premises licence with regard to the storage and handling of environmentally hazardous chemicals and materials onsite.

6.5.3 Regional Groundwater Contamination from TSF Seepage

MMS has designed a groundwater operating strategy for the KGP in consultation with KH Morgan and Associates. This strategy details the monitoring program that is used to identify changes in groundwater quality and will be used as an early detection indicator to identify trends that may lead to impacts on the environment or other users.

A network of monitoring bores have been installed as a part of the original mining activities at the KGP. These bores have been recommissioned as part of the DoW groundwater licensing requirements and include the following:

• 13 monitoring bores surrounding the TSF

• 11 monitoring bores in close proximately to the pit and along the borefield

• 6 regional monitoring bores.

Details of the monitoring program are described in Table 41.

Table 41: Summary Details, KGP Borefield and Pit Monitoring Bores

Parameter Sample Site Frequency Time

Meter Readings

KP5, open pit void Monthly At the end of every

month

Meter Readings

KP3, KP5, KP6, KP7, KP9, KP10, KP11, KP12, KP13, Monthly

(when active) At the end of every

month

Chemical Analysis

open pit void, KP3, KP5, KP6, KP7, KP11, KP13, CWE27 Quarterly March, June,

September, December

Chemical Analysis

TDP1, TDP2, TDP3, TDP4, TDP5, TDP6, TDP7, TDP8, TDP9, TDP10, TDP11, TDP12, TDP13, KP17

Quarterly March, June,

September, December

Water Level

CWE19, CWE26, CWE27, CWE29, CWE46, CWE55, CWE61, CWE71, CWE87, CWE89, CWE107, TDP1, TDP2, TDP3, TDP4, TDP5, TDP6, TDP7, TDP8, TDP9,

TDP10, TDP11, TDP12, TDP13, KP17

Quarterly March, June,

September, December

The potential for the regional groundwater to be negatively impacted by the proposed mining activities is low. Equigold actively mined the KGP from 2002 to 2005 and undertook regular monitoring of the groundwater surrounding the pit and borefield. The results of the monitoring data have not indicated any significant change in groundwater quality surrounding the borefield.


Page 104

An increase in salinity levels has been detected in one monitoring bore located on the northwest corner of the TSF. The increase in salinity most likely results from increased drainage from the TSF due to the high groundwater gradient developed towards the open pit.

The open pit void is likely to become more saline over time. However, the salinity increase of water in the pit void is unlikely to impact the regional groundwater system because the void will remain in perpetuity a groundwater inflow sump. Any local contamination of groundwater resultant from local mining activity will be directed by flow to the pit void.

The risk of acid mine drainage occurring is also a very low. The KGP orebody and its mineralised envelope is low in sulphide mineral content with little potential to produce acid forming minerals through oxidation exposure. The host rock and regolith is high in carbonate minerals as well as minerals (eg, lateritic iron) with high heavy metal and arsenic absorbing capacity. Therefore, acid mine drainage is a highly unlikely consequence from the proposed operation.

To ensure the proposed mining operation do not have a significant impact on groundwater quality MMS will continue to monitor the monitoring bores in accordance with the Kirkalocka Groundwater Operating Strategy.

6.5.4 Impacts to Station Bores

Given that the majority of the supply will be sought from the exiting open pit, it is unlikely that the project will impact on the station bores as previous records of drawdown showed a highly localised effect and did not extend far from pit boundary.

The ensure MMS does not have a significant impact on any of the station bores, MMS proposes to continue the groundwater monitoring as described in Table 41 and if any station bores are adversely affected MMS will develop a management strategy in consultation with the station owners to ensure station supply is maintained.

6.6 TOPSOIL AND SOIL PROFILES

Topsoil quantities and quality has been assessed as a component of the Mining Proposal process. Potential impacts on the soil and landform due the KGP proposal have been identified as:

• quantities of harvested topsoil and subsoil insufficient for the rehabilitation requirements of the site.

• weeds infestation in topsoil and subsoil rendering it unusable in rehabilitation activities • contamination of soil areas from hydrocarbons or saline water spillage/overspray • compaction of soils from use of heavy machinery onsite • erosion (both water and wind) due to exposure of bare soil areas for prolonged periods.

MMS propose to implement the following management measures as necessary to minimise unacceptable impact to soils and soil profiles onsite:

• harvesting and stockpiling of cleared vegetation for reuse in rehabilitation activities


Page 105

• determination of topsoil and subsoil requirements during mine planning and harvesting in line with these requirements

• topsoil and subsoil will be stored in stockpiles less than 2 m in height

• topsoil harvested from areas that are free of weeds will be stockpiled separately to topsoil that is infested with weeds to ensure that it remains weed free

• machinery working in weed infested soil areas will be cleaned down prior to moving into weed free areas during topsoil and subsoil harvesting operations

• a weed monitoring, control and eradication program will be implemented onsite to minimise the infestation and impact that weeds will have on stockpiled topsoil and subsequent rehabilitation

• progressive rehabilitation will be undertaken in areas no longer required for the operation of the project wherever the opportunity arises to minimise the potential for erosion and deterioration of topsoil resources

• deep ripping of heavily compacted layers during rehabilitation activities. Ripping of slope and batter areas on the contour to help improve water infiltration and prevent erosion

• respreading of cleared vegetation material on slope and batter areas

• the water that will be used for dust suppression onsite is of good quality, however over time salts may build up in soil profiles adjacent to haulage routes and access roads regardless. Dribble bars will be used for dust suppression activities wherever possible to prevent overspray of dust suppression water onto adjacent areas

• any spills of contaminants, such as oil or fuel, which occur outside of bunded areas will be cleaned up immediately to prevent potential impact to the soil profile. Any contaminated soil will be disposed of at the site bioremediation facility.

6.7 WASTE ROCK MATERIAL AND TAILINGS MANAGEMENT

6.7.1 Waste Rock Material

Waste rock characterisation for acid and metalliferous drainage (AMD) potential was undertaken from 46 reverse circulation (RC) drill hole samples. Samples were sourced from various depths to reflect the principle waste lithologies involved with mining at KGP. Table 42 shows the sample details.

Table 42: Waste Rock AMD Potential Drill Hole Sample Details

10CWNRC drill hole series # sampled

Lithology Sampled Metres 1 3 4 5 6 9 14 15 16 17 19 20Duricrust 2, 12 X Transported material 17, 21 X 5, 11 X Basalt saprolite 40, 41 X Tonalite saprolite 37, 41 X Basalt saprock 76, 77 X


Page 106

10CWNRC drill hole series # sampled

64, 65 X Tonalite saprock 80, 82 X 81, 82 X Proximal basalt waste bedrock 66, 67 X 93, 94 X Distal basalt waste bedrock 79, 80 X 64, 65 X 57, 58 X 66, 67 X 55, 56 X 84, 85 X Proximal tonalite waste bedrock 96, 97 X 87, 88 X Distal tonalite waste bedrock 98, 99 X 140, 141 X 184, 185 X 110, 111 X

All samples were provided to Graeme Campbell and Associates Pty Ltd (GCA) and were tested for a range of parameters including:

• pH (1:2),

• Electrical Conductivity (1:2) [mS/cm],

• Total Sulphide (%),

• Sulphate (SO4 )‐ S (%),

• Sulphide ‐ S (%),

• Total Carbon ‐ C (%),

• Carbonate ‐ CO3 ‐ C (%),

• Acid‐Neutralisation‐Capacity (ANC) (kg/H2SO4/tonne),

• Net‐Acid‐Producing‐Potential (NAPP) (kg/H2SO4/tonne),

• Net‐Acid Generation (NAG) (kg/H2SO4/tonne), and

• NAG‐pH.

From the results, an acid forming potential rating was determined for each sample. Ratings included potentially acid forming (PAF) and non‐acid forming (NAF).

Results sourced from GCA (2011) are shown in Table 43. The full GCA (2011) waste characterisation report has been included as Appendix O.

GCA (2011) recommend that overall:

“the geochemistry has minimal implications for managing waste bedrock streams and reflects the ‘Low‐S‐tenor’ of mineralisation within the Kirkalocka Deposit. Locally, proximal [Tonalite] waste


Page 107

bedrocks may be PAF [potentially acid forming], due to ‘trace pyrite’ in a ‘gutless‐groundmass’ for circum‐neutral buffering. Conservatively, such proximal‐waste‐bedrocks should not be placed within c. 10 m of the waste‐landform‐surface (both top, and sides) at closure.”

Additional work undertaken by MMS has indicated that the PAF proximal tonalite waste bedrock sample was incorrectly taken from the mineralised zone and upon further review of the drilling data only minor trace sulphides have been recorded in the ore zone. Given this, combined with the NAF values for the other waste bedrocks sampled, as well as the lack of historical evidence of any acid or metalliferous drainage, it is it highly likely that there is negligible acid or metalliferous drainage risk from the waste landforms.

This is further supported by significant quantities of acid neutralising capacity (ANC) being identified within all lithologies with results ranging from 1 kg H2SO4/tonne to 39 kg H2SO4/tonne with the average being 16.6 kg H2SO4/tonne. These results suggest that there is sufficient neutralizing capacity present should acid be formed during the oxidation of any inorganic sulfur.

To ensure that the waste landform can be made into a safe, stable, non‐polluting, sustainable structure, the physical properties (Emerson class, salinity and sodicity) of the waste were also analysed to determine erosional characteristics of the waste material.

GCA (2011) has made a number of recommendations regarding the potential use/treatment of the various waste lithologies during closure and rehabilitation activities. A summary of these follows:

• waste rock from the distal waste bedrock is suitable for placement in the outer surface of landforms or for use as exposed rock armour or similar.

• waste material sourced from the saprock zone should be suitable for use as sheeting material on the outer surfaces of landforms.

• waste sourced from the duricrust zone along with the topsoil is probably the most ideal material to use for sheeting the out surfaces of landforms.

• material sourced from the saprolite zone should not be used as sheeting on the outer layers of landforms (particularly on sloped batters) due to its high erosion potential.

MMS has used GCA recommendations to calculate waste material requirements for the capping of the waste landforms and TSF. Estimated quantities of each waste rock lithology to be produced from mining and estimates for the use of each in rehabilitation activities are shown in Table 44.

KirkaMou Tabl


e 43: GCA (2011)

NL

Acid forming pottential sample ratings

Page 108


osal ion


Page 109

Table 44: Estimated Quantities of Waste Rock to be Produced from Mining

Waste Rock Type Weathering

Profile

Estimated Quantity

Produced During Mining (Mt)

Proposed Use Estimated Quantity

Required for Rehabilitation (Mt)

Proximal waste bedrock

Fresh 10 Rock armour/sheeting 1.280

Distal waste bedrock

Fresh 5 Rock armour/sheeting 1.280

Saprock Transitional (oxide)

6.7 Rock armour/sheeting 1.027

Duricrust Laterite and above (oxide)

5.80 Rock armour/sheeting 1.027

Saprolite Below laterite (oxide)

10 Placed in centre of landforms or covered with non‐ eroding outer layers

Nil

6.7.1.1 Rehabilitation of the waste landform

The existing landform was included in the KGP rehabilitated plan, which was undertaken in 2007‐2008. The first embankment was contoured to 18 degrees, covered in topsoil and ripped and seeded and covered with stockpiled vegetation. The next embankment was 10 m high and contoured to 10 degrees. The top of the waste landform was contoured into a concave shape covered in topsoil and ripped and seeded and covered with stockpiled vegetation.

The rehabilitation of the waste landform was relatively successful and MMS is proposing to implement some of the same design concepts such as the following:

• progressive rehabilitation (each batter will be rehabbed as the next batter is started)

• conventional batter/bench design

• 20 m high batters and 5 m wide back sloping benches

• batter slopes of less than 20 degrees. At this stage, the design is for batters of 18 degrees with an average overall slope of 17 degrees

• concave shape for the final top surface of the landforms

• covered with topsoil, ripped and seeded with local species

• incorporation of rock armour into the topsoil mix to increase infiltration and reduce erosion.

Unfortunately, the previous capping material process was not documented so the thickness of oxide versus fresh rock ratio is not known. Therefore, MMS is proposing to undertake a number of capping trials to find the most effective combination of materials to create a long term stable and self‐sustainable landform. It is evident from the existing rehab on the TSF embankments that saprolite should not be stored within 2 m of the surface of the landform and that a good mix of fresh and oxide material is required to avoid tunnel erosion and provide a good foundation for vegetation growth. A conceptual design of the waste landforms is shown in Figure 16.


Page 110

The rehabilitation of the waste landform will be scheduled and budgeted for as a component of the mine plan with additional funds allocated to the final closure. The waste landform rehabilitation process will be implemented and monitored in accordance with Mine Waste Management Plan (to be developed). This will involve monitoring the success of the rehab by regular visual inspections and undertaking Landscape Function Analysis,

More information regarding the closure of the waste landform is detailed in the mine closure plan.

KirkaMou

F


Figure 16: Concept

NL

ual Waste Landform Design

Page 111


osal ion


Page 112

6.7.2 Tailings

6.7.2.1 Geochemical Analysis

Wave Solutions has undertaken a geochemical analysis study to assess the potential for the tailings materials to produce acid, metalliferous or saline drainage.

To determine the potential of the tailings from the TSF to produce acid and metalliferous drainage, and saline drainage, the following geochemical tests were performed:

• Tailings Structure and Physical Properties:

o Emerson Class

o Mineralogy

o Sodicity

• Acid Drainage

o pH

o Acid‐Base Account (ABA)

• Metalliferous Drainage

o Multi‐ element composition

• Saline Drainage

o Electrical Conductivity (EC).

Tailings samples were obtained from the TSF by an external contractor then transferred via Wave Solutions to a NATA accredited laboratory for analysis. Three samples were obtained from each of the three sample locations (Figure 17), providing nine tailings samples in total (Table 45). The three sample locations represent different TSF geological profiles.

KirkalockMount M

Figure 17

This meta true reThe matthat willcontinua

Table 45:

Sample

TSFC1

TSFC2

TSFC3

TSFCN

TSFCN

TSFCN

TSFNW

TSFNW

TSFNW The resu

10 Primary 11 Superge

ka Gold ProjecMagnet South

7: Location of

thod of usingepresentatioterial selecte be produceation of the s

: Details of th

e ID

1 2 Prim

2 2 Prim

3 Ox

N1 Prim

N2

N3 Oxide

W1 Prim

W2 Oxid

W3 Oxid

ults of the tai

is fresh basalt ene is the oxide

ct NL

the Samples

g real tailingon of potented from withed as a tailinsame litholog

e Samples fro

Lithology

ary10 To 1 Oxi

mary To 1 Oxid

xide/Laterite

mary Laterite

Primary

e/ Supergene1

mary/ Laterites

de/ Supergene

de/ Supergene

ilings geoche

and fresh tonalie near the fresh

from the TSF

gs rather thaial for the tah the TSF wangs product. gies and Tab

om the TSF (W

Locatio

ide Ce

de Ce

Ce

Centre

Centre11 Centre

s Northw

e Northw

e Northw

emical analys

ite blend contact

Page 113

.

n laboratoryailings to pros carefully cFigure 5 in

ble 45 shows

Wave Solution

on in TSF

entre

entre

entre

e‐North

e‐North

e‐North

west Wall

west Wall

west Wall

sis is as follo

y produced toduce acid, hosen to besection 2.3 the litholog

ns 2011)

Latitude (South)

28°40.679’

28°40.679’

28°40.679’

28°40.646’

28°40.646’

28°40.646’

28°40.608’

28°40.608’

28°40.608’

ows:

ailings was umetalliferou a representshows the pies that were

Longitud(East)

117°46.2

117°46.2

117°46.2

117°46.20

117°46.20

117°46.20

117°46.0

117°46.0

117°46.0

MiningMine

used as MMSus or saline dtative of thepit perimetere sampled.

de

Samp

13’ 1.

13’ 5.

13’ 10

03’ 1.

03’ 5.

03’ 9.

97’ 1.

97’ 8.

97’ 12


S wanted drainage. material r and the

ple Depth (m)

.0 ‐1.5

.5 ‐6.0

0 ‐10.5

.0 ‐1.5

.5 ‐6.5

.0 ‐9.5

.0 ‐1.5

.0 ‐8.5

2 ‐12.5


Page 114

• The only element with in the tailings samples that resulted with levels greater than the Mean Crustal Abundance was selenium. The selenium results in all samples however were < 2 mg/kg, which is the limit of reporting. Therefore to calculate the GAI for this element, the value of 1 mg/kg as the actual sample level was used as a conservative estimate. The high selenium levels generated, consequently, do not necessarily indicate that this element enrichment is problematic.

• “All of the tailings samples from the TSF had high pH levels (alkaline). The mineralogy indicated that no sulphide minerals are present in any of the lithology groups sampled. These results combined with the non‐acid forming results of the ABA analysis suggest that the sampled lithologies are non‐acid generating.

• In addition, the low soluble metal concentrations coupled with low acidity values as indicated by the levels of CaCO3 and high pH suggest that the lithologies sampled do not display characteristics typical of acid and metalliferous drainage”. (Wave Solutions 2012) (Appendix P)

• ‘The tailings samples did demonstrate low to moderate levels of salinity with a degree of variability between samples, which may warrant further investigation into their ability to produce saline drainage. This interpretation may be assisted by characterisation of reference sites in the adjoining leach Environment.” (Wave Solutions 2012) (Appendix P).

6.7.2.2 Rehabilitation of the TSF

Coffey undertook a geotechnical assessment of the proposed upstream lift for the existing TSF and has provided a Mining Proposal with supporting documentation for the design and construction of the facility. The construction and rehabilitation of the TSF has been designed to minimise the opportunities for erosion, sedimentation and batter slope failure and maximise the success of sustainable revegetation. The following details the proposed design parameters:

• conventional raised embankment upstream impoundment design

• 8 m wide crest between outer edge of existing TSF starter embankment and the outer edge of the new TSF raises (Coffey 2011). There are six raises of 2.5 m each proposed at this stage.

• 20 degree outer batter slopes at completion of all raises.

• 500 mm of mine waste capping material applied to downstream batters of TSF raises. The GCA (2011) recommendations will be used in selection of suitable mine waste material for this purpose.

• saprolite will not be used for capping the batters of the TSF

• a combination of fresh and oxide material will be used as capping material

• capping material trials will be undertaken to determine the best combination required to avoid tunnel erosion and provide a good foundation for vegetation growth

• batters covered with topsoil, ripped and seeded with local species

• Regular visual inspections of vegetation growth will be undertaken in addition to Landscape Function Analysis assessment and monitoring


Page 115

• spillway comprised of aggregated rock will be installed will be installed to divert surface water runoff from the top of the facility over the embankment batter to the downstream toe at the north east area of the TSF where it will then follow the existing surface water diversion bund system and remain inside the mine site.

• At final closure, the decant structure will be sealed by;

o removal of the slotted concrete pipes and filter rock to a level between 2 m and 5 m below the surrounding tailings

o backfilling of the remaining slotted concrete pipe with dried tailings

o covering of the excavated rock layer (i.e. the rock surrounding the decant structure) with geo‐fabric to prevent movement of fine material through the rock voids

o backfilling of the excavation with tailings to the adjacent tailings level

o capping of the decant area of the TSF using clayey mine waste.

More information regarding the closure of the TSF is detailed in the mine closure plan.

6.7.3 Waste Rock landform and TSF Risk Mitigation

The potential environmental risks associated with the KGP waste landform and TSF are as follows:

• presence of potentially acid forming material

• regional groundwater contamination from saline seepage from the TSF

• erosion of embankments preventing successful revegetation

• breach in TSF wall resulting in uncontrolled release

• fauna loss due to WAD cyanide in TSF

• weed infestation in rehab

• surface water erosion to the northern waste landform due to 1 in 100 year flood

• liquification of the TSF upstream lift

• uncontrolled release of tailings slurry or return water from tailings pipelines.

The majority of these risk mitigation measures are discussed in detail in various sections throughout this Mining Proposal, a summary response is provide below:

• GCA and Wave Solutions have undertaken waste characterisation assessment for acid and metalliferous drainage potential and both have resulted as low risk. Even though, risk is low MMS will undertake groundwater monitoring for seepage and waste material will be inspected for sulphides. If necessary, a designated location within the waste landforms will be created to ensure no PAF material is stored within 10 m of any outer edge.

• The host rock and regolith is also high in carbonate minerals as well as in ferric oxide minerals (eg, lateritic iron) with high heavy metal and arsenic absorbing capacity. Therefore, acid drainage is a highly unlikely consequence from the proposed MMS operation (KH Morgan and Associates 2012)


Page 116

• presently the seepage from the TSF is showing slightly elevated levels of salinity in the bores closest to the open pit. KH Morgan and Associates has undertaken a groundwater assessment and has concluded that any potential seepage from the adjoining TSF structures will drain towards the pit void and the salinity increase is unlikely to impact on the regional groundwater system because the void will remain in perpetuity as a groundwater inflow sump.

• waste material capping trials will be undertaken to determine the most effective combination of oxide and fresh material. It is evident in the current rehabilitation that insufficient fresh rock material has been used and that saprolite material has been placed too close to the surface. MMS will used the existing knowledge to improve embankment stabilisation of the TSF and the waste landforms.

• the TSF wall will be built in accordance with the Coffey Mining Proposal attached in Appendix J. Coffey has extensive proven experience in designing and constructing TSFs and therefore the risk of a breach in the wall is considered low .

• As described in Section 6.3.3 it is highly likely that MMS will be able to reduce the WAD concentration in the TSF to 50 mg/L. The TSF will be inspected daily, if it becomes evident that fauna are attached to the TSF MMS will implement fauna deterring devises.

• MMS is currently undertaking a week eradication programme. This programme will continue through the LOM.

• The southern side of the northern waste landform is expected to experience up to 2 m of surface water during a 1 in 100 year ARI event. Rock armouring will be included in the construction of the waste landform to protect against erosion.

• Coffey has undertaken a liquification assessment and has concluded that the TSF will be stable under both static and seismic conditions, with factors of safety above the recommended minimum values.

• Tailings pipelines will be located in V drains to ensure and uncontrolled release is contained.

• The TSF will be operated in accordance with the KGP DEC Prescribed Premise Licence.

6.8 DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE PRODUCTS

The operation of the KGP site will result in the generation of minor quantities of solid inert waste and domestic putrescible waste and small quantities of liquid wastes, primarily oils and other hydrocarbon wastes including rags and filters. Potential environmental impacts for the storage, handling and disposal of waste onsite include:

• contamination of soil and groundwater

• littering of the site due to poorly managed facilities

• access to food scraps by feral animals.

MMS commits to implementing an effective waste management system for the storage, handling and disposal of waste materials produced from the KGP site.


Page 117

MMS propose to implement, as necessary, the following management measures in relation to waste management at the KGP site:

• taking opportunities to recycle waste materials produced onsite where ever possible

• disposal of industrial inert wastes produced from mining operations by burial in a designated place within the waste landform no closer than 10 m from the embankment edge or by removal from site to an authorised facility

• large diameter tyres will be buried in the waste landform with a minimum separation area of 0.5 m in all directions around each tyre with appropriate fill material.

• disposal of all domestic inert and putrescible wastes at the site waste management facility (designated area within the existing waste landform which will be no closer than 10 m to the embankment edge) which is currently licenced by the DEC under category 89 of the EP Regs.

• disposal of hydrocarbon contaminated soil in the site bioremediation facility and subsequent management of the bioremediation facility to ensure breakdown of hydrocarbons

• compliance with the waste management and disposal conditions specified in the DEC prescribed premises licence and in the project tenement condition schedule

• operating and maintaining the site putrescible waste facility in a manner which is consistent with the intent of the Environmental Protection (Rural Landfill) Regulations 2002

• removal of all septic sludge and other hazardous or controlled wastes from the site (where appropriate through a contractor licenced to carry controlled waste) to an authorised disposal facility.

6.9 DANGEROUS GOODS AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

As a part of the normal day to day functioning of the KGP operation, a number of dangerous goods will need to be transported to site and stored and handled onsite. MMS acknowledge that transport, storage and handling of dangerous goods can pose a risk to the safety of site personnel and also to the environment. If an incident or accident should occur which results in an unintended or unexpected release into either the work or natural environment human injury or death may result, as well as detrimental environmental impacts to vegetation, flora, fauna, soil, water resources and the environment generally.

Dangerous goods that will be transported to, stored and handled onsite at KGP in quantities that potentially pose a risk to human health and the environment if transported, stored or handled incorrectly include:

• Bulk diesel;

• Sodium Cyanide;

• Sodium hydroxide;

• Hydrochloric Acid

In order to effectively manage dangerous goods, MMS propose to implement, as necessary, the following management measures at the KGP site:


Page 118

• MMS will ensure compliance with the relevant conditions set in the DEC prescribed premises licence for the site in relation to storage and handling of toxic materials and contaminated matter

• MMS will ensure that transport is undertaken by licence carriers and suppliers that are accredited to transport such materials

• MMS will ensure that all carriers and suppliers transport dangerous goods and hazardous materials in accordance with the requirements of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code

• MMS will ensure that storage and handling onsite of dangerous goods and hazardous materials (including explosives) is in accordance the requirements of the relevant legislation including the Dangerous Goods Safety Act 2004 and associated regulations and relevant Australian Standards such as AS1940‐2004 The Storage and Handling of Flammable and Combustible Liquids

• MMS will ensure that transport, storage and handling of dangerous goods and hazardous materials onsite in carried out in accordance with the requirements of the relevant sections of the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 and associated regulations

• MMS will ensure that cyanide transport, storage and handling onsite is conducted in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the International Cyanide Management Code.

6.10 ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION

Mining operations generate a range of emissions that have potential to pollute the atmosphere both in a local and more regional sense. The more significant of these emissions generally include:

• dust (TSP, PM10 and PM 2.5) generated from mining, stockpiling, processing and materials handling operations

• greenhouse gas emissions from operation of internal combustion engines associated with the project.

The closest populated area to the proposed KGP operation is Mount Magnet, which is located approximately 70 km to the north. The operation is located on mining tenements surrounded by pastoral stations with nearest homestead (Kirkalocka) located approximately 14 km to the north of the operation. Given that this is the case, it is considered that there is a negligible risk that emissions released to the atmosphere from the operation will impact on any areas of human habitation not associated with the mining operation itself.

MMS propose to implement, as required, the following management measures:

• compliance with the relevant conditions contained within in the DEC prescribed premises licence pertaining to control of dust emissions onsite

• a water cart will be used to maintain haul roads and working areas and to minimise dust

• sprinklers will be established on the ROM and treatment plant road


Page 119

• all stockpiled material will be coarse in nature (p80 ~ 30 mm)

• tertiary crushing and screening will be carried out wet with the sized product (‐3.5 mm) being pumped in a slurry form directly to the mill

• separation of oxide and non‐oxide materials during crushing minimising the possibility of over crushing the fine dry oxide material

• allowing improved management of the stockpile material by avoiding blending operations on the ROM pad

• MMS will keep all generators, site vehicles and heavy machinery serviced on a regular basis to reduce the potential for increased greenhouse gas emissions caused by vehicles that are running poorly

• MMS will investigate the possibility of introducing a policy requiring the use of biodiesel by site personnel and contractors in order to reduce the greenhouse gas and other emissions produced by the site

• any new equipment or machinery purchased will include an energy efficiency assessment in order to promote the dual benefits of reduced operating costs and reduction in atmospheric emission.

• work will be undertaken during operations to identify disturbed areas of the treatment facility that can be progressively rehabilitated and as such reduce the available area of bare ground from which dust can be generated and also provide a natural wind barrier to reduce the intensity of dust bearing wind through the area.

6.11 NOISE

Noise impacts are expected to be minimal due to the remote location of the project and absence of nearby residential facilities. No sensitive receptors have been identified within close proximity of the operation and there are no other residences within 14 km of the project area. Irrespective, MMS commit to minimising any detrimental impact that noise could have on the environment and will operate in accordance with the relevant regulations pertaining to noise under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994, Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations 1995 and the Environmental Protection Act (Noise) Regulations 1997.

7. SOCIAL IMPACTS AND MANAGEMENT

7.1 HERITAGE

7.1.1 Aboriginal Heritage and Native Title

No sites of Aboriginal heritage have been identified on project tenements M59/234 and M59/233. One registered Aboriginal Heritage site has been identified at the very northern end of project tenement M59/232. There is no disturbance planned relating to operation of the KGP within the vicinity of this site and the risk of impact to Aboriginal Heritage sites is considered to be low.


Page 120

All of the KGP mining tenements were granted in 1991 and therefore the provisions of the Native Title Act 1993 do not apply in this instance. Irrespective, MMS commit to minimising any detrimental impact that operation of the project could have on sites of Aboriginal heritage value. MMS propose to meet this commitment through implementation of following management measures:

• cultural awareness training for site personnel • induction to include details regarding site personnel obligations under the Aboriginal

Heritage Act 1972 and what process should be undertaken should any suspected Aboriginal Heritage sites be identified.

7.1.2 European Heritage

No sites of European Heritage value have been identified on the KGP project tenements. No management measures are proposed.

7.2 LAND USE AND COMMUNITY

The land in the project area is under pastoral lease (Kirkalocka Station) and is categorised as Livestock Grazing land according to Stewart et al (2001). The stakeholders that have been consulted to date regarding re‐commencement of mining at KGP are summarised in Table 46.


Page 121

Table 46: Stakeholders Consulted Regarding the Re‐Commencement of Mining at KGP

Date Stakeholder Topic of Discussion Response from Stakeholder

13‐Nov‐12 Nalbarra Station owner Phoned MMS ‐ enquiring about job opportunities

16‐18 Oct‐12 Badimia Claimant Group

Archaeological Survey of Jumbulyer tenements Enquired about job opportunities when Kirkalocka is in operation

18‐Oct‐12 Kirkalocka Station Owner

Visit homestead to discuss proposed mining activities No issues or concerns raised

10‐Oct‐12 DMP ‐ Lousie Mailey, Tyler Sujdovic

Meeting ‐ provided final details of proposed re‐opening of the KGP

Prefer water collecting features i.e. ‐ waste landforms/TSF, enquired whether MMS was aware of other non‐environmental approvals i.e. CASA

8‐Oct‐12 Royal Flying Doctors Service Airport to remain after closure RFDS would like the airstrip to remain available.

MMS need to see if the Shire will take over the maintenance of the airstrip after mine closure

6‐Aug‐12 Native Title Group ‐ Badimia Traditional Owners

Meeting to discuss the proposed re‐opening of Kirkalocka and mine expansion.

No concerns raised regarding mine closure.

6‐Aug‐12 DoW ‐ Erin Maher & Katrina Wheeler

Meeting ‐ Project update. Discussed submission of 2 water licenses ‐ one for dewatering and one for borefield

8‐May‐12 DEC ‐ Paul Anderson & Garth Grimsley DEC AER site inspection

Required Actions: 1. Various sections of the tailings discharge and return pipelines were located outside of the earthen bunding. Required Actions: All tailings discharge and return pipelines shall be located within the designated bunded areas prior to operations recommencing at the premises (Condition W6). 2. No groundwater monitoring was undertaken for the months of March and June 2011. Required Action: Groundwater monitoring for monitoring bores TDP1‐13 shall be undertaken for the months of March, June, September and December of each year. 3. Sampling of groundwater monitoring bores TDP1‐2, TDP4, TDPS, TDP10, and TDP12 did not occur for the months of September and December 2011. The Environmental Manager for Mount Magnet South NL stated the bores were 'dry'. Required Actions: MMS shall determine, by employing the services of a qualified hydrogeologist, the suitability of the depth of the groundwater monitoring bores for the purpose of taking a representative groundwater sample. All groundwater monitoring bores deemed unsuitable to take a representative groundwater sample shall be refurbished to the required depth.


Page 122


24‐Feb‐12 Shire of Mount Magnet

Attended Shire of Mount Magnet Council meeting – Jason Homewood (Cr) Bob Ford (Cr) Kevin Brand (Cr) Geoff Brooks (CEO) Ashley Dowden (Cr) Jorgen Jensen (Cr) Robbie Davis (Cr) Wendy McGorman (Cr)

No concerns raised or questions regarding mine closure. Wanted to know what MMS was planning on contributing to the community

23‐Feb‐12 Nalbarra Station Owner

Visit homestead (afternoon tea) to discuss proposed mining activities

Asked about job opportunities Raised concerns about discharging surface water across their station (MMS has no plans to discharge water anywhere)

23‐Feb‐12 Kirkalocka Station Owner

Visited homestead to discuss proposed mining activities Asked about job opportunities

DMP – Demelza Dravnieks Tyler Sujdovic

Kirkalocka approvals process

DMP feedback as follows: • DMP officers discussed the waste landform, visual assessment of landform lower order of importance to the assessment officers. Stability of landform of higher priority to the DMP officers. The Company demonstrated effective slope/water/erosion management methods and rehabilitation growth on existing facility. DMP officers will provide final assessment on proposed waste landforms once Mining Proposal (MP) is submitted. The DMP officers provided tentative positive feedback on the waste landform designs and commented that height of waste landform is ok but waste landform may need to be contoured to be in‐line with surrounding landforms. • The DMP officers made it clear that the Mine Closure Strategy is a key assessment area for the project. • If a short Life of Mine or Staged approach is to be considered for any project then DMP will likely impose detailed conditions on the project operator as part of that project’s Mine Closure Plan. • If a Medium/Long Life of Mine then DMP will be more lenient on conditions for Mine Closure Plan however, the Company will still need to include closure detail if an unexpected closure was to occur. • The implications for the Company are that a delay in the geotechnical engineering assessment of the final pit design ( ie no drilling and logging and Lab testing will likely mean that the Company will have to incur further costs in the area of environmental assessment of the Mine Closure, actual earth works and the early scheduling of that works and potential changes to environmental bonds applied to the Company.

16‐Dec‐11 CEO of Shire of Mount Magnet – Mr Geoff Brookes

Emailed and posted ‐ Stakeholder briefing document

A briefing would be much appreciated. The date of the meeting is Friday 24 February 2011.

16‐Dec‐11 Shire of Yalgoo – Mr Ron Adams

Emailed and posted ‐ Stakeholder briefing document No response yet


Page 123


16‐Dec‐11 Kirkalocka Station Owners

Emailed and posted ‐ Stakeholder briefing document

Emailed Response ‐ Thank you for the Briefing Document, we appreciate being informed of activity on the Kirkalocka lease. We have enjoyed having a good working relationship with all the previous exploration and mining companies that have been involved with this project and hope that this good relationship will continue with Mt Magnet South. We wish you well with your endeavours to re‐establish a successful mining operation and we look forward to being involved in any way, as we have in the past that can be mutually beneficial.

16‐Dec‐11 Nalbarra Station Owner

Emailed and posted ‐ Stakeholder briefing document Asked if there was any work for his machines

16‐Dec‐11 Conservation Council of WA

Emailed ‐ Stakeholder briefing document No response received

16‐Dec‐11 World Wildlife Fund Emailed ‐ Stakeholder briefing document No response received

03‐Nov‐11 DEC ‐ Anthea Jones Replied via email on behalf of Peter

I have confirmed with the Principal Zoologist, Species and Communities Branch that the potential impacts on Idiosoma nigrum from the proposed Kirkalocka Gold Mine Expansion should be able to be managed under Regulation 15 of the WC Act. The proponent will need to provide an estimate of the number of I. nigrum likely to be impacted and clearly identify the area of habitat likely to be impacted. Further surveys of the proposed impact area should not be required for this, as the information already gathered should be adequate to provide an estimate of the number of burrows per hectare and therefore an estimate of the likely number of the number of I. nigrum that may be impacted. Ideally, the proponent should submit the licence application at the same time as the mining proposal is submitted to DMP, as the processes can run in parallel and the relevant agencies will liaise as necessary.

20‐Oct‐11 DEC ‐ Peter Mawson Sought advice regarding management of Idiosoma nigrum via email

10‐Oct‐11 EPA ‐ Peter Tapsell Email ‐ requesting a meeting to discuss the likelihood of a referral

Peter replied with ‐ Have you talked to DEC about this project? Before deciding whether to refer this to the EPA, I would advise you to contact both the DMP and DEC. Including their feedback with any referral to the EPA would be helpful. Based on the information you get from these two agencies, you will be in a better position to decide whether your project constitutes a significant proposal and requires referral to the EPA.


Page 124


30‐Sep‐11 DMP ‐ Tyler Sujdovic & Rosemarie De Bari meeting to discuss project proposal

Has MMS undertaken a Geotech assessment of the TSF in the Pit zone The referral trigger for production – 2 million tonnes Are we able to recapture the topsoil from the pits and will we have enough to rehab the TSF Have we undertaken a geochemical analysis of the waste material and is there any PAF? In order to determine if the TSF samples are acceptable for geochemical analysis MMS will need to provide geological interpretation of the new areas to provide evident that they are the same as the original mined material. Recommended do analysis on both the slurry made from proposed material and from existing TSF. DMP do not require Mgt Plans to be submitted with MP. Be sure to include Mine Closure Plan Bonding is not required in areas that the batter angles are too steep to safely access. The bond on the TSF is unlikely to increase but is the discretion of the assessment officer and could be increased if they decide it is necessary. TS recommended MMS to speak to EPA regarding the Schedule 1 species

27‐Sep‐11 Nalbarra Station Owner

Rang to advise that we will be undertaking some biological surveys on Nalbarra station near the mine fence line

John responded by asking: when are we looking to mine ‐ I said March what are we doing about dewatering ‐ I advised we will be undertaking an hydrogeological assessment which will be finalised in November

27‐Sep‐11 Kirkalocka Station Owners

Emailed to advise that we will be undertaking some biological surveys on Kirkalocka Station

No comment

27‐Sep‐11 Kirkalocka Station Owners

Emailed to advise that we will be undertaking some more biological surveys on Kirkalocka Station

No issues

26‐Sep‐11 DEC ‐ Peter Mawson ecologia emailed Peter to seek approval for targeted survey methodology

Peter replied ‐ I’m happy with the design and look forward to receiving the application

14‐Jul‐11 Kirkalocka Station Owners

Emailed ‐ to enquire about concern about station bores being impacted by the proposed mining activities

Raised concerned about reduction in supply to their bores

02‐Jun‐11 Kirkalocka Station Owners Meet and greet

Concerned about pit dewatering ‐ A) don't want to see the water pumped onto open ground, B) don't want to see the Mulga waterlogged and die C) raised concerns about the old sumps needing to be backfilled outside mining area as they are goat traps


Page 125


02‐Jun‐11 Nalbarra Station Owner Meet and greet

Concerned about pit dewatering being discharged down the creek and flowing through his property. Believes water will waterlog his station and pool in the middle making it difficult for him to herd his sheep. Would like to be compensated if the mine affects his station.

01‐Jun‐11 Wydgee Station Owners Meet and greet

29‐Mar‐11 DEC ‐ Paul Anderson Extension of AER report due date. Provision of proposed KGP project summary.


Page 126

7.3 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

The KGP will provide benefits to the State and Nation including:

• an increased contribution towards the Nation’s annual income through production of gold bullion bars.

• increased revenue to the State and Federal Government from taxes, levies and royalties from the production of gold bullion bars and from taxation income from MMS’ profits.

• direct creation of additional employment opportunities through the provision of services and supplies.

Although the project is proposed to be primarily a FIFO operation with the majority of personnel housed in the onsite mine accommodation camp, the Mount Magnet area is expected to benefit socially from the employment and service requirements created by the KGP. In addition, it is expected there may be an economic boost to local businesses created by the small net population rise to which the project would be expected to contribute. The region in general should benefit from this project.

7.4 WORKFORCE INDUCTION AND TRAINING

All employees and contractors shall receive induction prior to commencement of work covering both generic and site specific aspects of operation at the site. Ongoing training shall be provided in areas where specialised knowledge is required, for example ground disturbing permits and management of I. Nigrum habitat conservation. MMS is developing a comprehensive health, safety, environment and heritage induction program for all personnel going to work on site. A component of this induction program relates to the environmental management requirements and expectations of the site. In addition, all staff and contractors onsite will be required to attend an area specific weekly tool box meeting. Safety and environmental topics and incident management will be discussed during these meetings to ensure all personnel are kept well‐informed regarding site activities and incidents and the outcomes of any incident investigations.

8. MINE CLOSURE AND DECOMMISSIONING

8.1 POST MINING LAND USE

The proposal is located on the Kirkalocka Pastoral Station in the Shire of Mount Magnet within the mulga woodlands of the Murchison IBRA region.

Given the relatively intact nature of the environment in the vicinity of the proposal area and the vegetation, flora and fauna values that have been identified in the general area, the following post mining land use is proposed for the KGP.


Page 127

At the end of mining, the KGP disturbance area will be rehabilitated to a condition that meets the closure objectives identified for the site so that it can be relinquished and returned to the area’s primary long term land‐use which is pastoralism. The KGP airstrip is currently available for use by the Royal Flying Doctors Services. At this stage, it is planned to remain available to service the local stations. Discussions will need to be held with Shire of Mount Magnet for the airstrip to remain open. This proposed post mining land use is considered to be consistent with the comments received from key stakeholders.

8.2 CLOSURE OBJECTIVES

Proposed closure objectives for the proposal are described in the following sections.

8.2.1 Western Australian Government Broad Closure Objective

The broad closure objective for mining operations in Western Australia is defined by DMP and EPA (2011) as follows:

“As a general guide, the Government’s broad closure objectives are (physically) safe to humans and animals, (geo‐technically) stable, (geo‐chemically) non‐polluting, and capable of sustaining an agreed post mining land use. Any residual liabilities relating to the agreed land use must be identified and agreed to by the key stakeholders.”

The overall mine decommissioning and closure objective for the proposal is to achieve this outcome. This overall objective can be broken down into smaller more defined objectives that can be used to help guide the process.

8.2.2 Defined Closure Objectives

The following defined closure objectives have been proposed to address closure outcomes for key environmental aspects of the mine site. These have been developed to aid in guiding decommissioning, rehabilitation and closure to an end point that will meet closure obligations and commitments and the expectations and aspirations (as far as is practicable) of identified stakeholders.

(1) Landscape safety

(a) The return of the proposal area to a condition that is safe for both humans and the environment on closure and following abandonment.

(2) Landscape contamination

(a) No significant land contamination or risk of contamination to the land within or adjacent to the proposal area.

(3) Landform design and function


Page 128

(a) Rehabilitated landforms are stable, non‐polluting and compatible with the surrounding landscape.

(b) Rehabilitated sites and landforms are stable, non‐polluting and support a self‐sustaining native vegetation community.

(4) Groundwater

(a) That the groundwater table within the vicinity of the Proposal recovers to a level considered to be satisfactory by relevant key stakeholders following mine closure.

(b) No impact to water contained in the open pit void due to acid and metalliferous drainage.

(c) No significant contamination or risk of contamination to the regional groundwater system.

(5) Biodiversity and Conservation

(a) Revegetation results that are self‐sustaining and compatible with the structure and function of adjacent vegetation groups in the area.

(b) A weed burden that does not significantly impact on successful rehabilitation and revegetation outcomes.

(c) No significant detrimental impact to the Threatened spider species Idiosoma nigrum in the vicinity of the project area.

(d) Minimise potential for impact to key fauna species from the open pit void.

(e) No infrastructure remains that may act to enhance the survival and proliferation of feral animal species in the proposal area, unless requested by the station owner.

(6) Aesthetic

(a) To achieve rehabilitation and revegetation results that are aesthetically compatible with the immediate and surrounding landscape.

(7) Legal

(a) A low risk of occurrence of significant breaches of legal obligations and commitments following closure of the site.

These broad closure objectives will help form the basis of the completion criteria that are developed for the proposal. Completion criteria will be discussed in more in the Mine Closure Plan.


Page 129

9. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS

The KGP operated from 2002 to 2007. During this time, Equigold developed a number of environmental management systems and the project has had limited impacts on the surrounding environment.

Since MMS acquired the mine site, a few previously unknown environmental issues have become evident via baseline studies and monitoring activities, such as the presence of the Schedule 1 species Idiosoma nigrum and the TSF seepage having an increasing salinity levels on the northwest corner of the TSF.

MMS however does not believe that the proposed mining activities will have a significant additional impact on these issues, and to ensure the project’s impacts are minimised as much as possible, MMS has listed management commitments for each potential impact in Table 47.

The performance of each management commitment will be reviewed in the KGP Annual Environmental report and will be modified where necessary in consultation with DMP.

Table 47: Summary of Significant Environmental Impact & Management Commitments

Potential Environmental Impact Management Commitment Implementation Timelines

Significant impact to the Idiosoma nigrum species local population

MMS has designed the project footprint to minimise impacts to the preferred habitat of the I. nigrum.

Ongoing through the LOM

MMS will introduce a ground disturbance permitting procedure to ensure strict clearing controls are in place

Prior to mining commencing

MMS will construct sediment bunds at the base of the waste landforms to minimise sediment wash into I. nigrum's habitat (ephemeral drainage line and low lying areas.

During the construction of the first batter of the northern waste landform (Yr. 2, Q4)

MMS will build a floodway on the haul road to the northern waste landform to minimise interruption to surface water flow.

During the construction of the northern haul road (Yr. 2, Q4)

MMS will ensure the stock proof fence will remain in place during the LOM to prevent goats from trampling the I. nigrum's habitat.

Active

Contamination to regional aquifer

MMS will monitor groundwater in accordance with the Kirkalocka groundwater operating strategy. If salinity levels increase significantly or acid or metalliferous drainage becomes evident in the regional monitoring bores, MMS will discuss remediation measures with DMP and DoW.


Unsuccessful rehabilitation of the waste landforms/ TSF

MMS will undertake capping material trials to reduce the likelihood of tunnel erosion

After construction of the first waste landform batter (Yr. 1, Q3)

MMS will ensure slopes on waste landforms shall be reduced to an angle of 20 degrees or less prior to spreading of topsoil.



Page 130

Potential Environmental Impact Management Commitment Implementation Timelines

MMS has designed the waste landform to encourage maximise rainfall infiltration.


Interruptions to surface flow

MMS will undertake surface water monitoring after large rainfall events to ensure there is no long term ponding of water with the potential to result in vegetation loss.

After large rainfall events

Weed infestation outside the mine footprint

MMS will ensure the existing population of Acetosa vesicaria will remain inside the mine footprint and will continue to implement a weed eradication programme.



Page 131

10. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, G. R., Midgley, S. H., and Allen, M. 2002. Field Guide to the Freshwater Fishes of Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, VIC.

Australian Natural Resources Website (ANRA) (2011) Rangelands Overview – Murchison bioregion.

BoM Website (2011) Summary statistics MOUNT MAGNET AERO http://ww.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_007600.shtml

Campbell, G. (2011) Geochemical Characterisation of Waste‐regolith and Waste‐bedrock Samples – Implications for Mine‐Waste Management, Report prepared for Mount Magnet South NL

Chapman, A. (1998) Native Fauna; in Land Systems; in A.L. Payne, A.M.E. Van Vreeswyk, H.J.R. Pringle, K.A. Leighton and P. Hennig (1998) An inventory and condition survey of the Sandstone‐Yalgoo‐Paynes Find area, Western Australia. Agriculture WA, 3 Baron Hay Crt, South Perth, 6151, Technical Bulletin No. 90, March 1998, pp 57‐66.

Client and Natural Resource Information Department of Agriculture and Food W.A. (2007) A State wide baseline for the extent and distribution of native vegetation for Western Australia ‐ Project Report, prepared for the National Land & Water Resources Audit, Canberra.

Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) (2010a) Native Title Department of Indigenous Affairs, Perth, viewed 28 March 2012, <www.dia.wa.gov.au/en/Family‐History/Native‐Title/>

Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) (2010b) Aboriginal Heritage, Department of Indigenous Affairs, Perth, viewed 29 March 2012, <www.dia.wa.gov.au/en/Heritage‐and‐Culture/Aboriginal‐heritage/>

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2008) Approved conservation advice for Acanthizairedaleiiredalei. DSEWPC website: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi‐bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=25967 .Approved 26th March 2008.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2010) Approved conservation advice for Ricinocarposbrevis. DSEWPC website: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi‐bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=82879 .Approved 13th July 2010.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2010b) Advice taken from DSEWPC website ‐ http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi‐bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=678 for Apuspacificus. May 2011.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2010a) Advice taken from DSEWPC website ‐ http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi‐bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=82410 for Ardea alba. May 2011.


Page 132

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2010c) Advice taken from DSEWPC website ‐ http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi‐bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=670 for Meropsornatus. May 2011.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2011) Australian Heritage database search – Shire of Mount Magnet/ Kirkalocka. May 2011.

Donato, D.B., Nichols, O., Possingham, H., Moore, M., Ricci, P.F. and Noller, B.N. (2007) A critical review of the effects of gold cyanide‐bearing tailings solutions on wildlife.Environmental International. Volume 33, Issue 7, October 2007, pps 974 – 984.

Dowd, M. (1998) Declared Plants and Animals; in A.L. Payne, A.M.E. Van Vreeswyk, H.J.R. Pringle, K.A. Leighton and P. Hennig (1998) An inventory and condition survey of the Sandstone‐Yalgoo‐Paynes Find area, Western Australia. Agriculture WA, 3 Baron Hay Crt, South Perth, 6151, Technical Bulletin No. 90, March 1998, pp 53‐56.

ecologia, Environment (2011a) Mount Magnet South NL Kirkalocka Gold Mine Project Short Range Endemic Fauna Baseline Survey, Report prepared for Mount Magnet South NL

ecologia Environment (2011b) Mount Magnet South Kirkalocka Gold Mine Project Idiosoma Nigrum Targeted Survey, Report prepared for Mount Magnet South NL

Equigold NL (2001) Equigold NL – Kirkalocka Notice of Intent, Unpublished report for Equigold NL

Equigold NL (2002) Supplementary Notice of Intent Kirkalocka Project Tailings Storage Facility and Borefield. Unpublished report for Equigold NL

Heritage Council of Western Australia website (2011) Places database search – Mount Magnet/Kirkalocka.May 2011.

Karanovic, T. (2004) Subterranean copepods (Crustacea: Copepoda) from arid Western Australia. Crustaceana Supplement, 3, 1‐366.

Morgan KH, 1972: The Relationship between rainfall, geomorphic development and the occurrence of groundwater in Precambrian rocks of Western Australia: 24th International Geological Congress,

Montreal, 1972, Proceedings, Section 11, p143‐152

Morgan K.H, 1993: Development, sedimentation and economic potential of palaeoriver systems of theYilgarn Craton of Western Australia: Sedimentary Geology, v85, p637‐656

Niche Environmental services (2011) Level 2 flora and vegetation survey at the Mount Magnet South NL Kirkalocka Gold Project. Report prepared for Mount Magnet South NL

K.H. Morgan and Associates (2002) Assessment of Available Groundwater Resources, Kirkalocka Project. Equigold, NL 4 April 2002


Page 133

Main, B. Y. (1982). Adaptations to arid habitats by mygalomorph spiders in Barker, W. R., and Greenslade, P. J. M., eds. Evolution of the Flora and Fauna of Arid Australia. Peacock Publications.

Main, B. Y. (1996). Microcosmic biogeography: trapdoor spiders in a time warp at Durokoppin. pp. 163‐171 in Hopper, S. D., ed. Gondwanan Heritage: Past, Present and Future of the Western Australian Biota. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.

Main, B. Y. (1968). Distribution and adaptive diversity of trapdoor spider. Australian Natural History. 16:49‐53.

Main, B. Y. (2003). Demography of the Shield‐Back Trapdoor Spider Idiosoma nigrum Main in Remnant Vegetation of the Western Australian Wheatbelt. Records of the South Australian Museum Monograph Series. 7:179 ‐ 185

Morgan K. H (2007) Groundwater monitoring report January 2006 to December 2006, Licence to take Groundwater GWL151171(1) Kirkalocka Project for Equigold NL. Unpublished report for Equigold NL

KH Morgan and Associates (2012) Hydrogeological Report Dewatering Curara Well Open Pit ‐ Kirkalocka Gold Mine, Mount Magnet South NL. Unpublished report for Mount Magnet South NL

Payne A.L., Van Vreeswyk A.M.E. and Pringle H.J.R. (1998) Land Systems;Payne, A.L., Van Vreeswyk, A.M.E., Pringle, H.J.R., Leighton, K.A. and Hennig, P. (1998) An inventory and condition survey of the Sandstone‐Yalgoo‐Paynes Find area, Western Australia. Agriculture WA, 3 Baron Hay Crt, South Perth, 6151, Technical Bulletin No. 90, March 1998, pp 330 ‐ 331.

Shepherd, D.P., Beeston, G.R. and Hopkins, A.J.M. (2002) Native Vegetation in Western Australia Extent, Type and Status. Department of Agriculture. Government of Western Australia. February 2002.

Stewart, J.B., Smart, R.V., Barry, S.C. and Veitch, S.M. (2001) 1996/97 Land Use of Australia – Final Report for Project BRR5. National Land and Resources Audit. December 2001. Commonwealth of Australia.

Stewart et al (2006) from Coffey waste characterisation study.

Tille, P. (2006) Soil‐landscapes of Western Australia’s Rangelands and Arid Interior Resource Management Technical Report 313, Department of Agriculture and Food, Government of Western Australia

Thackway, R., and Creswell, I. (Eds) (1995) An Interim Biogeographical Regionalisation of Australia. Australian Nature Conservation Agency (now DEWHA), Canberra

Van Vreeswyk, A.M.E. (1998) Regional Vegetation; in Payne, A.L., Van Vreeswyk, A.M.E., Pringle, H.J.R., Leighton, K.A. and Hennig, P. (1998) An inventory and condition survey of the Sandstone‐Yalgoo‐Paynes Find area, Western Australia. Agriculture WA, 3 Baron Hay Crt, South Perth, 6151, Technical Bulletin No. 90, March 1998, pp 49 ‐ 51.


Page 134

Wave Solutions (2012) Kirkalocka Gold Mine Tailings Storage Facility ‐ Tailings Analysis Report Report prepared for Mount Magnet South NL

Yates, A. and Quatermaine, G. (1996) Report on an Archaeological Survey for Aboriginal Sites, Kirkalocka Joint Venture Project, Kirkalocka Western Australia: In –Equigold NL (2001) Kirkalocka Notice of Intent, December 2001.

Date post:	16-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	1 times

MINING PR OPOSAL f or the - der.wa.gov.au

Documents