King Vol Project Potential Impact to Environmental Values ... · The EVs associated with GDEs at the King Vol project were identified via desk-based assessment and from field cation

King Vol ProjectPotential Impact toEnvironmental Values ofGroundwater DependentEcosystems Auctus Resources Pty Ltd

Document Control Summary NRA Environmental Consultants

NRA Filepath: F:\AAA\401_Auctus Res\401007_GDE\401007.02_KV GDE Impact Assess\rpt\GDE Impact Report_R03.docx

Status: R03 (Final) Date of Issue: 7 December 2017 Project Manager: Shannon Wetherall

Title: King Vol Project Potential Impact to Environmental Values of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Client: Auctus Resources Pty Ltd Client Contact: Warren Crabb, Project Manager

Copies Dispatched: 1 PDF Other Info or

Requirements: Final report supersedes and replaces all previous documentation prepared.

Report Summary

Key Words Auctus Resources Pty Ltd, King Vol, Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem, GDE, environmental values, impact assessment.

Abstract Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) are likely to be impacted by the proposed dewatering activity at King Vol mining project on mining lease (ML) 20658 in north Queensland. This report presents the findings of an impact assessment of the dewatering activity on environmental values of the GDEs, and proposes mitigation measures.

Citation

This report should be cited as: NRA 2017, King Vol Project Potential Impact to Environmental Values of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems, R03 (Final), Prepared by NRA Environmental Consultants for Auctus Resources Pty Ltd, 7 December 2017

Quality Assurance

Author Technical Review Editor Document

Version

Approved for Issue by QA Manager

Date Signature

Megan Grixti BSc

Shannon Wetherall BAppSc(Hons)

Peter Buosi BAppSc(Hons) - R01 - -

Tim Anderson MAgrSc,

BAgrSc(Hons)

Kirsty Anderson BA(Hons)

R02 6/12/17

Kirsty Anderson BA(Hons)

R03 7/12/17

© Natural Resource Assessments Pty Ltd This document is the property of Natural Resource Assessments Pty Ltd. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 all other rights are reserved. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Certified Integrated Management System AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008 (Quality) AS/NZS ISO 14001:2004 (Environment) AS/NZS 4801:2001 (Safety)

Limitations of this Report

The information in this report is for the exclusive use of Auctus Resources Pty Ltd, the only intended beneficiary of our work. NRA cannot be held liable for third party reliance on this document. This disclaimer brings the limitations of the investigations to the attention of the reader. The information herein could be different if the information upon which it is based is determined to be inaccurate or incomplete. The results of work carried out by others may have been used in the preparation of this report. These results have been used in good faith, and we are not responsible for their accuracy. The information herein is a professionally accurate account of the site conditions at the time of investigations; it is prepared in the context of inherent limitations associated with any investigation of this type. It has been formulated in the context of published guidelines, field observations, discussions with site personnel, and results of laboratory analyses. NRA’s opinions in this document are subject to modification if additional information is obtained through further investigation, observations or analysis. They relate solely and exclusively to environmental management matters, and are based on the technical and practical experience of environmental practitioners. They are not presented as legal advice, nor do they represent decisions from the regulatory agencies charged with the administration of the relevant Acts. Any advice, opinions or recommendations contained in this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole and are considered current as of the date of this document.

Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................... i 1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................ 1

1.2 Scope ................................................................................................. 1

2. Approach .................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Assumptions ...................................................................................... 3

3. Description of EVs Associated with GDEs ............................................. 5

4. Potential Impacts ................................................................................... 16

4.1 Description of the activity and potential impacts ............................... 16

4.2 Potential impacts on the EVs ........................................................... 16

4.3 Scale and intensity of potential impact ............................................. 18

5. Proposed Mitigation Measures ............................................................. 19

6. Matters of State Environmental Significance ....................................... 21

7. Matters of National Environmental Significance .................................. 26

8. References .............................................................................................. 28

Tables

Table 1: Significant residual impact test for habitat of Endangered and Vulnerable wildlife ........................................................................... 23

Table 2: Significant impact assessment for MNES species, in addition to Table 1 .............................................................................................. 26

Figures

Figure 1: Project location and predicted groundwater drawdown area ........ 2

Figure 2: Potential terrestrial GDEs and predicted groundwater drawdown area ..................................................................................................... 6

Figure 3: Potential aquatic GDEs and predicted groundwater drawdown area ..................................................................................................... 7

Figure 4: Potential subterranean GDEs and predicted groundwater drawdown area .................................................................................. 8

Figure 5: NRA mapped RE 9.11.8a within the predicted groundwater drawdown area ................................................................................ 11

Plates

Plate 1: Semi-evergreen vine thicket on limestone rock outcrop, site WP021, October 2017 ...................................................................... 10

Plate 2: Refugial pool and aquatic GDE indicators at site WP028 on Archies Creek, October 2017 .......................................................... 12

Plate 3: Refugial pool and aquatic GDE indicators at site WP015 on Bowler Creek, October 2017 ........................................................................ 12

Appendices

Attachment 1: Queensland GDE Mapping

Attachment 2: Matters of State Environmental Significance mapping

Attachment 3: King Vol Protected Species Observations and Habitat (baseline survey mapping)

Attachment 4: NRA mapped regional ecosystems for King Vol project mining lease

Attachment 5: GDE Field Verification Survey, October 2017

Attachment 6: GDE water quality comparison

Attachment 7: EPBC Act Protected Matters Report

Auctus Resources Pty Ltd King Vol Project Potential Impact to Environmental Values of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

NRA Environmental Consultants i 7 December 2017

Executive Summary

Auctus proposes to expand the underground mining operations to 680 m below ground level (BGL) at the King Vol project. This activity will require groundwater dewatering. Terrestrial, aquatic and subterranean Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) have been identified in the King Vol area, and proposed groundwater dewatering activity is expected to affect the levels of groundwater at these GDEs. This report assesses the potential impacts of groundwater dewatering on environmental values (EVs) associated with the GDEs. The report will accompany an application to the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) to amend the environmental authority (EA) for the King Vol project (EPML00562913).

EVs associated with the GDEs comprise: • remnant vegetation associated with limestone rock outcrops (RE 9.11.8a) and riparian

vegetation (RE 9.3.13) • aquatic ecosystems in watercourses and potentially in subterranean landforms

(eg stygofauna) • flora and fauna species of conservation significance (Macropteranthes montana,

Panicum maximum, Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat and Diadem Leaf-nosed Bat), associated with RE 9.3.13 and/or RE 9.11.8a, and caves in the limestone outcrops.

Potential impacts to the EVs are described, and mitigation measures to minimise potential impacts have been recommend.

No Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) occur within the prescribed drawdown area. Matters of State Environmental Significance (MSES) were present and the impact assessment in this report presents the findings of a significant residual impact (SRI) test undertaken for each MSES. It was concluded that a SRI was not likely for any MSES.

MNES relevant to the proposed dewatering activity at King Vol are likely to include M. montana and the Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat. Potential impacts on these species associated with the dewatering activity have been considered in this impact assessment, and it was found that a significant impact was not likely to occur provided the recommended management measures presented are implemented1. Based on this assessment outcome, a referral to the Commonwealth Government for assessment under the EPBC Act is not required.

1 The conditions attached to the ‘not a controlled action provided it is undertaken in a particular manner’ determination made under the EPBC Act for the ‘Red Dome Project’ (which included the then King Vol and Montevideo areas) remain relevant (EPBC reference 2006/2639).


NRA Environmental Consultants 1 7 December 2017

1. Introduction

NRA Environmental Consultants (NRA) was commissioned by Auctus Resources Pty Ltd (Auctus) to assess potential impacts associated with proposed mine dewatering on Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) near the King Vol project in north Queensland. The impact assessment will support an application to amend the project’s Environmental Authority (EA), EPML00562913, to expand mining operations at the King Vol project.

1.1 Background The King Vol project mining lease (ML 20658) is approximately 38 km north-west of Chillagoe and approximately 5 km north-west of the Walsh River (Figure 1). The project is owned and operated by Auctus for the extraction of metalliferous ore. Auctus proposes to expand the underground mining operations to 680 m below ground level (BGL). As part of the Queensland Government environmental approvals process, under the Queensland Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act), potential impacts on environmental values, including those associated with GDEs, need to be determined.

Interference with groundwater occurs at King Vol from current dewatering activity. The dewatering activity will continue and expand as part of the proposed ongoing operations at the mine. The nature and scale of the dewatering activity, and the potential impacts associated with the proposed interference with groundwater, were assessed by hydrogeologists Rob Lait & Associates Pty Ltd (RLA). RLA (2017) identified that the proposed dewatering activity was likely to affect environmental values associated with GDEs.

1.2 Scope The purpose of the impact assessment is to assess potential impacts of the proposed dewatering activity on environmental values (EVs) associated with GDEs at the King Vol project. The impact assessment includes the following. • Description of the EVs associated with GDEs in the predicted groundwater drawdown

area. • Description of the potential impacts to the EVs. • Where the EVs are Matters of State Environmental Significance (MSES) or Matters of

National Environmental Significance (MNES), an assessment of likely significant residual impact will be completed.

• Proposed mitigation and management options to minimise potential impacts to the GDEs.



2. Approach

The following key references have been considered in this impact assessment. • Schedule 5 of the Queensland Environmental Protection Regulation 2008 (EP Reg) –

Environmental Objective Assessment. • Guideline – Underground water impact reports and final reports (ESR/2016/2000,

version 3.01, effective 6 December 2016) (EHP 2016a)2. • Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) information guideline – Groundwater Dependent

Ecosystems (EHP 2016b). • Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) information guideline – Aquatic Ecology (EHP

2016c). • Information sheet – How to address environmentally sensitive areas and offset

requirements in an application for an environmental authority for resource activities (ESR/2016/1992, version 1.00, effective 9 May 2016) (EHP 2016d)

• Guideline – Application requirements for activities with impacts to water (ESR/2015/1837, version 4.00, effective 6 March 2017) (EHP 2017a).

• Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy – Significant Residual Impact Guideline (Nature Conservation Act 1992, Environmental Protection Act 1994, Marine Parks Act 2004) (EHP 2014).

• Australian groundwater dependent ecosystems toolbox part 1: assessment framework and part 2: assessment tools (Richardson et al. 2011a-b).

• Matters of National Environmental Significance: Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (DoE 2013).

The EVs associated with GDEs at the King Vol project were identified via desk-based assessment and from field verification of GDE indicators (NRA 2017a). A water quality assessment was undertaken to determine apparent similarities between groundwater quality at the King Vol project (measured from King Vol monitoring bores) and surface water quality in residual pools on watercourses near the King Vol project (NRA 2017b). Outcomes of this assessment were used by RLA (2017) to identify where connectivity between groundwater and surface water may occur, and consequently the potential location(s) of GDEs.

Potential impacts on the EVs associated with the GDEs were assessed using information from desk-based searches, observations during the field verification survey (NRA 2017a), impact assessments undertaken by the hydrogeologists for the project (RLA 2017), data analysis, and impact assessment against relevant guidelines.

2.1 Assumptions The following assumptions apply to the impact assessment. • The potential impact area is the King Vol predicted drawdown area based on the life of

mine (LoM) 0.2 m drawdown contour provided by the hydrogeologists (RLA 2017). The drawdown area is shown on Figure 1 and is provided on other figures where relevant.

2 The content requirements of the Underground Water Impact Report (in accordance with EHP 2016a) have been reported in RLA (2017) and are referenced in this impact assessment where relevant.


4 NRA Environmental Consultants 7 December 2017

• All locations where GDE indicators were observed during the field verification site visit (NRA 2017a) are considered to be areas of GDEs.

• The GDE areas within the predicted drawdown area (0.2 m LoM contour) will be affected by the dewatering activity proposed for the mining depth to 680 m BGL.

• The duration of the dewatering impact within the predicted drawdown area is 10 years. This includes the dewatering over the LoM activity (approximately seven years) and the estimated post-activity groundwater recharge (two to three years) (RLA 2017). The total duration is dependent on the actual extent of the drawdown impact area and conditions during recovery of groundwater levels.



3. Description of EVs Associated with GDEs

GDEs are defined as ecosystems which require access to groundwater on a permanent or intermittent basis to meet all or some of their water requirements so as to maintain their communities of plants and animals, ecological processes and ecosystem services (Richardson et al. 2011a). Desk-based searches, field verification survey, and consideration of groundwater levels by hydrogeologists identified terrestrial, aquatic and subterranean GDEs near the King Vol project (BoM 2017, NRA 2017a, RLA 2017).

The presence of the GDEs is associated with the Chillagoe Formation, which is a geological unit that includes extensive areas of limestone karst landform. The surface expression of the Chillagoe Formation manifests as a band running approximately north-west to south-east. This formation provides opportunities for terrestrial, aquatic and subterranean GDEs. Each of these GDE types has been defined in Richardson et al. (2011a) as follows. • Terrestrial GDE. An ecosystem that is dependent on the sub-surface expression of

groundwater. This includes all terrestrial vegetation communities that use groundwater permanently or intermittently throughout their life cycle.

• Aquatic GDE. An ecosystem that is dependent on the surface expression of groundwater (including springs and watercourses). This includes vegetation communities that require their roots to be in contact with groundwater permanently or intermittently throughout their life cycle.

• Subterranean GDE. An ecosystem that is dependent on the presence of groundwater in subterranean systems such as caves and aquifers.

Queensland GDE mapping, available from the Queensland Government WetlandInfo website, identifies High and Low potential subterranean GDEs near the King Vol project area and maps the known Stewart Spring south of King Vol (Attachment 1). Aquatic and terrestrial GDEs were not mapped by the Queensland Government as present, or potential to occur, in the predicted drawdown area.

The National Atlas of GDEs (BoM 2017) identifies potential GDEs (terrestrial, aquatic, and subterranean) near the King Vol project. The subterranean GDEs identified by BoM (2017) are consistent with the Queensland GDE mapping. Therefore, for simplification in this impact assessment, the National Atlas of GDEs (BoM 2017) mapping was used to inform areas of potential GDEs in the King Vol predicted drawdown area.

A field verification survey undertaken in October 2017 identified GDE indicators near King Vol (NRA 2017a). The survey targeted areas within the mapped potential GDEs (ie BoM 2017). Although the field verification survey was not a comprehensive survey of the King Vol area, the results identified GDE indicators within the predicted drawdown area. The field verification results were used by the hydrogeologists to identify potential impacts to GDEs (RLA 2017).

Figures 2, 3 and 4 show the National Atlas of GDE mapping (BoM 2017) with the predicted drawdown area and the field verification sites for terrestrial, aquatic and subterranean GDEs.



EVs associated with terrestrial, aquatic and subterranean GDEs at King Vol were identified within the predicted drawdown area (NRA 2017a). Some of the EVs are directly related to the GDEs, and others are present by association. The EVs comprise the following. • Remnant vegetation communities consistent with Regional Ecosystem (RE) 9.11.8a

(ie semi-evergreen vine thicket on limestone rock outcrops) (terrestrial GDE). • Flora species of conservation significance associated with RE 9.11.8a. • Refugial pools of water along Archies and Bowler creeks and associated aquatic

ecosystems (aquatic GDE). • Remnant vegetation communities consistent with RE 9.3.13 (ie riparian wetland) and

Wetland Indicator Species (aquatic GDE). • Potential aquatic ecosystems within the Chillagoe Formation limestone (subterranean

GDE). • Habitat for fauna species of conservation significance associated with terrestrial, aquatic

and subterranean GDEs.

Information on each of these EVs is provided below. Only those EVs within the predicted groundwater drawdown area have been discussed (eg the vegetation community associated with the RE at site WP009 (Figure 2) is not discussed in this report). Within the predicted groundwater drawdown area, Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) are not present and MSES are present.

Semi-evergreen vine thicket on limestone rock outcrops (RE 9.11.8a) The location and extent of RE 9.11.8a within and adjacent to the predicted drawdown area was identified during the field verification survey (NRA 2017a) (field sites shown on Figure 2, and the report is provided in Attachment 5). The RE is associated with limestone rock outcrops. Gyrocarpus americanus and Brachychiton spp. are prominent in the canopy layer (Plate 1). These species are of interest because they are deep-rooted and potentially derive water from ground-stored sources. Their degree of reliance on groundwater is uncertain; however, Brachychiton spp. are known to preferentially source their water from groundwater rather than shallower stores such as irrigation (NRA 2017a). Within the predicted drawdown area, RE 9.11.8a communities appeared to be in good condition, with minor weed ingress; the exception being site WP016 (Figure 2) where Rubber Vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora)3 was present.

3 Rubber Vine is a restricted invasive plant under the Queensland Biosecurity Act 2014.



Plate 1: Semi-evergreen vine thicket on limestone rock outcrop, site WP021, October 2017

The approximate areas of RE 9.11.8a within the predicted drawdown area were determined by NRA using aerial photograph interpretation combined with field verifications; the areas are shown on Figure 5. The extent of RE 9.11.8a within the predicted drawdown area is estimated to be 114.5 ha. This area is greater than what is shown over the same area according to Queensland Government RE mapping (version 10) (DSITI 2016), ie approximately 34.5 ha. As a reference point, the High potential GDE mapping on Figure 2 within the predicted drawdown contours coincides with the Queensland Government mapping for RE 9.11.8a. Consistent with ESR/2016/1992 (EHP 2016d), the assessments in this report relating to RE 9.11.8a are based on the field verified RE mapping (Figure 5).

RE 9.11.8a has an ‘of concern’ biodiversity status4, and therefore the vegetation associated with RE 9.11.8a is not an ESA (as per Schedule 12 of the EP Reg). No other ESAs are known to occur in the vicinity of King Vol.

Flora species of conservation significance Desk-based searches of government records, and observations by NRA during field surveys, have been used to identify flora species of conservation significance within the predicted drawdown area.

RE 9.11.8a in the King Vol area is known to support flora species of conservation significance, with the grass Panicum chillagoanum and shrub Macropteranthes montana recorded within the predicted drawdown area. Both species are listed as Vulnerable under the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act), and M. montana is listed as Vulnerable under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). P. chillagoanum is restricted to the Chillagoe Karst region (ALA 2017a), and M. montana is more broadly distributed, with species records between 70 km and 110 km of Mungana (Mungana is approximately 20 km south-east of the King Vol mining lease) (ALA 2017b). Essential habitat for M. montana is mapped to the south-east of the King Vol mining lease (refer to MSES mapping in Attachment 2).

During baseline flora surveys at King Vol (prior to 2012), P. chillagoanum and M. montana were recorded at sites to the south and south-east of the King Vol mining area (figure provided in Attachment 3, from NRA (in prep.)). The area to the north of the King Vol mining lease was not included in baseline surveys and, based on the locations of RE 9.11.8a, P. chillagoanum and M. montana are expected to occur in areas north of the King Vol mining area.

Neither M. montana or P. chillagoanum were observed during the October 2017 GDE field verification survey (NRA 2017a); however, the survey was in the dry season and conditions were suboptimal for assessing the presence of these species. For the purpose of this impact assessment, M. montana and P. chillagoanum are expected to be present.

4 The biodiversity status of an RE is used under the EP Reg to assist with determining and managing potential impacts on biodiversity matters, specifically to determine ESAs. The RE 9.11.8a is a ‘least concern’ RE under the Vegetation Management Act 1999; however, this listing is not relevant for impact assessments under the EP Act.



Refugial pools of water Permanent, or near permanent, pools of water were observed on Archies and Bowler creeks within the predicted groundwater drawdown area during the GDE field verification survey (NRA 2017a). Plates 2 and 3 show the pools visited at sites WP028 on Archies Creek and site WP015 on Bowler Creek at the end of the 2017 dry season (Figure 3). Large sections of Archies and Bowler creeks are known to be ephemeral (observations during surface water and aquatic ecosystem monitoring), and the permanent/near permanent pools of water on Archies and Bowler creeks provide refuges and water sources for aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna during the dry season. Roots from trees at these sites were observed extending over the dry creek bed for approximately 15 m to be in contact with the surface water.

Plate 2: Refugial pool and aquatic GDE indicators at site WP028 on Archies Creek, October

2017

Plate 3: Refugial pool and aquatic GDE indicators at site WP015 on Bowler Creek, October

2017



Water quality samples were collected from the pools on Archies and Bowler creeks during the field survey, and were analysed for major ion parameters. The results were compared with groundwater quality data recorded for the King Vol groundwater monitoring network and found: (a) water at Archies Creek was similar to, and may be related to, the King Vol groundwater; and (b) Bowler Creek showed some similarity to the King Vol groundwater (NRA 2017b, copy of report provided in Attachment 6). RLA (2017) identified supporting evidence that indicates there is some degree of connectivity between the groundwater in the Chillagoe Formation and the overlying creeks. Furthermore, ‘there is expected to be some aquatic ecosystem dependence on groundwater in the areas where water similarity is confirmed (namely Archies and Bowler Creek)’ (RLA 2017).

Potential aquatic GDEs (BoM (2017) along the Walsh River, and Stewart Spring, are south of the predicted drawdown area (Figure 3). The spring and sections of the Walsh River near to the predicted drawdown area were included in the GDE indicator field verification survey (NRA 2017a). RLA (2017) notes that the Walsh River may receive groundwater discharge, thus providing remnant pools of water during the dry season. The unnamed drainage feature near Stewart Spring (WP002 on Figure 3) recorded water similar to King Vol groundwater (NRA 2017b). The Walsh River and Stewart Spring occur outside of the predicted drawdown area, and therefore are not likely to be impacted by the proposed dewatering activity at King Vol. No further discussion on potential impacts to the Walsh River and Stewart Spring is included here.

Riverine wetland vegetation (RE 9.3.13) The riparian vegetation community at sites WP028 and WP015 on Archies and Bowler creeks, respectively, is consistent with RE 9.3.13 (riverine wetland, ‘of concern’ biodiversity status) and contains Wetland Indicator Species (EHP 2017c), including Melaleuca leucadendra, M. argentea, M. fluvialtilis, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Lophostemon suaveolens, Paspalum sp. and Cyperus spp.

At a pool on Archies Creek, roots of Melaleuca spp. extended for over 15 m into the pool of water on Bowler Creek. The reliance of vegetation in RE 9.3.13 communities on groundwater is not known. Given the ephemeral nature of Archies and Bowler creeks, and the potential links between the pools and groundwater (discussed above), it is assumed that RE 9.3.13 has at least some reliance on groundwater.

The field survey in October 2017 (NRA 2017a) did not traverse long sections of the watercourses within the predicted drawdown area, rather survey sites were selected to field verify potential GDEs. RE mapping by NRA from baseline surveys (Attachment 4) shows RE 9.3.13 along Bowler Creek within the King Vol mining lease. It is likely that this RE community occurs along many sections of watercourses within the predicted groundwater drawdown area.

It is noted that Queensland Government RE mapping for the watercourses at King Vol is not consistent with the field observations and, for the purpose of this impact assessment, the field verified RE communities have been used.

Vegetation associated with watercourses are considered MSES (Queensland Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014). These are discussed in Section 6.

Potential aquatic ecosystems within the Chillagoe Formation limestone During the GDE field verification survey (Attachment 5), subterranean GDE indictors were observed. These included slumping in the limestone outcrops and cavities in rock



formations, which are potential indicators of cave entrances. The depth of cavities and potential caves, and the presence of groundwater within these landforms, has not been determined.

As reported in RLA (2017), there are well-known caves within the carbonate sequences of the Chillagoe Formation, such as those in the Chillagoe-Mungana Caves National Park more than 20 km southeast of King Vol. The water in these caves is generally ephemeral, occurring immediately after rainfall events, and the caves are mostly above the watertable (RLA 2017). As a precautionary approach, RLA (2017) assumed that there are subterranean ecosystems within the predicted drawdown area that may be partially dependent on groundwater.

Although stygofauna has not been surveyed at King Vol, they may occur in the subterranean landforms near the project, as follows. Stygofauna, ie animals that live in underground water, are known to occur in the Chillagoe area. These include the endemic blind amphipod, Chillagoe thea, which has been collected from permanent pools in Ti Tree Cave and Marachoo Cave at Chillagoe (reported in NRA 2013). In 2012, NRA conducted a stygofauna survey in caves and bores near the Red Dome/Mungana mining project, approximately 20 km southeast of King Vol. The survey found six stygofauna taxa in bores within the Chillagoe Formation limestone, including Chillagoe sp. in two bores (NRA 2013). The standing water level in the bores with stygofauna ranged from 8.00-49.88 m and water quality was conducive to groundwater fauna (electrical conductivity below 1,500 µS/cm and neutral pH) (NRA 2013). The depth of groundwater in bores at King Vol, within the Chillagoe Formation, is within the range hosting stygofauna at Red Dome, and groundwater quality recorded electrical conductivity below 1,500 µS/cm and neutral pH. At Red Dome, the bores with stygofauna were adjacent to limestone towers. Studies referenced in NRA (2013) show that stygofauna are typically found in aquifers that are close to recharge points including creek lines, rock fractures and solute cavities and solution pores. The limestone towers near the Red Dome stygofauna survey bores likely serve as conduits for the rapid passage of rainfall to the underlying aquifer.

The presence of subterranean ecosystems within the predicated groundwater drawdown area, and their reliance on groundwater (cf infiltration from surface water and rainfall sources) for ecosystem function, is unknown. It is possible that the potential subterranean GDEs observed during the field survey (NRA 2017a) do not intercept groundwater, and that rainfall infiltration to cavities within the limestone landforms occurs. Given the unknowns, a conservative approach has been taken in this impact assessment, and it is assumed that habitat for stygofauna communities are present within the predicted drawdown area, and that these ecosystems rely, to some degree, on groundwater.

Habitat for fauna species of conservation significance Fauna species of conservation significance occur in the King Vol area, and may use habitat associated with GDE features, particularly vegetation consistent with RE 9.11.8a, riparian vegetation consistent with RE 9.3.13, refugial pools, and caves.

The Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus philippinensis) (listed as Endangered (NC Act) and Vulnerable (EPBC Act)), and the Diadem Leaf-nosed Bat (Hipposideros diadema reginae) (listed as Near Threatened (NC Act)), have been recorded at King Vol near sites WP018, WP020, and WP024 (Figure 2) (Attachment 3, NRA in prep, 2017c). Both species are likely to roost in caves amongst limestone outcrops and forage in nearby forests, woodlands and shrublands. The dense vegetation in areas with RE 9.11.8a and RE 9.3.13 at King Vol may provide favourable habitat for foraging and temporary roosting



(eg during the night between feeding events). These habitats occur to the north, south and east of the King Vol project, and within the predicted groundwater drawdown area. Areas to the north of the King Vol mining lease have not been included in bat surveys to date; however, the limestone rock outcrops in this area support RE 9.11.8a vegetation and may contain cave entrances. The Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat and Diadem Leaf-nosed Bat may occur in these areas.

While neither the Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat nor the Diadem Leaf-nosed Bat is an obligate cave-roosting bat, caves are likely to be preferred roosting habitat and critical resources in the Chillagoe region. The preferred temperature and humidity in roost caves for these species is uncertain. The presence of moisture in caves, either by rainfall infiltration or groundwater, may be an important feature for caves in the Chillagoe region.

There are historical records for the NC Act Endangered Gouldian Finch (Erythrura gouldiae) from the Chillagoe region. The species has not been recorded in the region since the late 1990s, and previous fauna surveys by NRA in the King Vol5 and Mungana areas have failed to detect the species. Small flocks may still occur in the region, at least temporarily; however, based on previous survey effort, they are unlikely to occur near the King Vol mining area.

There are database records in the Chillagoe region for the northern and southern subspecies of Squatter Pigeon (Geophaps scripta peninsulae and G. s. scripta respectively). The northern subspecies is NC Act Least Concern and the southern subspecies is NC Act Vulnerable. The Chillagoe area is within the generally accepted distribution for the northern subspecies and the records for the southern subspecies in this area are either erroneous or due to vagrant individuals. Previous fauna surveys by NRA in the King Vol and Mungana areas have only ever recorded the northern subspecies. The southern subspecies is unlikely to occur within or near the King Vol mining lease. Essential habitat for the southern subspecies is mapped to the north of the King Vol mining lease (refer to MSES mapping in Attachment 2) and, based on the information provided here, is likely to be erroneous; therefore, impacts to the southern subspecies are not considered further in this assessment.

5 Fauna surveys, including targeted bird surveys, were conducted by NRA: at King Vol over three days in May and June 2005; at King Vol over six days in July, August and December 2007; and at King Vol and areas south of King Vol over seven days in October 2011. Reported in NRA (2011) and NRA (in prep).



4. Potential Impacts

The potential impacts of the proposed activity on the EVs identified for the terrestrial, aquatic and subterranean GDEs within the predicted groundwater drawdown area are discussed below.

4.1 Description of the activity and potential impacts The proposed activity, which is likely to affect GDEs near King Vol, involves the extraction of groundwater over the LoM activities (seven years) to allow for the underground mine activities to expand to a depth of 680 m BGL. During this time, the groundwater levels in the vicinity of the King Vol project are predicted to decrease (RLA 2017). Figures 2 to 4 show the predicted drawdown areas for years 1, 2, 3 and LoM (approximately 7 years), using the 0.2 m contour produced by the groundwater model in RLA (2017). The areas of greatest impact (drawdown levels and time) will occur closest to the centre of the King Vol mining lease.

During mining operations, it is expected that the groundwater levels within the drawdown area will reduce, and GDEs within the area will be affected. The groundwater recharge time, after the cessation of the dewatering activity, is estimated to take up to three years (RLA 2017). Therefore, the potential impacts to groundwater levels, and hence EVs of GDEs, will occur in a staged manner, and will not be permanent (worst case approximately 10 years). Some areas near the LoM contour may not experience reductions in groundwater levels, or the reductions may be insufficient to impact on EVs (RLA 2017).

4.2 Potential impacts on the EVs Remnant vegetation G. americanus and Brachychiton spp. are prominent species in the areas of remnant vegetation on limestone outcrops (RE 9.11.8a). These plants have large tap roots, which are capable of extracting water from deep beneath the ground surface (Buist et al. 2000, Bijoor et al. 2012). Brachychiton spp. plants are known to be sensitive to air embolisms during drought conditions, to the point of mortality (Choat et al. 2005). Similarly, Melaleuca spp., which occur in the riparian vegetation (RE 9.3.13), are susceptible to mortality from air embolisms (McLean 2014).

Drawdown of groundwater levels for the King Vol project are expected to reduce the access that certain plants associated with GDEs have to groundwater (RLA 2017). The GDE areas closest to the mining activity would experience total loss of groundwater input (RLA 2017). During the wet season, areas with RE 9.11.8a and 9.3.13 will receive rainfall runoff and infiltration; however, the ability for this water to sustain potential groundwater reliant plants is unknown, and impacts on these species are expected to occur. Impacts may range from reduced plant health to mortality. It is not possible to predict how many individual plants will be affected, though the worst case scenario is that tree mortality will result in a much reduced canopy stratum in the affected areas.

The extent of RE 9.11.8a within the predicted drawdown area is approximately 5.8% of that available in the Einasleigh Uplands bioregion. RE 9.3.13 is mapped along the Walsh River and other watercourses in the catchment such as Muldiva Creek. Due to the scale of RE mapping by the Queensland Government, and considering the NRA field verified REs, greater areas of vegetation consistent with RE 9.3.13 are expected to occur in the region. The



impact to vegetation that may be associated with groundwater sources is not expected to be permanent because the mining activity is of relatively short duration (approximately seven years), and recovering of groundwater levels to pre-activity conditions is expected to take up to three years (RLA 2017).

In the event that groundwater dewatering results in damage to canopy trees in RE 9.11.8a and 9.3.13 communities, the potential for indirect impacts on EVs is discussed below.

Species of conservation significance Potential impacts of the reduced groundwater levels on species of conservation significance are summarised as follows. • Flora of conservation significance. M. montana and P. chillagoanum have shallow root

systems, and therefore are not expected to be reliant on groundwater (Simon 2002, Ngugi et al. 2011). Direct impacts on these species from the proposed dewatering activity are not anticipated. These species may be indirectly impacted if the drawdown of groundwater levels results in a reduced tree canopy layer in RE 9.11.8a. The reduced canopy layer may create opportunities for weed ingress, which may negatively affect M. montana and P. chillagoanum. The threatening process, if realised, is likely to occur over the short- to medium-term and stabilise once groundwater levels return to pre-activity levels.

• Fauna species of conservation significance. The Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat and Diadem Leaf-nosed Bat may be indirectly impacted by the proposed activity due to alterations to the habitat in two ways. Firstly, if the drawdown of groundwater levels results in a reduced tree canopy layer in RE 9.11.8a, and to a lesser degree in RE 9.3.13, this change in habitat structure may reduce the quality of habitat for these bat species. Secondly, the drawdown of groundwater levels could alter humidity levels in caves or cavities influenced by groundwater in the potential drawdown area. This may reduce the quality or suitability of these features as roosting habitat. The impact will be more pronounced in the dry season when the bats are potentially more reliant on the stable and humid environments that some caves provide. The impact, if realised, is likely to occur over the short- to medium-term and stabilise once groundwater levels return to pre-activity levels.

Aquatic ecosystems Given the seasonal nature of rainfall at the King Vol, the aquatic ecosystems naturally experience reduced water levels during the dry season, to the extent that there are large reaches of watercourses with no surface water for many months of the year (based on surface water monitoring at King Vol). However, permanent or semi-permanent pools on Archies and Bowler creeks have been observed, and are likely to be supported by groundwater flows.

Groundwater drawdown from the proposed dewatering activity is likely to affect the water availability for aquatic ecosystems in pools along Archies and Bowler creeks. These impacts are expected to occur on Archies Creek from year 2 of the dewatering activity, and towards the end of the program for Bowler Creek at site WP015 (Table 7.2 in RLA 2017). The worst case scenario is for pools along the watercourses to dry out completely during the dry season. For aquatic species that rely on the pools (eg fish), this impact will result in mortality of fauna trapped in the pool. This is not an uncommon occurrence in ephemeral watercourses, and fish are regularly predated or killed when pools dry out. Aquatic organisms such as crabs are able to take refuge in the stream sediment during dry periods. The watercourses within the predicted groundwater drawdown area are connected to the Walsh River, which is a permanent watercourse. During high stream flows, fish will migrate upstream, allowing the affected areas on Archies and Bowler creeks to repopulate. This is



expected to occur each year and at the end of the project when groundwater levels recover. Aquatic macroinvertebrates are also expected to recolonise rapidly.

The reduction in surface water at pools along Archies and Bowler creeks has the potential to impact on the riparian vegetation (RE 9.3.13), as described above. These impacts may cause degradation or alteration to the RE and habitat along the watercourse. This may reduce the habitat available for aquatic fauna and reduce bank stability if vegetation dieback results in plant loss along the banks. Enhanced erosion is likely to increase suspended sediment and turbidity levels in the receiving watercourses, which may affect aquatic ecosystems downstream of the point of erosion.

Permanent/semi-permanent pools of water along Archies and Bowler creeks may provide important water sources for terrestrial fauna. Alternative water sources that provide water throughout the dry season occur in the landscape. These include the Walsh River, pastoral dams, and dams on the King Vol mining lease.

Reduction in groundwater levels may reduce habitat availability for stygofauna communities, which may or may not occur, in the predicted groundwater drawdown area. It is not possible to quantify the extent of habitat impact given that no stygofauna surveys have been conducted at King Vol. Considering the stygofauna survey undertaken at the nearby Red Dome/Mungana project, stygofauna were collected in a bore that was expected to have been impacted by groundwater drawdown during development and operation of the Red Dom pit, indicating that impacts to stygofauna in that aquifer were not long-lasting (NRA 2013). It is expected that if there is reasonable interconnectivity of aquifers, and stygofauna populations in neighbouring cavities, re-colonisation of affected areas could occur. Furthermore, rainfall infiltration to subterranean GDEs is expected to occur (RLA 2017), and this will likely provide some water within cavities below the ground surface. Because the Chillagoe Formation limestone landform occurs to the north and south of the predicted groundwater drawdown area, it is expected that if stygofauna communities were present and affected by the dewatering activity, the communities would recover over time and the impact would not be permanent.

4.3 Scale and intensity of potential impact The effects of the proposed dewatering activity on groundwater levels will be confined (as indicated by the predicted drawdown area) and will be temporary (approximately 10 years). The duration of potential effects of the groundwater drawdown on EVs of the terrestrial, aquatic and subterranean GDEs is unknown, and will depend on the resilience of the EV and the influence of external factors such as rainfall. It is expected that once groundwater levels in the drawdown recover, the EVs associated with the terrestrial GDEs will also recover (if impacts have occurred). The time for EVs to recover is dependent on the attribute. For example, aquatic ecosystems in pools on Archies and Bowler creeks would expect to return during the wet season following recovery of the groundwater levels, whereas regeneration of canopy species in RE 9.11.8a may take years to decades.



5. Proposed Mitigation Measures

To minimise potential permanent impacts to EVs of the terrestrial, aquatic and subterranean GDEs within the predicted groundwater drawdown area, the following mitigation measures should be considered, the timing of which should be dependent on monitoring outcomes. • Monitor groundwater levels via a groundwater bore network to predict when GDE areas

may start to be affected. The existing King Vol groundwater bore network, with some additional bores to expand the extent of the network within the predicted drawdown area, could be used. An indicative timeframe has been predicted by the groundwater model (Table 7.2 in RLA 2017); however, monitoring should be undertaken to clarify the prediction. The groundwater levels will also be used to inform when particular ecological attributes may become affected (eg stress or dieback of canopy species in RE 9.11.8a, or reduction in dry season pools of water on Archies Creek).

• Undertake baseline and routine monitoring of the community composition, structure and condition of RE 9.11.8a and RE 9.3.13 at locations within the predicted drawdown area to determine actual impacts on the community. Sites identified during the field verification survey would be ideal for RE 9.11.8a and 9.3.13 (eg WP028 and WP015), as well as surface water monitoring sites within RE 9.3.13 communities (eg KV05, M01, M03).

• Undertake baseline and routine monitoring of cave-dwelling bats, and specifically the Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat and Diadem Leaf-nosed Bat. If impacts are detected during routine monitoring, the possible cause and options for mitigation should be identified. Some baseline monitoring has already been undertaken for areas south and south-east of the King Vol mining lease; however, areas to the north of the King Vol mining lease should be surveyed.

• Water quality and aquatic ecosystem monitoring at sites on Archies and Bowler creeks (eg sites WP028 and WP015 on Figure 3) should be undertaken to determine change in water quality and aquatic ecosystem indicators from groundwater level drawdown. The monitoring should include a suite of major ions to allow comparison to baseline conditions (NRA 2017b) and groundwater quality data. The monitoring should be incorporated into the King Vol surface water monitoring program and Receiving Environment Monitoring Program (REMP).

• Collect seeds of the canopy species in RE 9.11.8a and propagate for future revegetation, if impacts to G. americanus and Brachychiton spp. are observed during monitoring and if natural revegetation is likely to need enhancement.

• If monitoring identifies an increase in weed ingress, and the weeds are considered a potential threat to the recovery of RE 9.11.8a and RE 9.3.13, weed control measures should be implemented.

• If erosion of banks appears to be exacerbated as a result of stream flows along banks where vegetation has degraded due to dieback from reduced water levels, implement erosion control measures. Revegetation and weed control should also occur if it has the potential to assist the rate of recovery and bank stabilisation.

Irrigation of the terrestrial GDE areas (RE 9.11.8a), and releases to surface water pools, to replace the lost groundwater was considered and was determined to not be a viable option due to water quality limitations (ie water quality would need to match the groundwater removed), plant physiology and soil properties (ie the water would need to infiltrate to the



deeper roots of Brachychiton spp.6), and operational limitations (ie remote extent of the GDEs).

In addition to the mitigation measures described above, which can be implemented by Auctus, direct impacts of the proposed dewatering activity on GDE EVs will be minimised, to a degree, by the natural rainfall events that occur each wet season. These events will cause surface water flows in the watercourses, which will naturally pool at locations along Archies and Bowler creeks. Rainfall will also infiltrate into cavities in the limestone rock outcrops, which may minimise drawdown impacts on terrestrial and subterranean GDEs.

6 A study undertaken on planted Brachychiton spp. trees that were irrigated found that the water in the plant was of groundwater source and not from the shallower irrigation source (as discussed in NRA (2017a)).



6. Matters of State Environmental Significance

MSES are identified for GDE areas within the predicted groundwater drawdown area (Attachment 2). The proposed dewatering activity is expected to affect EVs associated with the GDEs, some of which are MSES. Therefore, the significant residual impact (SRI) of the activity needs to be determined in accordance with the Queensland Environmental Offsets Act 2014 (EO Act).

SRI is defined in the EO Act as “an adverse impact, whether direct or indirect, of a prescribed activity on all or part of a prescribed environmental matter that – (a) remains, or is likely to remain, (whether temporarily or permanently) despite on-site mitigation measures for the prescribed activity; and (b) is, or will or is likely to be, significant”.

The EHP Significant Residual Impact Guideline (EHP 2014) has been used to guide the assessment on each of the following MSES. • Regulated vegetation. • Connectivity areas. • Wetlands and watercourses. • Protected wildlife habitat. • Koala habitat in south-east Queensland. • Protected areas. • Fish habitat areas and highly protected zones of State marine parks. • Waterway providing for fish passage. • Marine plants. • Legally secured offset areas.

Regulated vegetation Regulated vegetation is mapped for the watercourses within the predicted drawdown area (Attachment 2). Some of the vegetation along the watercourses will be associated with GDEs. The extent of the potential GDE areas along the regulated vegetation watercourses has not been mapped. As a conservative approach to determining potential impacts on MSES, the full extent of the watercourses within the predicted drawdown area, ie approximately 43 km, have been considered.

Of the 43 km of watercourses mapped within the predicted drawdown area, approximately 36.5 km are stream order 1 and 2, and approximately 6.5 km are stream order 3 and 4. For vegetation associated with a watercourse, the extent of the vegetation is based on a defined distance from the defining bank of the watercourse. For stream order 1 and 2 this is 10 m, and for stream order 3 and 4 it is 25 m7. Considering these spatial parameters, approximately 89 ha of regulated vegetation associated with a watercourse occurs within the predicted

7 The watercourses occur in a coastal bioregion (ie sub-region 9.3 in the Einasleigh Uplands bioregion), and the distance from the defining banks of watercourses is detailed in EHP (2017b).



drawdown area. The spatial criteria in the SRI guideline (EHP 2014) is 2 ha of clearing8 for sparse REs (includes RE 9.3.13).

The timing of the potential impact will occur in stages, as shown by the predicted drawdown contours on Figure 3, and actual impact is dependent on the response of the vegetation to the groundwater drawdown. During the period of the activity, stream flows will occur during the wet season, and pools and ground-stored water will remain along the watercourse for an undefined amount of time. Many sections of the mapped watercourses are naturally dry for many months of the year (based on surface water monitoring at King Vol), and vegetation along the watercourses is present. If the groundwater drawdown results in a change in some flora species along the watercourse (eg M. argentea), alternative species within the community are expected to succeed. Therefore, it is considered not likely that the prescribed activity (ie groundwater dewatering) will have a significant residual impact on regulated vegetation within the defined distance of the watercourse.

Connectivity areas Ecosystems within the predicted drawdown area, which may be temporarily impacted by the prescribed activity, are not likely to be significantly impacted because although there may be some changes to the community, the ecosystem will remain. For example, if groundwater dewatering causes mortality of canopy species in RE 9.11.8a areas, the semi-evergreen vine thicket on limestone rock outcrops will remain, and the canopy trees will recover. Likewise, riparian vegetation and aquatic ecosystems on Archies and Bowler creeks will remain, although they may be altered for the period of the activity. Furthermore, these ecosystems are present throughout the Einasleigh Uplands bioregion and are not restricted to the project area. For example, RE 9.11.8a within the predicted drawdown area is approximately 5.8% of the mapped RE for the bioregion.

Therefore, the prescribed activity is considered not likely to result in a SRI to ecosystem connectivity.

Wetlands and watercourses Wetlands and watercourses identified as MSES are not mapped (Attachment 2), or known, to occur within the predicted drawdown area, and therefore a SRI is not likely to occur.

Protected wildlife habitat Habitat for flora and fauna species listed as Endangered or Vulnerable under the NC Act occurs within the predicted groundwater drawdown area, ie Macroperanthes montana, Panicum chillagoanum and Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat. There are numerous criteria for determining SRI on protected wildlife habitat, and these are presented with supporting information in Table 1. Essential habitat is mapped for the Squatter Pigeon (southern subspecies) at the northern extent of the predicted drawdown area (Attachment 2); however, this species is considered to be not present (as described in Section 4), and therefore is not considered here.

The assessment determined that SRI on protected wildlife habitat was not likely to occur.

8 As per the definition of ‘clear – for vegetation’ in the Queensland Vegetation Management Act 1999: means remove, cut down, ringbark, push over, poison or destroy by any way including by burning, flooding or draining. For the purpose of the impact assessment, draining groundwater sources from GDEs, which results in destroying vegetation, is considered to be clearing.



Table 1: Significant residual impact test for habitat of Endangered and Vulnerable wildlife SRI criteria1 Macropteranthes montana Panicum chillagoanum Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat An action is likely to have a significant impact on endangered and vulnerable wildlife if the impact on the habitat is likely to:

(A) lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a local population; or

The species is unlikely to be directly impacted by groundwater drawdown. Potential indirect threats, in the form of weed ingress, can be mitigated (monitoring and control). A long-term decrease in the size of the local population is an unlikely consequence of the proposed groundwater drawdown.

A shallow-rooted annual grass that is unlikely to be directly impacted by groundwater drawdown. Potential indirect threats, in the form of weed ingress, can be mitigated (monitoring and control). A long-term decrease in the size of the local population is an unlikely consequence of the proposed groundwater drawdown.

Species may roost in caves in the area of predicted impact. Under the worst-case scenario, groundwater drawdown may decrease the quality or suitability of cave environments; however, impacts are more likely during extended periods of dry weather (ie seasonal and/or intermittent) and result in short-term disruption. Similarly, under the worst-case scenario groundwater drawdown may decrease the quality of habitat along Bowler and Archie creeks over the short-term. A long-term decrease in the size of the local population is an unlikely consequence of the proposed groundwater drawdown.

(B) reduce the extent of occurrence of the species; or

As per criterion (A). Also, the population of this species in the receiving environment is not along the edge of the species’ broader distribution and therefore the extent of occurrence of this species will not be affected. A reduced extent of occurrence of this species is an unlikely consequence of the proposed groundwater drawdown.

As per criterion (A). A reduced extent of occurrence of this species is an unlikely consequence of the proposed groundwater drawdown.

As per criterion (A). A reduced extent of occurrence of this species is an unlikely consequence of the proposed groundwater drawdown.

(C) fragment an existing population; or

As per criterion (A). The proposed groundwater drawdown is unlikely to fragment an existing population.





SRI criteria1 Macropteranthes montana Panicum chillagoanum Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat (D) result in genetically distinct populations forming as a result of habitat isolation; or

As per criterion (A). The proposed groundwater drawdown is unlikely to isolate a population and/or result in the formation of a genetically distinct population.



(E) result in invasive species that are harmful to an endangered or vulnerable species becoming established in the endangered or vulnerable species’ habitat; or

Under the worst-case scenario groundwater drawdown may create opportunities, in the form of reduced tree canopy cover, for weed ingress. This impact can be mitigated via monitoring and weed control. The proposed groundwater drawdown is unlikely to result in a harmful species establishing in habitat for M. montana.

Under the worst-case scenario groundwater drawdown may create opportunities, in the form of reduced tree canopy cover, for weed ingress. This impact can be mitigated via monitoring and weed control. The proposed groundwater drawdown is unlikely to result in a harmful species establishing in habitat for P. chillagoanum.

Under the worst-case scenario groundwater drawdown may create opportunities, in the form of reduced tree canopy cover, for weed ingress. This impact can be mitigated via monitoring and weed control. The proposed groundwater drawdown is unlikely to result in a harmful species establishing in habitat for the Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat.

(F) introduce disease that may cause the population to decline; or

The proposed action is unlikely to result in the introduction of a disease that is harmful to the species.



(G) interfere with the recovery of the species; or

As per criterion (A). The proposed groundwater drawdown is unlikely to interfere with the recovery of the species.



(H) cause disruption to ecologically significant locations (breeding, feeding, nesting, migration or resting sites) of a species.

As per criterion (A). The proposed groundwater drawdown is unlikely to disruption ecologically significant locations to the extent that criteria (A) to (D) and (G) occur as a consequence.



1 Source: EHP (2014).



Koala habitat in south-east Queensland The project is located in north Queensland, and therefore this MSES is not relevant and a SRI assessment is not required.

Protected areas No protected areas (under the NC Act) occur within the predicted drawdown area (Attachment 2). The closest protected areas are approximately 22 km south-west of the King Vol mining lease. The prescribed activity is not likely to impact on a protected area.

Fish habitat areas and highly protected zones of State marine parks Fish habitat areas and marine parks do not occur in the predicted drawdown area (Attachment 2). The prescribed activity is not likely to impact on this MSES.

Waterway providing for fish passage The prescribed activity will not result in a barrier to fish passage, and the watercourses within the predicted drawdown area are naturally ephemeral. The prescribed activity is not likely to impact on this MSES.

Marine plants The project area is not located in a coastal area and marine plants do not occur within the predicted drawdown area. The prescribed activity is not likely to impact on this MSES.

Legally secured offset areas Legally secured offset areas are not known to occur within the predicted drawdown area, and the prescribed activity is not likely to impact on this MSES.



7. Matters of National Environmental Significance

The protected matters report (PMR) for the predicted groundwater drawdown area (Attachment 7) lists MNES that may occur near the King Vol project. The PMR includes species listed under the EPBC Act. No other MNES were identified for the search area.

With regards to the EPBC Act, a referral application was made in 2006 for the ‘Red Dome Project’, which included the then King Vol – Montevideo Project (EPBC reference 2006/2639). The referral was determined to be ‘not a controlled action’ provided the action was taken in accordance with specified conditions (communications dated 3 April 2006). The referral identified listed threatened species under the EPBC Act, the likely occurrence of the species at the project site, and the likelihood of potential impacts on the species.

Based on the impact assessment undertaken to inform the King Vol mining lease and prepare the referral application (2006), the EPBC Act species of interest that have the potential to be impacted by the proposed dewatering activity are likely to be M. montana and the Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat.

The significant impact assessment guidelines for MSES (EHP 2014) and MNES (DoE 2013) are not dissimilar. There are three criteria to be considered under MNES, which are in addition to the MSES criteria (which have been assessed in Table 1). The additional criteria, and associated assessment, are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Significant impact assessment for MNES species, in addition to Table 1

Significant impact criteria1 Macropteranthes montana2 Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat2

(I) Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species.

The proposed groundwater drawdown is unlikely to reduce habitat that is critical to the survival of this species. The species is not restricted to the lower slopes of the limestone karsts (RE 9.11.8a), and is known to occur on skeletal soils in other vegetation communities (EPBC reference 2006/2639).

The proposed groundwater drawdown is unlikely to reduce habitat that is critical to the survival of this species.

(J) Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population.

The proposed groundwater drawdown is unlikely to disrupt ecologically significant locations to the extent that disruption to the reproduction of the population will occur.

The proposed groundwater drawdown is unlikely to disrupt ecologically significant locations to the extent that disruption to the breeding cycle of the population will occur.

(K) Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline.

The proposed groundwater drawdown is unlikely to modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the habitat of the species to the extent that the species is likely to decline.

The proposed groundwater drawdown is unlikely to modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the habitat of the species to the extent that the species is likely to decline.

1 Summarised from DoE (2013). 2 Assessment outcomes in this table must be read in conjunction with Table 1, and have considered the

information presented in the referral (EPBC reference 2006/2639).



On review of the significant impact criteria, the proposed works are considered unlikely to have a significant impact as defined by DoE (2013) if the recommended management measures presented are implemented9. Based on this assessment outcome, a referral to the Commonwealth Government for assessment under the EPBC Act is not required. However, it is ultimately the proponent’s decision on whether or not to submit a Referral for assessment under the EPBC Act.

9 The conditions attached to the ‘not a controlled action provided it is undertaken in a particular manner’ determination made under the EPBC Act for the ‘Red Dome Project’ (which included the then King Vol and Montevideo areas) remain relevant (EPBC reference 2006/2639).



8. References

Atlas of Living Australia (ALA) 2017a, Panicum chillagoanum B.K. Simon, CSIRO, Canberra, accessed 17 November 2017, https://bie.ala.org.au/species/http://id.biodiversity.org.au/node/apni/2907570.

Atlas of Living Australia (ALA) 2017b, Macropteranthes montana F.Muell, CSIRO, Canberra, accessed 17 November 2017, https://bie.ala.org.au/species/http://id.biodiversity.org.au/node/apni/2896631.

Bijoor, NS, McCarthy, HR, Zhang, D & Pataki, DE, 2012, ‘Water sources of urban trees in the Los Angeles metropolitan area’, Urban Ecosystems, 15(1), pp.195-214.

BoM 2017, Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Atlas, Commonwealth of Australia, Bureau of Meteorology, Canberra, viewed 17 November 2017, http://www.bom.gov.au/water/groundwater/gde/.

Buist, M, Yates, CJ & Ladd, PG, 2000, Ecological characteristics of Brachychiton populneus (Sterculiaceae) (kurrajong) in relation to the invasion of urban bushland in south‐western Australia, Austral Ecology, 25(5), pp.487-496.

Choat, B, Ball, MC, Luly, JG & Holtum, JA, 2005, Hydraulic architecture of deciduous and evergreen dry rainforest tree species from north-eastern Australia, Trees, 19(3), pp.305-311.

DoE 2013. Matters of National Environmental Significance: Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1. Department of the Environment, Canberra

DSITI 2016, Regional Ecosystem Description Database (REDD), version 10.0, Queensland Herbarium, Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, Brisbane, viewed 20 October 2017, < https://environment.ehp.qld.gov.au/regional-ecosystems/>.

EHP 2014, Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy – Significant Residual Impact Guideline (Nature Conservation Act 1992, Environmental Protection Act 1994, Marine Parks Act 2004). Queensland Government, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, December 2014.

EHP 2016a, Guideline - Underground water impact reports and final reports, ESR/2016/2000, version 3.01, Queensland State Government, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Brisbane, effective 6 December 2016

EHP 2016b, EIS information guideline – Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems, Queensland State Government, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Brisbane, 18 October 2016.

EHP 2016c, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) information guideline – Aquatic Ecology, Queensland State Government, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Brisbane, 18 October 2016.

EHP 2016d, Information sheet – How to address environmentally sensitive areas and offset requirements in an application for an environmental authority for resource activities, ESR/2016/1992, version 1.00. Queensland Government, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, effective 9 May 2016.

EHP 2017a, Guideline – Application requirements for activities with impacts to water, ESR/2015/1837, version 4.00. Queensland Government, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, effective 6 March 2017.

https://bie.ala.org.au/species/http:/id.biodiversity.org.au/node/apni/2907570

https://bie.ala.org.au/species/http:/id.biodiversity.org.au/node/apni/2896631

http://www.bom.gov.au/water/groundwater/gde/

https://environment.ehp.qld.gov.au/regional-ecosystems/



EHP 2017b, Method for mapping Matters of State Environmental Significance for the – State Planning Policy 2017 and Environmental Offset Regulation 2014. Queensland Government, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection.

EHP 2017c, WetlandInfo Flora Wetland Indicator Species List, Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, viewed 20 October 2017, <https://wetlandinfo.ehp.qld.gov.au/wetlands/ecology/components/flora/flora-indicator-species-list.html>.

McLean, EH 2014, Patterns of water use by the riparian tree Melaleuca argentea in semi-arid northwest Australia, PhD thesis, University of Western Australia, Perth.

Ngugi, MR, Johnson, RW & McDonald, WJF 2011, ‘Restoration of ecosystems for biodiversity and carbon sequestration: Simulating growth dynamics of brigalow vegetation communities in Australia’, Ecological Modelling, 222(3), pp.785-794.

NRA (in prep), King Vol Mine Project Flora and Fauna Baseline Study, in preparation by NRA Environmental Consultants for Kagara Pty Ltd, January 2012.

NRA 2011, Mungana to King Vol Power Line Corridor Dry Season Fauna Assessment, prepared by NRA Environmental Consultants for Kagara Ltd, 16 December 2011.

NRA 2013, Red Dome Pit Extension Stygofauna Technical Note, prepared by NRA Environmental Consultants for Mungana Goldmines Ltd, October 2012.

NRA 2017a, King Vol Potential Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Field Verification, Prepared by NRA Environmental Consultants for Auctus Resources Pty Ltd, November 2017.

NRA 2017b, Field Verification of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems King Vol – Groundwater and Surface Water Similarity Assessment, Prepared by NRA Environmental Consultants for Auctus Resources Pty Ltd, November 2017.

NRA 2017c. Red Dome/Mungana and King Vol Quoll and Bat Monitoring Event. Prepared by NRA Environmental Consultants for Auctus Resources Pty Ltd, July 2017.

Richardson, E, Irvine, E, Froend, R, Book, P, Barber, S & Bonneville, B 2011a, Australian groundwater dependent ecosystems toolbox part 1: assessment framework, National Water Commission, Canberra.

Richardson, E, Irvine, E, Froend, R, Book, P, Barber, S & Bonneville, B 2011b, Australian groundwater dependent ecosystems toolbox part 2: assessment tools, National Water Commission, Canberra.

RLA 2017, King Vol Underground Water Impact Report and Dewatering Assessment, Prepared by Rob Lait and Associates Pty Ltd for Auctus Resources Pty Ltd, November 2017.

Simon, BK 2002, Panicum chillagoanum, AusGrass2 Grasses of Australia Online – Queensland Herbarium, Brisbane, accessed 30 November 2017, http://ausgrass2.myspecies.info/content/panicum-chillagoanum.

http://ausgrass2.myspecies.info/content/panicum-chillagoanum

Attachment 1: Queensland GDE Mapping

Attachment 2: Matters of State Environmental

Significance mapping

Attachment 3: King Vol Protected Species

Observations and Habitat (baseline survey mapping)

PROJECT: King Vol Flora and Fauna AssessemntTITLE: King Vol Protected Species Observations and Habitat

T:\_AAA\230\WOR\230305\_01\2011\230305.01_King Vol Protected Species_2011_11_29.WOR

Figure 8

JOB NO: 230305.01DATE: November 2011SOURCE: NRA, Kagara,Google Earth

Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3Recommended print size: A3

CONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLANCONCEPTUAL PLAN

DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY DEVELOPED BY

MINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAMMINE PLANNING TEAM

Burke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental RoadBurke Developmental Road

Panicum chillagoanum Observation

King Vol Mine Lease Application Area

Macropteranthes montana Observation

Diadem Leaf Nosed Bat Observations

Greater Large-eared Horsehoe Bat Observations

Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat and Diadem Leaf-nosed Bat Core Habitat

Potential Northern Quoll Core Habitat

Other Tracks

Burke Developmental Road

Mine Plan (June 2007)

1000500

metres

0

Attachment 4: NRA mapped regional ecosystems for King Vol project mining lease

Attachment 5: GDE Field Verification Survey,

October 2017

King Vol PotentialGroundwater Dependent Ecosystem Field Verification Auctus Resources Pty Ltd

www.natres.comwww.natres.com

Certified Integrated Management System: AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008 (Quality), AS/NZS ISO 14001:2004 (Environment), AS/NZS 4801:2001 (Safety).

Cairns O�ce: Level 1, 320 Sheridan Street, PO Box 5678 Cairns QLD 4870

P: 61 7 4034 5300 F: 61 7 4034 5301

Townsville O�ce: Suite 2A, Level 1, 41 Denham Street, PO Box 539 Townsville QLD 4810

P: 61 7 4796 9444 F: 61 7 4796 9410

Natural Resource Assessments Pty Ltd trading as NRA Environmental Consultants. ABN: 77 011 073 135

www.natres.com.au

F:\AAA\401_Auctus Res\401007_GDE\401007.01_Fld Verify KV GDE\Rpt\GDE field survey report\Cover letter_L01.docx

NRA Reference: Cover letter_L01.docx

17 November 2017

Auctus Resources Pty Ltd Suite 15, Kishorn Road Mt Pleasant WA 6153

Attention: Warren Crab

Dear Warren

RE: King Vol Potential Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Field Verification – final report

Please find enclosed the King Vol Potential Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Field Verification. This is the final version of the report.

If you have any questions regarding the enclosed document, please do not hesitate to contact me on (07) 4034 5300 or [email protected].

Yours sincerely NRA Environmental Consultants

Shannon Wetherall Senior Environmental Scientist

Encl: King Vol Potential Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Field Verification – final report

© Natural Resource Assessments Pty Ltd This document is the property of Natural Resource Assessments Pty Ltd. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Document Control Summary NRA Environmental Consultants

NRA Filepath: F:\AAA\401_Auctus Res\401007_GDE\401007.01_Fld Verify KV GDE\Rpt\GDE field survey report\GDE King Vol field survey R02.docx

Status: R02 (Final) Date of Issue: 17 November 2017 Project Manager: Shannon Wetherall

Title: King Vol Potential Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Field Verification

Client: Auctus Resources Pty Ltd Client Contact: Warren Crab

Copies Dispatched: 1 PDF via email Other Info or

Requirements: Final report incorporates client’s comments and supersedes and replaces all previous documentation prepared.

Report Summary

Key Words Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem, GDE, King Vol, Walsh River, Bowler Creek, Archies Creek.

Abstract This report presents the results of a field verification of the potential Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) that are mapped in close proximity to the King Vol project. Indicators for potential Terrestrial, Aquatic, and Subterranean GDEs were identified during this site visit.

Citation

This report should be cited as: NRA 2017, King Vol Potential Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Field Verification, R02 (Final), prepared by NRA Environmental Consultants for Auctus Resources Pty Ltd, 17 November 2017.

Quality Assurance

Author Technical Review Editor Document

Version

Approved for Issue by QA Manager

Date Signature

Megan Grixti BSc

Shannon Wetherall BAppSc (Hons)

- R01 - - Kirsty

Anderson BA (Hons)

R02 17/11/17


Certified Integrated Management System AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008 (Quality) AS/NZS ISO 14001:2004 (Environment) AS/NZS 4801:2001 (Safety)

Limitations of this Report

The information in this report is for the exclusive use of Auctus Resources Pty Ltd, the only intended beneficiary of our work. NRA cannot be held liable for third party reliance on this document. This disclaimer brings the limitations of the investigations to the attention of the reader. The information herein could be different if the information upon which it is based is determined to be inaccurate or incomplete. The results of work carried out by others may have been used in the preparation of this report. These results have been used in good faith, and we are not responsible for their accuracy. The information herein is a professionally accurate account of the site conditions at the time of investigations; it is prepared in the context of inherent limitations associated with any investigation of this type. It has been formulated in the context of published guidelines, field observations, discussions with site personnel, and results of laboratory analyses. NRA’s opinions in this document are subject to modification if additional information is obtained through further investigation, observations or analysis. They relate solely and exclusively to environmental management matters, and are based on the technical and practical experience of environmental practitioners. They are not presented as legal advice, nor do they represent decisions from the regulatory agencies charged with the administration of the relevant Acts. Any advice, opinions or recommendations contained in this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole and are considered current as of the date of this document.

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ......................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scope .................................................................................................. 3

2. Approach .................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Terrestrial GDEs .................................................................................. 5

2.2 Aquatic GDEs ...................................................................................... 5

2.3 Subterranean GDEs ............................................................................ 6

3. Results ........................................................................................................ 7

3.1 Terrestrial GDEs .................................................................................. 7 3.1.1 Site visit findings .............................................................................. 7 3.1.2 Literature review of potentially groundwater dependent species .. 11

3.2 Aquatic GDEs .................................................................................... 12 3.2.1 Stewart Springs ............................................................................. 12 3.2.2 Walsh River ................................................................................... 13 3.2.3 Bowler Creek ................................................................................. 14 3.2.4 Archies Creek ................................................................................ 15

3.3 Subterranean GDEs .......................................................................... 19

4. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 22

5. References ............................................................................................... 23

Tables

Table 1: Descriptions for sites with Terrestrial GDE indicators ................. 10

Table 2: Description of sites with Aquatic GDE indicators ......................... 17

Table 3: Subterranean GDE field survey site descriptions ......................... 21

Graphs

Graph 1: Daily rainfall for 2017, prior to the GDE field verification survey ... 4

Figures

Figure 1: King Vol project location.................................................................... 2

Figure 2: Terrestrial GDE field verification ....................................................... 9

Figure 3: Aquatic GDE field verification ......................................................... 16

Figure 4: Subterranean GDE field verification ............................................... 20

Plates

Plate 1: RE 9.11.8a at site WP010 .................................................................... 8

Plate 2: RE 9.11.3d at site WP013, adjacent to site WP010 ........................... 8

Plate 3: Melaleuca spp. understory in RE 9.3.3c at site WP009 ................... 8

Plate 4: Stewart Springs during the site visit ............................................... 13

Plate 5: Dense canopy cover at WP001 ........................................................ 13

Plate 6: Permanent pools and mature Melaleuca leucadendra at WP002 . 13

Plate 7: WIS on the Walsh River, WP007 ...................................................... 14

Plate 8: Bowler Creek site WP015 with WIS and limestone outcrops ....... 15

Plate 9: Pool on Archies Creek at WP028 ..................................................... 15

Plate 10: Roots of WIS species extending into the pool at WP028 .............. 15

Plate 11: Large limestone crevice with slumping at WP018 ......................... 19

Auctus Resources Pty Ltd King Vol Potential Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Field Verification

NRA Environmental Consultants 1 17 November 2017

1. Introduction

NRA Environmental Consultants (NRA) was commissioned by Auctus Resources Pty Ltd (Auctus) to undertake a site visit to field verify potential Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) for the proposed King Vol mining project in north Queensland. This report documents the findings of the site visit.

1.1 Background The King Vol project mining lease (ML 20658) is approximately 38 km north-west of Chillagoe and approximately 5 km north-west of the Walsh River (Figure 1). The project is owned and operated by Auctus for the extraction of metalliferous ore. Auctus proposes to expand the underground mining operations to 680 m below ground level. As part of the Queensland Government environmental approvals process, potential impacts on environmental values need to be determined.

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) GDE Atlas maps potential GDEs (Terrestrial, Aquatic, and Subterranean) near the King Vol project (BoM 2017). Predicted groundwater drawdown contours for the proposed expansion were determined by Rob Lait & Associates (RLA), and potential GDEs were mapped within the predicted total drawdown area (RLA 2017). This information was presented as part of the environmental approvals process for the proposed King Vol expansion. The Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) requested specific information about the potential GDEs in the predicted drawdown area (pers. comm. Timothy Bennett, A/Senior Environmental Officer (Assessment), EHP 20 October 2017). Subsequent discussions identified field verification of GED indicators as desirable to inform the impact assessment process.



1.2 Scope To inform the impact assessment of groundwater drawdown on potential GDEs, a site visit to potential GDE areas was undertaken to collect data indicative of GDEs. The objectives of the GDE site visit were as follows. Verify the presence of potential Terrestrial GDEs, targeting areas mapped on the BoM

(2017) GDE Atlas as having High and Moderate potential GDEs (GDEs that rely on the subsurface presence of groundwater and include all vegetation ecosystems).

Verify the presence of potential Aquatic GDEs, targeting areas mapped on the BoM (2017) GDE Atlas as having High potential GDEs (GDEs that rely on the surface expression of groundwater and include surface water ecosystems that may have a groundwater component, such as rivers, wetlands, and springs).

Identify indicators of caves and cavities as potential Subterranean GDEs, targeting areas mapped on the BoM (2017) GDE Atlas as having High potential GDEs.

The information obtained from the field verification will be provided to RLA to inform the hydrogeologist’s assessment of potential impacts of the proposed dewatering activities at the King Vol project on GDEs.


4 NRA Environmental Consultants 17 November 2017

2. Approach

NRA’s approach for conducting the GDE field verification surveys considered the guidance in the Australian Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Toolbox (Richardson et al. 2011a). EHP was consulted prior to commencement of the site visit to confirm the preferred survey methods (pers. comm. Timothy Bennett and Michael Trenerry, EHP, 26 October 2017). The site visit focused on mapped potential GDEs within the survey area. The survey area was based on the life of mine predicted drawdown 5 m contour (prepared by RLA in September 2017 (RLA 2017)) with a 1 km buffer and was determined in consultation with the hydrogeology team1 and confirmed with EHP.

A desk-based assessment of the mapped High, Moderate, and Low potential GDEs and their locations relative to landscape features on aerial imagery (ie vegetation cover, limestone outcropping, pooled water in drainage systems) informed the placement of field sites (Assessment Tool 1, Richardson et al. 2011b). Mapped High and Moderate potential GDE areas were targeted. Low potential GDE areas were included in the site visit where they were near to a High or Moderate potential GDE site.

The site visit was conducted by Megan Grixti and Alicia Hogan over three days from 27-29 October 2017. This timing took advantage of the late dry season conditions; surface water in the Walsh River and Bowler Creek was restricted to pools, and vegetation communities were water-stressed. This was supported by a review of rainfall data for Walsh River at Rookwood, which showed several months of minimal to no rainfall prior to the site visit, with the exception of 15 mm of rainfall on 15 and 22 October 2017 (Graph 1).

Source: Daily rainfall for Station 919310A Walsh River at Rookwood (DNRM 2017).

Graph 1: Daily rainfall for 2017, prior to the GDE field verification survey

1 Rob Lait of Rob Lait & Associates Pty Ltd, and Angela Bush of Australasian Groundwater and Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd (AGE).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1/01/2017

15/01/2017

29/01/2017

12/02/2017

26/02/2017

12/03/2017

26/03/2017

9/04/2017

23/04/2017

7/05/2017

21/05/2017

4/06/2017

18/06/2017

2/07/2017

16/07/2017

30/07/2017

13/08/2017

27/08/2017

10/09/2017

24/09/2017

8/10/2017

22/10/2017

Rainfall (m

m)



2.1 Terrestrial GDEs Field sites for the Terrestrial GDEs were selected based on the potential GDE mapping (BoM 2017) and the Regional Ecosystem (RE) mapping (DSITI 2016), ie each RE mapped in a High or Moderate potential GDE area within the survey area was visited. REs mapped in a Low potential GDE area were included in the site visit where the RE was located near a High or Moderate potential GDE site. Where relevant GDE indicators were present, Terrestrial GDE observations were also recorded at locations not mapped as potential Terrestrial GDE areas.

At each site, the mapped RE was verified using a quaternary survey method (Neldner et al. 2012) and any inaccuracies that were observed between mapped and on-ground vegetation communities were noted. Species composition and size distribution of the trees and understory plants, weed species and their relative abundance, and presence and location of Wetland Indicator Species (WIS) (EHP 2017) were recorded. If observed, indicators of GDE condition were also noted (eg signs of stress from pathogens, predation, and/or disturbance).

Field sites were flagged for a surveyor to determine the ground level elevation of the potential Terrestrial GDE to allow the hydrogeologist to compare the site elevation levels to groundwater levels. The surveyor data will be reported separately by the surveyor engaged by Auctus.

A literature search for the observed REs and flora species potentially reliant on subsurface expressions of groundwater was undertaken to obtain information to support verification of GDE potential. Studies on root depth and morphology (Assessment Tool 6, Richardson et al. 2011b), and studies comparing groundwater isotopes to isotopes in the tree water, of the flora species found in the survey area were included in the literature search.

2.2 Aquatic GDEs Field sites for the Aquatic GDEs were selected based on the potential GDE mapping (BoM 2017) and the desk-based review of aerial imagery that identified potential pools on watercourses within the survey area. The field sites included a 2 km section of the Walsh River, a section of Bowler Creek south of the King Vol mining lease, and a section of Archies Creek north of the King Vol mining lease.

Where there were pools of water on Walsh River, Bowler Creek and Archies Creek within the survey area, locations were recorded, a targeted search for WIS was conducted, and the riparian vegetation community was assessed for indicators of GDE condition. Ground level and surface level data for the potential GDE sites will be recorded by a surveyor to inform the impact assessment process by RLA.

NRA collected water samples from pools on Walsh River, Bowler Creek and Archies Creek to conduct a major ion assessment to determine the likelihood of pools being serviced by groundwater surface expression. In situ water quality measurements of pH and electrical conductivity (EC) were taken at the time of water sample collection. Results of the assessment are included in the Field Verification of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems King Vol – Groundwater and Surface Water Similarity Assessment (NRA 2017).

Stewart Springs is the closest known spring to the King Vol mining lease, and was an area of interest raised by EHP (comments received 20 October 2017 from Tim Bennet, A/Senior Environmental Officer (Assessment), EHP). Therefore, a site visit to Stewart Springs was undertaken to determine the nature of the spring and potential GDE indicators.



2.3 Subterranean GDEs Field sites for the Subterranean GDEs were selected based on the potential GDE mapping (BoM 2017) and the desk-based review of satellite imagery that identified potential limestone karsts and outcropping within the survey area.

A search of the limestone outcrops for evidence of caves and cavities in the landscape was completed at the field sites. Landscape indicators included observations of ground surface slumping, crevices in rock surfaces, or location of apparent cave entrances.



3. Results

Indicators for potential Terrestrial, Aquatic, and Subterranean GDEs were in the King Vol survey area. These included the presence of WIS, vegetation communities associated with limestone karsts and distinctly different to the surrounding landscape, permanent pools with abundant wildlife, cave entrances, deep crevices and slumping at limestone outcrops. Observations made for each type of GDE included in the field verification are detailed below.

3.1 Terrestrial GDEs 3.1.1 Site visit findings The sites visited for the potential Terrestrial GDE areas are shown on Figure 2, and summary notes of field findings for sites with Terrestrial GDE indicators are presented in Table 1. Field indicators for potential Terrestrial GDEs included RE types and the presence of WIS. The site visit confirmed indicators of Terrestrial GDEs in areas mapped as High, Moderate and Low potential GDEs in the survey area and identified Terrestrial GDE indicators in areas not mapped as High, Moderate and Low potential GDEs. Within the survey area, the mapped High potential Terrestrial GDEs included vegetation communities associated with limestone karst formations (RE 9.11.8a) and alluvial floodplain terraces (RE 9.3.3c). These REs were used to identify potential Terrestrial GDEs in the field.

Site WP009 (Figure 2), located on the southern side of the Walsh River, was the only site with a vegetation community consistent with mapped RE 9.3.3c (DSITI 2016). All other sites shown on Figure 2 as having Terrestrial GDE indicators were consistent with RE 9.11.8a and were associated with limestone outcrops throughout the survey area. For most of these sites, the REs were not mapped by DSITI (2016) as RE 9.11.8a, which occurs in High potential GDE mapped areas. This inconsistency may influence the potential GDE mapping, and there may be more High potential GDE areas than the current BoM (2017) mapping shows. At site WP016 (Figure 2), the mapped dominant vegetation community, RE 9.11.8a, was found to be a sub-dominant community, and the vegetation was predominantly consistent with RE 9.11.3d, which is not considered to be a GDE indicator.

Within the limestone karst formation (RE 9.11.8a), the dominant flora species were Gyrocarpus americanus and Brachychiton spp. with vine thicket understory. These trees were commonly observed with large roots extending into cracks and crevices in the limestone. The RE 9.11.8a communities appeared to be in good vegetation condition (eg weeds were present but not dominant, no evidence of pathogens).The presence of RE 9.11.8a is evident because the community is localised to limestone outcrops and contains species very different to the surrounding landscape. This difference can be seen in Plates 1 and 2, which show the limestone karst vegetation (RE 9.11.8a) at site WP010 compared with the surrounding vegetation (RE 9.11.3d) at site WP013.



Plate 1: RE 9.11.8a at site WP010 Plate 2: RE 9.11.3d at site WP013, adjacent

to site WP010

Vegetation associated with the alluvial plains on the southern side of the Walsh River (ie RE 9.3.3c), as observed at site WP009 (Figure 2), were dominated by Melaleuca viridiflora and Melaleuca leucadendra as a dense understory (Plate 3). M. leucadendra is a WIS. The vegetation community appeared to be in good condition (eg minimal weeds and no evidence of pathogens).

Plate 3: Melaleuca spp. understory in RE 9.3.3c at site WP009

An area mapped as Moderate potential Terrestrial GDE (at site WP034 (Figure 2)2) was found to not contain vegetation communities indicative of Terrestrial GDE indicators, ie the vegetation was consistent with RE 9.11.3f. This indicates that there are inconsistencies between the potential GDE mapping and the GDE indicators identified during the site visit.

2 GPS co-ordinate for site WP034: 205563E, 8128651N (GDA 94, Zone 55k).



Table 1: Descriptions for sites with Terrestrial GDE indicators Site Location1 Mapped2 Site visit notesWP009 208966 E

8120578 N High potential GDE

Vegetation consistent with mapped dominant RE3 9.3.3c. (sparse open woodland of Eucalyptus leptophleba, Corymbia clarksoniana, and Erythrophleum chlorostachys observed).

Dense understory of Melaleuca viridiflora and WIS4 M. leucadendra seedlings.

Ground layer of Panicum sp. and Themeda australis. Weed species Hyptis suaveolens is common and could

outcompete ground layer species if native vegetation becomes stressed.

WP010 209253 E 8122506 N

Moderate potential GDE

Vegetation inconsistent with mapped RE 9.11.3d (low Melalueca spp. woodland on metamorphic hills).

Vegetation consistent with RE 9.11.8a (semi-evergreen vine thicket) in association with the limestone karsts.

Gyrocarpus americanus and Brachychiton spp. are dominant.

WP014 209128 E 8122707 N


Vegetation inconsistent with mapped RE 9.11.3d (low Melalueca spp. woodland on metamorphic hills).

Vegetation consistent with RE 9.11.8a (semi-evergreen vine thicket) was observed, which is associated with the observed limestone karst.

Large Brachychiton spp. and Gyrocarpus americanus with roots in limestone crevices.

WP016 208667 E 8122845 N


Mixed vegetation community inconsistent with mapped RE 9.11.3f.

Dominant vegetation observed consistent with RE 9.11.3d (low woodland of Terminalia sp. with Eucalyptus cullenii).

Sub-dominant vegetation consistent with RE 9.11.8a in association with the limestone karsts.

Very stressed vegetation with leaf dieback, high insect herbivory, and established weed species Cryptostegia grandiflora (Rubber Vine) thickets.

WP018 and WP019

208349 E 8123562 N and 207779 E 8123571 N

High potential GDE

Vegetation consistent with mapped RE 9.11.8a. Gyrocarpus americanus and Brachychiton spp. are

dominant. Large roots extend into limestone crevices. Weed species Hyptis suaveolens is common at these sites.

WP020 207780E 8124487 N

Low potential GDE

Vegetation inconsistent with mapped RE 9.11.3b (low open woodland of Eucalyptus cullenii and Corymbia spp.).

Vegetation consistent with RE 9.11.8a in association with the limestone karsts.

WP022 207131 E 8125113 N

Low potential GDE



WP023 209059 E 8124375 N

Low potential GDE





Site Location1 Mapped2 Site visit notesWP024 209606 E

8123500 N Not mapped as potential GDE

Vegetation inconsistent with mapped RE 9.11.26a (woodland of Eucalyptus leptophleba and E. cullenii).


WP026 205611 E 8127201 N

High potential GDE

Vegetation consistent with mapped RE 9.11.8a in association with the limestone karsts.

Gyrocarpus americanus absent from canopy and replaced by Cochlospermum gillivraei.

Weed species Stylosanthes scabra was an occasional occurrence at this site.

WP027 205726 E 8127544 N

Low potential GDE



WP029 204228 E 8129151 N

Low potential GDE

Vegetation inconsistent with mapped RE 9.11.12 (woodland to low woodland of Eucalyptus cullenii, Corymbia hylandii, and E. tetrodonta).


WP031 204972 E 8128816 N

Low potential GDE

Vegetation inconsistent with mapped RE 9.11.3f (woodland to low open woodland of Eucalyptus cullenii and Erythrophleum chlorostachys).


WP032 204755 E 8128500 N

Low potential GDE



WP033 205218 E 8128894 N

Low potential GDE



1 GDA94 Zone 55k. 2 BoM (2017). 3 DSITI (2016). 4 EHP (2017).

3.1.2 Literature review of potentially groundwater dependent species A literature search was undertaken on the groundwater dependence of dominant limestone karst species Gyrocarpus americanus and Brachychiton spp. Limited information on root depth and groundwater dependence was available; the information that was found is discussed below. A study using water isotopes uptake of irrigation water versus groundwater in

Brachychiton spp., found that 90% of the tree water originated from the groundwater source and 10% was from irrigated water (Bijoor et al. 2012). The Brachychiton spp. in the study had been planted and irrigated in an urban setting. This suggests the preference of groundwater source over shallower water availability for Brachychiton spp. Another study on the early growth of Brachychiton spp. seedlings and energy allocations recorded a significantly higher growth rate of roots than shoots, and seedlings swiftly



developed large tap roots (length3 and diameter) that gave a competitive edge over the other seedlings in the study (Buist et al. 2000). Choat et al. (2005) studied the morphology of the vascular water transport systems in evergreen and deciduous rainforest species and found that the vascular system of the Brachychiton spp. had a higher vulnerability to mortality by air embolism, which is usually drought-induced. It is possible that the Brachychiton spp. associated with limestone outcrops in the survey area exploit cracks in the limestone to gain access to water, which prevents air embolisms from occurring, allowing the species to grow to maturity.

No relevant literature on the anatomy or ecology of Gyrocarpus americanus, or on groundwater requirements of semi-evergreen vine thickets was found in the literature search.

A literature search was undertaken on the groundwater dependence of dominant riparian and floodplain terrace species Melaleuca leucadendra, and the information found is summarised below. No studies were found on M. leucadendra. Two studies that considered tree water source of M. argentea (which occurs alongside

M. leucadendra) found that despite a prolonged dry season, the species had adequate access to groundwater or river water (O’Grady et al. 2005 and Lamontagne et al. 2005), and there was no discernible difference between groundwater and river water signature using isotopic analysis, however there was a difference in the isotopic signature of soil water. Isotopic analyses of M. argentea tree water had a signature most similar to the groundwater/river water signature, and were restricted to areas with shallow water tables (< 5m). Furthermore, O’Grady et al. (2005) also compared the leaf water potential of M. argentea with the weighted mean water potential for the top metre of soil and found that the weighted mean water potential was lower than both the predawn and midday leaf water potentials indicating that these trees are reliant solely on river water or groundwater.

McLean (2014) studied patterns of water use by M. argentea and found that the species has a high vulnerability to mortality by drought-induced air embolism, and as the species requires its roots be in direct contact with water, the species is very likely to be highly sensitive to changes in groundwater levels.

3.2 Aquatic GDEs Sites with Aquatic GDE indicators are shown on Figure 3 and are described in Table 2. Aquatic GDE indicators were present at Stewart Springs, Walsh River, Bowler Creek and Archies Creek. Further details are provided below.

3.2.1 Stewart Springs Stewart Springs is not mapped as a potential Aquatic GDE (BoM 2017); however, as it is the closest known spring to the King Vol mining lease, NRA conducted a site visit to identify the vegetation and nature of the spring.

Stewart Springs was dry at the time of the site visit; however, the soil at the base of the spring was damp at a depth of 3 cm. The outline of the spring was an oval shape (Plate 4), and the surface washout where spring water appears to extend when full covers an area

3 Note that actual length of roots was not presented in the paper, and the information provided was a qualitative comparison with other tree roots.



approximately 2 m wide and 20 m long. The Queensland Spring Database (DSITI 2017) describes Stewart Springs as seasonal. Vegetation at Stewart Springs was very sparse, open Eucalyptus cullenii and Corymbia erythrophloia woodland consistent with mapped RE 9.11.13.

Observations were made at two sites along a section of an unnamed drainage line approximately 200 m east of Stewart Springs. Site WP001, 340 m south-east (upgradient) of Stewart Springs, was dry except for a patch of damp soil in the creek bed. At site WP001, WIS Lophostemon suaveolens and Leptospermum sp. were observed forming a dense canopy cover (60%) (Plate 5).

Site WP002 was approximately 440 m north (downgradient) of Stewart Springs (Figure 3). Water was flowing at this location and included deep pools with abundant Rainbow Fish (Melanotaenia sp.). Riparian vegetation, which is associated with Aquatic GDEs, was present and consistent with RE 9.3.13. WIS at the site included Melaleuca leucadendra (Plate 6), M. argentea, and Cyperus sp., and these plants had roots in direct contact with the water. A water sample was collected from this site and the results are presented in NRA (2017).

Plate 4: Stewart Springs during the site visit Plate 5: Dense canopy cover at WP001

Plate 6: Permanent pools and mature Melaleuca leucadendra at WP002

3.2.2 Walsh River The Walsh River in the survey area is mapped as a High potential Aquatic GDE (BoM 2017). Approximately 2 km of the Walsh River was traversed during the site visit, with sites WP007 and WP008 showing the extents of the surveyed area (Figure 3).

Pools were found along the traversed 2 km section of the Walsh River. Water samples were taken from pools at sites WP003, WP007 and WP008 (Figure 3) and are presented in NRA (2017).



Riparian vegetation associated with Aquatic GDEs was present along the Walsh River and was consistent with RE 9.3.13. WIS such as Melaleuca leucadendra, M. argentea, M. fluviatilis, Lophostemon suaveolens, Nauclea orientalis and Cyperus spp. were observed along the river banks and in rocky outcrops in the river bed (Plate 7). Roots of trees and shrubs were in direct contact with the pooled water. Invasive species Cryptostegia grandiflora (Rubber Vine) was abundant along the river banks, forming thickets in some locations, and Ziziphus mauritiana (Chinee Apple) was occasionally observed on the outer fringes of the riparian vegetation furthest from the river.

Plate 7: WIS on the Walsh River, WP007 Abundant fish communities were observed in all pools along the Walsh River between site WP007 and WP008 (Figure 3), and included Archer Fish (Toxotes sp.), Rainbow Fish and Spangled Grunter (Leiopotherapon sp.). A population of mature and juvenile Freshwater Crocodiles (Crocodylus johnsoni) was at site WP007. Wader birds, Snake-necked Darters (Anhinga novaehollandiae), and Black-necked Storks (Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus) were observed foraging near the pools at WP007.

The Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) Rookwood water monitoring station is located at a permanent pool on the Walsh River, approximately 800 m upstream of site WP007. Review of the water monitoring data (DNRM 2017) shows that the station pool had a mean water level of 1.47 m (discharge of 0 Cumecs) for most of October 2017, with a minimum of 1.42 m. On 21 October 2017, the station recorded 15 mm of rainfall and, although discharge remained at 0 Cumecs, the mean water level at the pool rose to 1.67 m. This discharge data shows that the pools in the Walsh River at the time of the site visit were not the result of recent stream flows.

The observations verify Aquatic GDE indicators at sites WP003, WP007 and WP008; this supports the potential presence of GDEs on the Walsh River within the survey area.

3.2.3 Bowler Creek Bowler Creek was not mapped as a potential Aquatic GDE (BoM 2017). A large pool was found at site WP015, approximately 2 km upstream of the confluence with the Walsh River (Figure 3). The pool was connected upstream to smaller pools along limestone outcropping in the creek bed. A water sample was collected from the pool and the results are presented in NRA (2017).

Riparian vegetation associated with Aquatic GDEs was present along the creek banks, and was consistent with RE 9.3.13. WIS such as Melaleuca leucadendra, M. argentea, M. fluvialtilis, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Lophostemon suaveolens, Paspalum sp., and Cyperus spp. were observed (Plate 8). An abundant presence of fish species including Archer Fish, Rainbow Fish, and Spangled Grunter indicates that the pool had not dried out this season. The observations verify Aquatic GDEs at site WP015; therefore potential GDEs may occur along Bowler Creek within the survey area.



Plate 8: Bowler Creek site WP015 with WIS and limestone outcrops

3.2.4 Archies Creek Archies Creek was not mapped as a potential Aquatic GDE (BoM 2017). During the site visit, a pool was found at WP028, approximately 650 m west of the Burke Developmental Road and 4.4 km upstream of the confluence with Bowler Creek (Figure 3). A water sample was collected and the results are presented in NRA (2017).

Riparian vegetation associated with Aquatic GDEs was present along the creek banks and was consistent with RE 9.3.13. WIS such as Melaleuca leucadendra, M. argentea, M. fluvialtilis, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Lophostemon suaveolens, Paspalum sp. and Cyperus spp. were observed with roots in direct contact with the pool (Plates 9 and 10). Some roots extended over the dry creek bed for 15 m to be in contact with the water at this site, indicating that this is likely a permanent water source. Rainbow fish, tadpoles and Dyticid beetles were observed, and two burrows were detected in the bank approximately 0.5 m above the water level.

The observations verify Aquatic GDEs at site WP028; therefore potential GDEs may occur along Archies Creek within the survey area.

Plate 9: Pool on Archies Creek at WP028 Plate 10: Roots of WIS species extending into

the pool at WP028



Table 2: Description of sites with Aquatic GDE indicators Site Location1 Mapped2 Site visit notes Stewart Springs

211797 E 8116204 N

Not mapped as potential Aquatic GDE

No water observed in Stewart Springs, though the soil was damp at a depth of 3 cm.

Outline of spring pool area was an oval shape. Past observations3 have noted bubbles in the pool and a

turtle. RE2 consistent with mapped dominant RE 9.11.13 (open

woodland of Eucalyptus cullenii, Terminalia sp., Planchonia careya, Themeda australis and Heteropogon triticeus).

WP001 212013 E 8115930 N


Drainage line east of Stewart Springs, with the site approximately 350 m south-east of Stewart Springs.

Site was dry, though the surface soil was damp. Vegetation canopy cover was approximately 60%, with

WIS5 Leptospermum sp. and Lophostemon grandiflorus. WP002 211802 E

8116645 N Not mapped as potential Aquatic GDE

Drainage line east of Stewart Springs, approximately 440 m north of Stewart Springs and approximately 850 m downstream of site WP001.

Water at this site was flowing. Melaleuca spp. observed with the root systems in direct

contact with the water. Rainbow Fish in large numbers were observed in the

pools. WP003 209017 E

8120987 N High potential Aquatic GDE

Pool in Walsh River was approximately 200 m long, 3 m wide and >1 m deep.

Limestone outcropping occurred across the river channel.

WIS such as Melaleuca leucadendra, M. argenta, M. fluviatilis and Cyperus spp. were present.

Vegetation was consistent with mapped RE 9.3.13 (fringing riverine Melaleuca spp. open forest) along the river banks

Melaleuca spp. observed with the root systems in direct contact with the water.

Weed species Cryptostegia grandiflora was abundant along the surveyed extent of the riparian vegetation, and Ziziphus mauritiana was abundant on the outer fringe of the riparian vegetation.

Abundant Archer Fish, Spangled Grunters, Rainbow Fish, wader birds and Snake-necked Darters were observed.

WP007 210406 E 8120910 N

High potential Aquatic GDE

Walsh River – 1.5 km upstream of site WP003. River was approximately 45 m wide (bank to bank) with

two pools separated by sediment and limestone outcropping.

WIS such as Melaleuca leucadendra, M. argenta, M. fluviatilis and Cyperus spp. were present and roots were observed extending into the pool of water.

Cryptostegia grandiflora was common, forming dense thickets on the outer fringe of the riparian vegetation.

Mature and juvenile Freshwater Crocodiles, a Black-necked Stork, Snake-necked Darters, Archer Fish, Spangled Grunters, and Rainbow Fish were observed.



Site Location1 Mapped2 Site visit notes WP008 207901 E

8121008 N High potential Aquatic GDE

Walsh River – 1.2 km downstream of WP003. Pool was approximately 20 m long, 5 m wide and >1 m

deep. The river bed was approximately 250 m wide (bank to

bank) and the pool was restricted to the outer cut bank below a large escarpment.

Vegetation was only on the levee between the pool and the escarpment (approximately 8 m) and confined to localised rock outcropping.

Only Melaleuca spp. were observed, with occasional Cryptostegia grandiflora.

WP015 209043 E 8122724 N


Bowler Creek – 2 km upstream of confluence with Walsh River.

Pool dimensions were approximately 60 m long, 15 m wide and > 1 m deep, and pool is connected to smaller pools upstream.

Vegetation at this site was not consistent with mapped RE 9.11.3d (low Melalueca citrolens and M. stenostachya woodland on metamorphic hills).

Vegetation was consistent with riverine riparian RE 9.3.13 found along the Walsh River.

WIS Melaleuca leucadendra, M. argentea, M. fluvialtilis, Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Paspalum sp. are present at the pool, and roots are in contact with the water.

High abundance of Archer Fish, Rainbow Fish, and Spangled Grunter indicates that the pool has not dried out this season.

WP028 205822 E 8127478 N


Archie’s Creek – 650 m west of the Burke Developmental Road and 4.4 km upstream of the confluence with Bowler Creek.

Pool dimensions were approximately 8 m long, 4 m wide and >1 m deep.

Natural oily film on water surface. Vegetation was not consistent with mapped RE 9.11.3b

(low open woodland of Eucalyptus cullenii and Corymbia spp.)

Vegetation along the creek is consistent with riverine riparian RE 9.3.13.

WIS includes Melaleuca leucadendra, M. fluvialtilis, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Paspalum sp. and Pandanus cookii.

Surface roots of nearby Melaleuca spp. extend over 15 m, reaching directly into the pool.

Burrows were observed in the bank approximately 0.5 m above the water level.

Rainbow Fish, tadpoles and Dyticid beetles were observed.

1 GDA 94, zone 55k. 2 BoM (2017). 3DSITI (2016). 4 DSITI (2017). 5 EHP (2017).



3.3 Subterranean GDEs Most sites at limestone outcrops that were mapped as potential Subterranean GDEs (BoM 2017) were found during the site visit to have Subterranean GDE indicators at ground surface (Figure 4). These indicators included large crevices in the rocks, and were usually accompanied by areas of ground surface slumping (Plate 11). Two sites mapped as High potential Subterranean GDEs were visited and did not show relevant indicators at ground surface, ie sites WP016 and WP034 (Figure 4). The site visit noted that these two sites supported vegetation associated with limestone karsts (ie RE 9.11.8a), and further information for these sites is provided in Section 3.1.

Plate 11: Large limestone crevice with slumping at WP018

Potential cave entrances were observed at three sites in the survey area north of the King Vol mining lease (sites WP030, WP031, and WP033) (Figure 4). The entrances were identified by deep crevices with fine sediment and gravel deposited underneath an overhang (similar to a soil cone or rock fall as indicated by Figure 2-1 in the GDE toolbox (Richardson et al. 2011a). The cavity at sites WP031 and WP033 appeared to continue beyond the line of site. The entrance at sites WP030 and WP031 is situated in a large limestone outcrop approximately 135 m west of the Burke Developmental Road. The entrance at site WP033 is in a large limestone outcrop approximately 50 m east of the Burke Developmental Road, and pooled water was visible inside this cave entrance.



Table 3: Subterranean GDE field survey site descriptions Site Location1 Mapped2 Site visit notesWP010 209253 E


Deep crevices in limestone.

WP014 209128 E 8122707 N

High potential GDE

Large crevice in outcrop – potential cave. Large Brachychiton australis and Gyrocarpus

americanus with roots in crevices. WP017 208317 E


Limestone slumping and large crevices indicate potential cave.

WP018 208348 E 8123562 N

High potential GDE

Same limestone outcrop as site WP017. Massive crevice in limestone. Very large Brachychiton chillagoensis and Gyrocarpus

americanus with roots in crevice. Possibly the same cave as WP017.

WP020 207780 E 8124487 N

High potential GDE

Crevices and slumping observed in limestone.

WP021and WP022

207286 E 8125057 N and 207131 E 8125113 N

High potential GDE

Isolated limestone outcrops within King Vol mining lease.

Some crevices in rock, no slumping observed.

WP023 209059 E 8124375 N

High potential GDE

Limestone outcrop on the banks of Bowler Creek within King Vol mining lease.

No crevices or slumping observed. Vegetation was consistent with RE 9.11.8a, which is a

GDE indicator. WP027 205726 E

8127544 N Low potential GDE

Limestone outcrop immediately north of Archies Creek. Some deep crevices and slumping at ground surface.

WP029 204228 E 8129151 N

Low potential GDE

Some deep crevices and slumping at ground surface. Overhang cavity with lots of moisture.

WP030and WP031

204965 E 8128821 N and 204972 E 8128816 N

High potential GDE

Two potential cave entrances. Trees with roots extending into crevices in rock.

WP033 205218 E 8128894 N

High potential GDE

Large potential cave entrance with pool inside. Vegetation growing out of deep crevices.

1 GDA 94, zone 55k. 2 BoM (2017). 3DSITI (2016).



4. Conclusion

The site visit verified indicators were present for Terrestrial, Aquatic and Subterranean GDEs within the survey area. A hydrogeologist must determine if the sites visited by NRA (Figures 2 to 4) are likely to be GDEs associated with groundwater that may be affected by the proposed King Vol mining project. Information to assist this determination of GDEs includes water quality comparisons of late dry season pools with groundwater data (NRA 2017) and elevation data of GDE indicator features (to be provided by a surveyor).



5. References

Bijoor, NS, McCarthy, HR, Zhang, D & Pataki, DE, 2012, ‘Water sources of urban trees in the Los Angeles metropolitan area’, Urban Ecosystems, 15(1), pp.195-214.

BoM 2017, Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Atlas, Commonwealth of Australia, Bureau of Meteorology, Canberra, viewed 20 October 2017, <http://www.bom.gov.au/water/groundwater/gde/>.

Buist, M, Yates, CJ & Ladd, PG, 2000, ‘Ecological characteristics of Brachychiton populneus (Sterculiaceae)(kurrajong) in relation to the invasion of urban bushland in south‐western Australia’, Austral Ecology, 25(5), pp.487-496.

Choat, B, Ball, MC, Luly, JG & Holtum, JA, 2005, ‘Hydraulic architecture of deciduous and evergreen dry rainforest tree species from north-eastern Australia’, Trees, 19(3), pp.305-311.

DNRM 2017, Water Monitoring Information Portal, Queensland State Government, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Brisbane, viewed 26 October 2017, <https://water-monitoring.information.qld.gov.au/>.

DSITI 2016, Regional Ecosystem Description Database (REDD), version 10.0, Queensland Herbarium, Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, Brisbane, viewed 20 October 2017, < https://environment.ehp.qld.gov.au/regional-ecosystems/>.

DSITI 2017, Queensland Spring Database, Queensland Herbarium, Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, Brisbane, viewed 25 October 2017, <https://data.qld.gov.au/dataset/queensland-spring-database>.

EHP 2017, WetlandInfo Flora Wetland Indicator Species List, Queensland State Government, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Brisbane, accessed 20 October 2017, <https://wetlandinfo.ehp.qld.gov.au/wetlands/ecology/components/flora/flora-indicator-species-list.html>.

Lamontagne, S, Cook, PG, O’Grady, AP, & Eamus, D , 2005, ‘Groundwater use by vegetation in a tropical savanna riparian zone (Daly River, Australia)’, Journal of Hydrology, 310(1), pp.280-293.

McLean, EH, 2014, ‘Patterns of water use by the riparian tree Melaleuca argentea in semi-arid northwest Australia’, PhD thesis, University of Western Australia, Perth.

Neldner, VJ, Wilson, BA, Thompson, EJ & Dillewaard, HA, 2012, Methodology for Survey and Mapping of Regional Ecosystems and Vegetation Communities in Queensland, Version 3.2, Updated August 2012, Queensland Herbarium, Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Brisbane.

NRA 2017, Field Verification of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems King Vol – Groundwater and Surface Water Similarity Assessment, Prepared by NRA Environmental Consultants for Auctus Resources Pty Ltd, November 2017.

O’Grady, AP, Eamus, D, Cook, PG, & Lamontagne, S, 2005, ‘Comparative water use by the riparian trees Melaleuca argentea and Corymbia bella in the wet-dry tropics of northern Australia’, Tree Physiology, 26(2), pp.219-228.

Richardson, E, Irvine, E, Froend, R, Book, P, Barber, S & Bonneville, B 2011a, Australian groundwater dependent ecosystems toolbox part 1: assessment framework, National Water Commission, Canberra.



Richardson, E, Irvine, E, Froend, R, Book, P, Barber, S & Bonneville, B 2011b, Australian groundwater dependent ecosystems toolbox part 2: assessment tools, National Water Commission, Canberra.

RLA 2017, King Vol Underground Water Impact Report and Dewatering Assessment, Prepared by Rob Lait and Associates Pty Ltd for AUctus Resources Pty Ltd, September 2017.

Cairns O�ce: Level 1, 320 Sheridan Street, PO Box 5678 Cairns QLD 4870

P: 61 7 4034 5300 F: 61 7 4034 5301

Townsville O�ce:Suite 2A, Level 1, 41 Denham Street, PO Box 539 Townsville QLD 4810

P: 61 7 4796 9444 F: 61 7 4796 9410

www.natres.com.au • [email protected]

Natural Resource Assessments Pty Ltd trading as NRA Environmental Consultants. ABN: 77 011 073 135Certified Integrated Management System: AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008 (Quality), AS/NZS ISO 14001:2004 (Environment), AS/NZS 4801:2001 (Safety).

Attachment 6: GDE water quality comparison

www.natres.com

Cairns Office: Level 1, 320 Sheridan Street, PO Box 5678 Cairns QLD 4870

P: 61 7 4034 5300 F: 61 7 4034 5301

Townsville Office: Suite 2A, Level 1, 41 Denham Street, PO Box 539 Townsville QLD 4810

P: 61 7 4796 9444 F: 61 7 4796 9410

www.natres.com.au


Technical Note To

Warren Crab Project Manager Auctus Resources Pty Ltd

Job no. 401007.01 Author John Broughton

Technical Review Shannon Wetherall Date 13 November 2017

NRA Reference: F:\AAA\401_Auctus Res\401007_GDE\401007.01_Fld Verify KV GDE\Rpt\Gw-SW Similarity\King Vol SW-GW Major Ion Comparison TN01.docx


Field Verification of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems King Vol – Groundwater and Surface Water Similarity

Assessment

Introduction NRA Environmental Consultants (NRA) was commissioned by Auctus Resources Pty Ltd (Auctus) to verify potential groundwater dependent ecosystem (GDE) indicators mapped within the modelled groundwater drawdown zone of the King Vol project (as described in RLA 20171). Verification involved a field survey (detailed in NRA 20172) that included the collection of surface waters for comparison to local groundwater.

The purpose of the groundwater-surface water comparison was to identify similarities in the chemical composition of the waters. Such similarities may indicate that the waters are linked and that, as a consequence, GDEs may be present. This technical note presents the similarity assessment of the King Vol groundwaters and surface waters collected during the GDE field survey.

The assessment and information herein is presented in the context of inherent limitations associated with any investigation of this type. It has been formulated in the context of field observations and results of laboratory analyses. These results have been used in good faith. The information herein could be different if the information upon which it is based is determined to be inaccurate or incomplete. NRA’s opinions in this document are subject to modification if additional information is obtained through further investigation, observations, analysis or third party information.

Overview 1 RLA 2017, Project 254 King Vol Underground Water Impact Report and Dewatering Assessment,

prepared by Rob Lait and Associates Pty Ltd for Auctus Resources Pty Ltd, September 2017. 2 NRA 2017, Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems: King Vol Potential GDE Field Verification,

prepared by NRA Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd for Auctus Resources, 13 November 2017.

Auctus Resources Pty Ltd King Vol Groundwater and Surface Water Similarity Assessment


The purpose of the similarity assessment was to examine if surface waters and groundwaters were linked within the modelled groundwater draw down zone of the King Vol project.

The assessment used major ion profiles to identify similarities in the chemical composition of the waters. Major ions are typically chemically conservative (they tend to remain in solution) making them useful for identifying water provenance and mixing/pathway processes.

Approach Major ion profiles for water samples were generated from the concentrations of Na, K, Mg, Ca, SO4, Cl, F3, and total alkalinity (Alk). Modified Stiff diagrams were used to display the major ion profiles. Analyte concentrations used for the Stiff diagrams were converted to charge equivalents (mol/L multiplied by the charge of the ion). Carbonate species charge was calculated from total alkalinity by assuming all alkalinity was present as carbonate/bicarbonate. Where a major anion or cation was missing and the sum of anion/cation charges was reported by the laboratory, an estimate of the value for the missing ion value was calculated by subtracting the sum of the reported anion/cation charges from the sum of anion/cation charges. The estimated value for the missing anion/cation was used to complete the major ion profile. This approach could not be used to calculate a missing contribution from F due to its typically small concentrations, which would be swamped by the relatively larger concentrations.

To make subtle changes more apparent for the ions with typically low concentrations, the charge contribution of F was multiplied by 10 for presentation in the Stiff diagrams.

Samples that had results for Na, K, Mg, Ca, SO4, Cl, F and Alk (ie that allowed a full ion profile to be developed for the sample) and that had ionic balances of less than ±5% (ie good internal analytical consistency) were preferentially examined. Less complete samples, and/or samples with an ionic balance greater than ±5%, were examined where necessary.

To ease description of the major ion profiles in the text, they are abbreviated using the following protocol: The cation providing the largest source of charge (followed by other cation/s that provide a significant but subordinate charge contribution/s in order of size of the contribution) / the anion providing the largest source of charge (followed by anion/s that provide a significant but subordinate charge contribution/s in order of size of the contribution).

For example, a sample dominated by Na and Cl with subordinate Mg contribution would be abbreviated to Na(Mg)/Cl.

The assessment examined data from the following: Groundwater quality data from bores that were close to the GDE survey sites that had

relatively shallow (pre-disturbance) standing water levels. The bores selected were KVMB003 and KVMB004B. Both bores are part of the groundwater quality monitoring network in the King Vol environmental authority and are assumed to be suitable for monitoring purposes. Data for the bores were taken from the King Vol groundwater quality database (provided by Auctus 31 October 2017). The data in the database were assumed to be of suitable quality for monitoring and investigation purposes.

3 Fluoride typically does not occur in major concentrations.



Surface water quality data collected during the GDE field survey conducted by NRA in late October 2017. Surface waters were monitored at sites WP002, WP003, WP007, WP008, WP015 and WP028. The samples were collected between 27 and 29 October 2017, analysed by ALS Laboratory and the results reported on certificate of analysis ET1701509. The results were of suitable analytical quality for monitoring and investigation purposes. The laboratory documentation is attached as Appendix A.

Where useful, other monitoring data from the King Vol project was used to assist with the assessment. Where this occurred, it is explained in the text.

Details of the surface water and groundwater sites/bore and data examined by the comparison are provided in Table 1. The location of the sites is shown on Figure 1.

Table 1: Water quality data sample locations and details

Site Location

GDA94 (Zone 55K) Comments Easting Northing

Stewart Springs (October 2017 NRA Field Survey) WP002 211802 8116645 Site is on drainage line to the east of Stewart Springs

and 440 m downstream of Stewart Springs. Water was flowing at time of survey.

Walsh River (October 2017 NRA Field Survey) WP003 209011 8120987 Site is a pool in the Walsh River.

Limestone outcropping occurred across the river channel.

WP007 210406 8120910 Site is 1.5 km upstream of WP003. River bed is approximately 45 m bank to bank, with

two pools separated by alluvial sediment and limestone outcropping.

WP008 207901 8121008 Site is 1.2 km downstream of WP003. River bed is approximately 250 m bank to bank. Pool restricted to the outer cut bank below a large

escarpment. Bowler Creek (October 2017 NRA Field Survey)

WP015 209043 8122724 Site is on Bowler Creek 2 km upstream of confluence with Walsh River.

Limestone outcropping within creek. Archies Creek (October 2017 NRA Field Survey)

WP028 205822 8127478 Site is 650 m west of the Burke Developmental Road and 4.4 km upstream of the confluence with Bowler Creek.

Limestone outcropping adjacent to creek. Oily film on water surface.

Groundwater (Auctus Resources Groundwater Quality Database) Bore

KVMB003 208138 8123766 Southernmost (closest to Walsh River) King Vol

groundwater quality monitoring bore. Pre-disturbance standing water depth 25 m BGL†.

Bore KVMB004B

206445 8126152 Northernmost King Vol groundwater quality monitoring bore.

Pre-disturbance standing water depth 29 m BGL†. † 95th percentile of depth to water (meters below ground level (BGL)) between 2008 and mid-2016, from

Table 7.1 in RLA (2017).



Similarity assessment The purpose of the assessment is to identify similarities between surface waters and groundwaters. The groundwaters in the area are presented and described first. The surface waters collected during the GDE field survey are compared to the groundwater results to identify similarities. Alternative water sources are examined where the GDE survey waters are markedly dissimilar to the groundwaters.

Groundwaters The groundwaters used in the comparison are from bores KVMB003 and KVMB004B. These bores were selected as they had standing water levels relatively close to the surface and were close to one or more of the surface water sites monitored by the GDE field survey.

The major ion profile of groundwater samples from bore KVMB003 is Ca(Mg)/Alk (see Figure 2). The samples in the Auctus Groundwater Quality Database show that the major ion profile of the groundwaters monitored by bore KVMB003 was constant between 19 April 2008 (the oldest sample suitable for analysis in the database) and 20 May 2017 (the most recent sample suitable for analysis in the database).

Alk – Alkalinity Figure 2: Major ion profiles for oldest and most recent samples suitable for

analysis from Bore KVMB003 The major ion profile for the samples from KVMB004B was the same as that for KVMB003 ie Ca(Mg)/Alk (see Figure 3). Examination of samples in the Auctus Groundwater Quality Database shows that the major ion profile has been relatively constant between 23 May 2008 (the oldest sample suitable for analysis in the database) and 28 February 2017 (the most recent sample suitable for analysis in the database).

Na+ K+

Ca++

Mg++

SO4‐‐ Cl‐ F‐(x10)

Alk‐10

‐8

‐6

‐4

‐2

0

2

4

6

8

GW KVMB003 19/4/2008

IonicBalance: 0

Na+K+

Ca++

Mg++

SO4‐‐ Cl‐ F‐(x10)

Alk‐8

‐6

‐4

‐2

0

2

4

6

GW KVMB003 20/5/2017

IonicBalance: -1



Alk – Alkalinity Figure 3: Major ion profiles for oldest and most recent samples suitable for

analysis from Bore KVMB004B

Surface waters The surface waters sampled during the GDE field survey are presented in order of similarity to the groundwaters from bores KVMB003 and KVMB004B.

Stewart Springs and Archies Creek The surface water samples collected from Stewart Springs (sample WP002) and Archies Creek (sample WP028) during the GDE Field Survey are presented together as they both have major ion profiles of Ca/Alk (Figure 4).

Comparison of the Stewart Springs and Archies Creek samples (Figure 4) to the groundwaters (Figures 2 and 3) shows that they have largely similar major ion profiles, with a minor difference being the charge contribution from Mg, which is greater in the groundwaters.

Alk – Alkalinity

Figure 4: Major ion profiles for the surface water samples collected during the GDE field survey from Stewart Springs (sample WP002) and Archies Creek (sample WP028)

Na+K+

Ca++

Mg++

SO4‐‐ Cl‐ F‐(x10)

Alk‐10

‐8

‐6

‐4

‐2

0

2

4

6

GW KVMB004B 23/5/2008

IonicBalance: -4

Na+K+

Ca++

Mg++

SO4‐‐ Cl‐ F‐(x10)

Alk‐12

‐10

‐8

‐6

‐4

‐2

0

2

4

6

8

GW KVMB004B 28/2/2017

IonicBalance: -3

Na+ K+

Ca++

Mg++

SO4‐‐ Cl‐ F‐(x10)

Alk‐8

‐6

‐4

‐2

0

2

4

6

WP002 27/10/2017

IonicBalance: 0

Na+ K+

Ca++

Mg++

SO4‐‐ Cl‐ F‐(x10)

Alk‐8

‐6

‐4

‐2

0

2

4

6

8

WP028 29/10/2017

IonicBalance: -2



Bowler Creek The sample from Bowler Creek (sample WP015) has a major ion profile of Ca(Na-Mg)/Alk(Cl) (Figure 5). The large charge contribution from Ca and, to a lesser extent, Mg is similar to that in the groundwaters (Figures 2 and 3). However, the significant charge contribution from Na (and to a lesser extent Cl) differentiates the major ion profile of the Bowler Creek sample from the groundwaters. The Bowler Creek sample shows some similarity to the groundwaters.

Alk – Alkalinity

Figure 5: Major ion profile for the surface water sample collected during the GDE field survey from Bowler Creek (sample WP015)

Walsh River The surface water samples from the Walsh River collected during the GDE field survey (samples WP007, WP003 and WP008) have major ion profiles of Na(Ca-Mg)/Alk(Cl-F) (Figure 6). The large charge contribution from Ca and, to a lesser extent, Mg is similar to that in the groundwaters (Figures 2 and 3). However, the significant contribution from Na (and to a lesser extent Cl and F) differentiates the Walsh River samples from the groundwater samples. The Walsh River samples show few similarities to the groundwaters.

Samples of upstream Walsh River water are provided by site WR01. Site WR01 is on the Walsh River approximately 250 m downstream of Burke Developmental Road crossing and 2.4 km upstream of the GDE field survey site WP007 (Figure 1). The major ion profiles of the WR01 samples are presented in Figure 7. The major ion profiles of the samples is Na(Ca-Mg)/Alk(Cl). Fluoride was not determined in the samples, and both samples have poor ionic balances, limiting their value for interpretation. Despite these issues, the WR01 samples share a similar major ion profile with the Walsh River samples collected during the GDE field survey. Comparison of the Walsh River samples to the upstream samples of Walsh River water (collected during routine surface water monitoring) shows that the samples collected during the GDE field survey are more similar to upstream Walsh River waters than the examined groundwaters.

Na+

K+

Ca++

Mg++

SO4‐‐Cl‐

F‐(x10)

Alk‐7

‐6

‐5

‐4

‐3

‐2

‐1

0

1

2

3

4

WP015 28/10/2017

IonicBalance: -3



Alk – Alkalinity

Figure 6: Major ion profiles for the surface water samples collected during the GDE field survey from the Walsh River (in order of upstream to downstream, samples WP007, WP003 and WP008)

Alk - Alkalinity Figure 7: Major ion profiles for the surface water samples collected from site

WR01 on the Walsh River

Na+

K+

Ca++

Mg++

SO4‐‐

Cl‐

F‐(x10)

Alk‐3

‐2.5

‐2

‐1.5

‐1

‐0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

WP007 27/10/2017

IonicBalance: 0

Na+

K+

Ca++

Mg++

SO4‐‐

Cl‐

F‐(x10)

Alk‐2.5

‐2

‐1.5

‐1

‐0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

WP003 27/10/2017

IonicBalance: 3

Na+

K+

Ca++

Mg++

SO4‐‐

Cl‐

F‐(x10)

Alk‐2.5

‐2

‐1.5

‐1

‐0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

WP008 27/10/2017

IonicBalance: -1

Na+

K+

Ca++ Mg++

SO4‐‐

Cl‐

Alk‐1.2

‐1

‐0.8

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

SW WR01 13/1/2012

IonicBalance: -7

Na+

K+

Ca++Mg++

SO4‐‐

Cl‐

Alk‐1.2

‐1

‐0.8

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

SW WR01 14/6/2016

IonicBalance: -9



Conclusions Comparison of the surface water samples collected during the GDE field survey to groundwater samples from the King Vol groundwater monitoring bores KVMB003 and KVMB004B showed that the samples from Stewart Springs (WP002) Archies Creek (WP028) were similar to the groundwaters. The data collected and assessment completed cannot determine if the groundwater at the King Vol project site is linked to the pooled water at Archies Creek (and Stewart Springs). However the data does show that the waters have similar major ion profiles and therefore maybe be related.

The Bowler Creek sample (WP015) showed some similarity to the groundwaters.

The Walsh River samples (WP007, WP003, WP008) show few similarities to the groundwaters and were more similar to upstream Walsh River water (eg samples from site WR01).

Appendix A: Laboratory Documentation

(ET17015009)

Environmental

SAMPLE RECEIPT NOTIFICATION (SRN)Work Order : ET1701509

:: LaboratoryClient Environmental Division TownsvilleAUCTUS RESOURCES LTD

: :ContactContact MS SHANNON WETHERALL Joy Morgan

:: AddressAddress MUNGANA MINE

CHILLAGOE QLD 4871

14-15 Desma Ct, Bohle Townsville

QLD AUSTRALIA 4814

:: E-mailE-mail [email protected] [email protected]

:: TelephoneTelephone ---- +61 7 4796 0600

:: FacsimileFacsimile ---- +61 7 4796 0620

::Project GDE Survey Page 1 of 3

:Order number ---- :Quote number ET2017ATHRES0001 (TV/008/17 v2)

:C-O-C number ---- :QC Level NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard

Site : ----

Sampler : Alicia Hogan (NRA)

DatesDate Samples Received : Issue Date : 06-Nov-201703-Nov-2017 11:30

Scheduled Reporting Date: 08-Nov-2017:Client Requested Due

Date

08-Nov-2017

Delivery DetailsMode of Delivery : :Carrier Intact.Security Seal

No. of coolers/boxes : :1 Temperature 25.5°C

: : 8 / 8Receipt Detail No. of samples received / analysed

General Comments

This report contains the following information:l

- Sample Container(s)/Preservation Non-Compliances

- Summary of Sample(s) and Requested Analysis

- Proactive Holding Time Report

- Requested Deliverables

l *SRN Reissued 6/11/17 to acknowledge change of dates for 3 samples.

l A 10% surcharge applies for results returned within 3 days.

l Please be advised that results cannot be reported by Monday 6/11/2017 as samples were received

on Friday 3/11/17 in Townsville. Cation samples will arrive in Brisbane on Tuesday 7/11/17.l Discounted Package Prices apply only when specific ALS Group Codes ('W', 'S', 'NT' suites) are referenced on COCs.

l ED037P, ED041G, ED045G conducted by ALS Townsville, NATA accreditation no. 825, (Site no. 23313)

l Please direct any turn around / technical queries to the laboratory contact designated above.

l Sample Disposal - Aqueous (3 weeks), Solid (2 months) from receipt of samples.

l All remaining analysis will be conducted by ALS Environmental, Brisbane, NATA accreditation no. 825, Site No. 818.

R I G H T S O L U T I O N S | R I G H T P A R T N E R

:Client AUCTUS RESOURCES LTD

Work Order : ET1701509 Amendment 02 of 3:Page

06-Nov-2017:Issue Date

Sample Container(s)/Preservation Non-Compliances

All comparisons are made against pretreatment/preservation AS, APHA, USEPA standards.

l No sample container / preservation non-compliance exists.

Summary of Sample(s) and Requested Analysis

Some items described below may be part of a laboratory

process necessary for the execution of client requested

tasks. Packages may contain additional analyses, such

as the determination of moisture content and preparation

tasks, that are included in the package.

If no sampling time is provided, the sampling time will

default 00:00 on the date of sampling. If no sampling date

is provided, the sampling date will be assumed by the

laboratory and displayed in brackets without a time

component

WA

TE

R -

NT

-01 &

02A

Ca, M

g, N

a, K

, C

l, S

O4, A

lkalin

ity &

Flu

oride

ET1701509-001 27-Oct-2017 10:30 WP002 ü

ET1701509-002 27-Oct-2017 12:20 WP003 ü

ET1701509-003 27-Oct-2017 14:00 WP007 ü

ET1701509-004 27-Oct-2017 16:00 WP008 ü

ET1701509-005 28-Oct-2017 10:00 WP015 ü

ET1701509-006 29-Oct-2017 08:30 WP028 ü

ET1701509-007 27-Oct-2017 00:00 QA Dup ü

ET1701509-008 28-Oct-2017 11:00 Blank ü

Matrix: WATER

Client sample IDLaboratory sample

ID

Client sampling

date / time

Proactive Holding Time Report

Sample(s) have been received within the recommended holding times for the requested analysis.

:Client AUCTUS RESOURCES LTD

Work Order : ET1701509 Amendment 03 of 3:Page

06-Nov-2017:Issue Date

Requested Deliverables

ACCOUNTS ADDRESS

- A4 - AU Tax Invoice (INV) Email [email protected]

ANDREW SKELE

- *AU Certificate of Analysis - NATA (COA) Email [email protected]

m.au

- *AU Interpretive QC Report - DEFAULT (Anon QCI Rep) (QCI) Email [email protected]

m.au

- *AU QC Report - DEFAULT (Anon QC Rep) - NATA (QC) Email [email protected]

m.au

- A4 - AU Sample Receipt Notification - Environmental HT (SRN) Email [email protected]

m.au

- A4 - AU Tax Invoice (INV) Email [email protected]

m.au

- Chain of Custody (CoC) (COC) Email [email protected]

m.au

- EDI Format - MONPRO_CSV (MONPRO_CSV) Email [email protected]

m.au

- EDI Format - XTab (XTAB) Email [email protected]

m.au

JOHN BROUGHTON








SHANNON WETHERALL








0 0.00 True

Environmental

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSISWork Order : Page : 1 of 4ET1701509

:: LaboratoryClient AUCTUS RESOURCES LTD Environmental Division Townsville

: :ContactContact MS SHANNON WETHERALL Joy Morgan

:: AddressAddress MUNGANA MINE

CHILLAGOE QLD 4871

14-15 Desma Ct, Bohle Townsville QLD AUSTRALIA 4814

:Telephone ---- :Telephone +61 7 4796 0600

:Project GDE Survey Date Samples Received : 03-Nov-2017 11:30

:Order number ---- Date Analysis Commenced : 03-Nov-2017

:C-O-C number ---- Issue Date : 09-Nov-2017 15:59


Site : ----

Quote number : TV/008/17 v2

8:No. of samples received

8:No. of samples analysed

This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. This document shall not be reproduced, except in full.

This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information:

l General Comments

l Analytical Results

Additional information pertinent to this report will be found in the following separate attachments: Quality Control Report, QA/QC Compliance Assessment to assist with

Quality Review and Sample Receipt Notification.

SignatoriesThis document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories below. Electronic signing is carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.

Signatories Accreditation CategoryPosition

Andrew Epps Townsville Inorganics, Townsville, QLD

Andrew Epps Senior Inorganic Chemist Brisbane Inorganics, Stafford, QLD


2 of 4:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ET1701509

GDE Survey:Project

AUCTUS RESOURCES LTD

General Comments

The analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the USEPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house

developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request.

Where moisture determination has been performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis.

Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis.

Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference.

When sampling time information is not provided by the client, sampling dates are shown without a time component. In these instances, the time component has been assumed by the laboratory for processing

purposes.

Where a result is required to meet compliance limits the associated uncertainty must be considered. Refer to the ALS Contact for details.

CAS Number = CAS registry number from database maintained by Chemical Abstracts Services. The Chemical Abstracts Service is a division of the American Chemical Society.

LOR = Limit of reporting

^ = This result is computed from individual analyte detections at or above the level of reporting

ø = ALS is not NATA accredited for these tests.

~ = Indicates an estimated value.

Key :

ED037P, ED041G, ED045G conducted by ALS Townsville, NATA accreditation no. 825, (Site no. 23313)l

3 of 4:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ET1701509

GDE Survey:Project


Analytical Results

WP015WP008WP007WP003WP002Client sample IDSub-Matrix: WATER

(Matrix: WATER)

28-Oct-2017 10:0027-Oct-2017 16:0027-Oct-2017 14:0027-Oct-2017 12:2027-Oct-2017 10:30Client sampling date / time

ET1701509-005ET1701509-004ET1701509-003ET1701509-002ET1701509-001UnitLORCAS NumberCompound

Result Result Result Result Result

ED037P: Alkalinity by PC Titrator

<1Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 <1 <1 <1 <1mg/L1DMO-210-001

<1Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 <1 <1 10 <1mg/L13812-32-6

286Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 94 119 102 303mg/L171-52-3

286 94 119 112 303mg/L1----Total Alkalinity as CaCO3

ED041G: Sulfate (Turbidimetric) as SO4 2- by DA

2Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric 4 <1 1 5mg/L114808-79-8

ED045G: Chloride by Discrete Analyser

6Chloride 41 38 35 22mg/L116887-00-6

ED093F: Dissolved Major Cations

108Calcium 19 26 20 60mg/L17440-70-2

3Magnesium 6 6 6 17mg/L17439-95-4

6Sodium 43 38 39 46mg/L17440-23-5

<1Potassium 5 5 9 2mg/L17440-09-7

EK040P: Fluoride by PC Titrator

0.1Fluoride 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5mg/L0.116984-48-8

EN055: Ionic Balance

5.92 3.12 3.45 3.24 6.78meq/L0.01----Total Anions

5.90 3.44 3.57 3.42 6.44meq/L0.01----Total Cations

0.24 4.91 1.74 2.59 2.52%0.01----Ionic Balance

4 of 4:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ET1701509

GDE Survey:Project


Analytical Results

--------BlankQA DupWP028Client sample IDSub-Matrix: WATER

(Matrix: WATER)

--------28-Oct-2017 11:0027-Oct-2017 00:0029-Oct-2017 08:30Client sampling date / time

----------------ET1701509-008ET1701509-007ET1701509-006UnitLORCAS NumberCompound

Result Result Result ---- ----


<1Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 <1 <1 ---- ----mg/L1DMO-210-001

<1Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 <1 <1 ---- ----mg/L13812-32-6

354Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 291 3 ---- ----mg/L171-52-3

354 291 3 ---- ----mg/L1----Total Alkalinity as CaCO3


1Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric 2 <1 ---- ----mg/L114808-79-8

ED045G: Chloride by Discrete Analyser

7Chloride 6 <1 ---- ----mg/L116887-00-6


119Calcium 112 <1 ---- ----mg/L17440-70-2

7Magnesium 3 <1 ---- ----mg/L17439-95-4

10Sodium 6 1 ---- ----mg/L17440-23-5

1Potassium <1 <1 ---- ----mg/L17440-09-7

EK040P: Fluoride by PC Titrator

0.2Fluoride 0.1 <0.1 ---- ----mg/L0.116984-48-8

EN055: Ionic Balance

7.29 6.02 0.06 ---- ----meq/L0.01----Total Anions

6.97 6.10 0.04 ---- ----meq/L0.01----Total Cations

2.22 0.59 ---- ---- ----%0.01----Ionic Balance

False

1 1.00True

Environmental

QUALITY CONTROL REPORTWork Order : ET1701509 Page : 1 of 4


:Contact MS SHANNON WETHERALL :Contact Joy Morgan

:Address MUNGANA MINE

CHILLAGOE QLD 4871

Address : 14-15 Desma Ct, Bohle Townsville QLD AUSTRALIA 4814

::Telephone ---- +61 7 4796 0600:Telephone

:Project GDE Survey Date Samples Received : 03-Nov-2017

:Order number ---- Date Analysis Commenced : 03-Nov-2017

:C-O-C number ---- Issue Date : 09-Nov-2017


Site : ----

Quote number : TV/008/17 v2

No. of samples received 8:

No. of samples analysed 8:

This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. This document shall not be reproduced, except in full.

This Quality Control Report contains the following information:

l Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report; Relative Percentage Difference (RPD) and Acceptance Limits

l Method Blank (MB) and Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) Report ; Recovery and Acceptance Limits

l Matrix Spike (MS) Report; Recovery and Acceptance Limits

SignatoriesThis document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories below. Electronic signing is carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.

Signatories Accreditation CategoryPosition

Andrew Epps Townsville Inorganics, Townsville, QLD

Andrew Epps Senior Inorganic Chemist Brisbane Inorganics, Stafford, QLD


2 of 4:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ET1701509


GDE Survey:Project

General Comments

The analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the USEPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house

developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request.

Where moisture determination has been performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis.

Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis. Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference.

Anonymous = Refers to samples which are not specifically part of this work order but formed part of the QC process lot

CAS Number = CAS registry number from database maintained by Chemical Abstracts Services. The Chemical Abstracts Service is a division of the American Chemical Society.

LOR = Limit of reporting

RPD = Relative Percentage Difference

# = Indicates failed QC

Key :

Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report

The quality control term Laboratory Duplicate refers to a randomly selected intralaboratory split. Laboratory duplicates provide information regarding method precision and sample heterogeneity. The permitted ranges

for the Relative Percent Deviation (RPD) of Laboratory Duplicates are specified in ALS Method QWI -EN/38 and are dependent on the magnitude of results in comparison to the level of reporting: Result < 10 times LOR:

No Limit; Result between 10 and 20 times LOR: 0% - 50%; Result > 20 times LOR: 0% - 20%.

Sub-Matrix: WATER Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report

Original Result RPD (%)Laboratory sample ID Client sample ID Method: Compound CAS Number LOR Unit Duplicate Result Recovery Limits (%)

ED037P: Alkalinity by PC Titrator (QC Lot: 1226265)

ED037-P: Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 DMO-210-001 1 mg/L <1 <1 0.00 No LimitWP002 ET1701509-001

ED037-P: Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 3812-32-6 1 mg/L <1 <1 0.00 No Limit

ED037-P: Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 71-52-3 1 mg/L 286 284 0.597 0% - 20%

ED037-P: Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 ---- 1 mg/L 286 284 0.597 0% - 20%

ED037-P: Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 DMO-210-001 1 mg/L <1 <1 0.00 No LimitAnonymous ET1701514-003

ED037-P: Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 3812-32-6 1 mg/L <1 <1 0.00 No Limit

ED037-P: Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 71-52-3 1 mg/L 44 42 3.92 0% - 20%

ED037-P: Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 ---- 1 mg/L 44 42 3.92 0% - 20%

ED041G: Sulfate (Turbidimetric) as SO4 2- by DA (QC Lot: 1221113)

ED041G: Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric 14808-79-8 1 mg/L 4 4 0.00 No LimitWP003 ET1701509-002

ED041G: Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric 14808-79-8 1 mg/L 75 75 0.00 0% - 20%Anonymous ET1701507-001

ED045G: Chloride by Discrete Analyser (QC Lot: 1221115)

ED045G: Chloride 16887-00-6 1 mg/L 6 6 0.00 No LimitWP002 ET1701509-001

ED093F: Dissolved Major Cations (QC Lot: 1228497)

ED093F: Calcium 7440-70-2 1 mg/L 1220 1180 3.21 0% - 20%Anonymous ET1701506-004

ED093F: Magnesium 7439-95-4 1 mg/L 52 54 2.10 0% - 20%

ED093F: Sodium 7440-23-5 1 mg/L 3190 3230 1.15 0% - 20%

ED093F: Potassium 7440-09-7 1 mg/L 336 332 1.01 0% - 20%

ED093F: Calcium 7440-70-2 1 mg/L 4 4 0.00 No LimitAnonymous ET1701507-010

ED093F: Magnesium 7439-95-4 1 mg/L 2 2 0.00 No Limit

ED093F: Sodium 7440-23-5 1 mg/L 112 112 0.00 0% - 20%

ED093F: Potassium 7440-09-7 1 mg/L 3 4 0.00 No Limit

EK040P: Fluoride by PC Titrator (QC Lot: 1226264)

EK040P: Fluoride 16984-48-8 0.1 mg/L 0.1 0.1 0.00 No LimitWP002 ET1701509-001

3 of 4:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ET1701509


GDE Survey:Project

Sub-Matrix: WATER Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report

Original Result RPD (%)Laboratory sample ID Client sample ID Method: Compound CAS Number LOR Unit Duplicate Result Recovery Limits (%)

EK040P: Fluoride by PC Titrator (QC Lot: 1226264) - continued

EK040P: Fluoride 16984-48-8 0.1 mg/L <0.1 <0.1 0.00 No LimitAnonymous ET1701514-003

4 of 4:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ET1701509


GDE Survey:Project

Method Blank (MB) and Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) Report

The quality control term Method / Laboratory Blank refers to an analyte free matrix to which all reagents are added in the same volumes or proportions as used in standard sample preparation. The purpose of this QC

parameter is to monitor potential laboratory contamination. The quality control term Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) refers to a certified reference material, or a known interference free matrix spiked with target

analytes. The purpose of this QC parameter is to monitor method precision and accuracy independent of sample matrix. Dynamic Recovery Limits are based on statistical evaluation of processed LCS.

Sub-Matrix: WATER Method Blank (MB)

Report

Laboratory Control Spike (LCS) Report

Spike Spike Recovery (%) Recovery Limits (%)

Result Concentration HighLowLCSMethod: Compound CAS Number LOR Unit

ED037P: Alkalinity by PC Titrator (QCLot: 1226265)

ED037-P: Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 ---- ---- mg/L ---- 105200 mg/L 11287

ED041G: Sulfate (Turbidimetric) as SO4 2- by DA (QCLot: 1221113)

ED041G: Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric 14808-79-8 1 mg/L <1 102100 mg/L 12080

<1 11125 mg/L 12080

ED045G: Chloride by Discrete Analyser (QCLot: 1221115)

ED045G: Chloride 16887-00-6 1 mg/L <1 94.61000 mg/L 12080

<1 99.710 mg/L 12080

ED093F: Dissolved Major Cations (QCLot: 1228497)

ED093F: Calcium 7440-70-2 1 mg/L <1 -------- --------

ED093F: Magnesium 7439-95-4 1 mg/L <1 -------- --------

ED093F: Sodium 7440-23-5 1 mg/L <1 -------- --------

ED093F: Potassium 7440-09-7 1 mg/L <1 -------- --------

EK040P: Fluoride by PC Titrator (QCLot: 1226264)

EK040P: Fluoride 16984-48-8 0.1 mg/L <0.1 1045 mg/L 12080

Matrix Spike (MS) ReportThe quality control term Matrix Spike (MS) refers to an intralaboratory split sample spiked with a representative set of target analytes. The purpose of this QC parameter is to monitor potential matrix effects on

analyte recoveries. Static Recovery Limits as per laboratory Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). Ideal recovery ranges stated may be waived in the event of sample matrix interference.

Sub-Matrix: WATER Matrix Spike (MS) Report

SpikeRecovery(%) Recovery Limits (%)Spike

HighLowMSConcentrationLaboratory sample ID Client sample ID Method: Compound CAS Number

ED041G: Sulfate (Turbidimetric) as SO4 2- by DA (QCLot: 1221113)

Anonymous ET1701507-002 14808-79-8ED041G: Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric # Not

Determined

20 mg/L 13070

ED045G: Chloride by Discrete Analyser (QCLot: 1221115)

WP003 ET1701509-002 16887-00-6ED045G: Chloride 82.8400 mg/L 13070

EK040P: Fluoride by PC Titrator (QCLot: 1226264)

WP003 ET1701509-002 16984-48-8EK040P: Fluoride 1071.92 mg/L 12080

True

Environmental

QA/QC Compliance Assessment to assist with Quality ReviewWork Order : ET1701509 Page : 1 of 5


:Contact MS SHANNON WETHERALL Telephone : +61 7 4796 0600

:Project GDE Survey Date Samples Received : 03-Nov-2017

Site : ---- Issue Date : 09-Nov-2017

Alicia Hogan (NRA):Sampler No. of samples received : 8

:Order number ---- No. of samples analysed : 8

This report is automatically generated by the ALS LIMS through interpretation of the ALS Quality Control Report and several Quality Assurance parameters measured by ALS. This automated

reporting highlights any non-conformances, facilitates faster and more accurate data validation and is designed to assist internal expert and external Auditor review. Many components of this

report contribute to the overall DQO assessment and reporting for guideline compliance.

Brief method summaries and references are also provided to assist in traceability.

Summary of Outliers

Outliers : Quality Control Samples

This report highlights outliers flagged in the Quality Control (QC) Report.

l NO Method Blank value outliers occur.

l NO Duplicate outliers occur.

l NO Laboratory Control outliers occur.

l Matrix Spike outliers exist - please see following pages for full details.

l For all regular sample matrices, NO surrogate recovery outliers occur.

Outliers : Analysis Holding Time Compliance

l Analysis Holding Time Outliers exist - please see following pages for full details.

Outliers : Frequency of Quality Control Samples

l NO Quality Control Sample Frequency Outliers exist.


2 of 5:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ET1701509


GDE Survey:Project

Outliers : Quality Control Samples

Duplicates, Method Blanks, Laboratory Control Samples and Matrix Spikes

Matrix: WATER

Compound Group Name CommentLimitsDataAnalyteClient Sample IDLaboratory Sample ID CAS Number

Matrix Spike (MS) Recoveries

ET1701507--002 14808-79-8Sulfate as SO4 -

Turbidimetric

Anonymous MS recovery not determined,

background level greater than or

equal to 4x spike level.

----Not

Determined


Outliers : Analysis Holding Time Compliance

Matrix: WATER

AnalysisExtraction / Preparation

Date analysedDate extractedContainer / Client Sample ID(s) Days

overdue

Days

overdue

Due for extraction Due for analysis

Method


Clear Plastic Bottle - Natural

03-Nov-2017----WP002, WP003,

WP007, WP008,

QA Dup

08-Nov-2017---- ---- 5


04-Nov-2017----WP015, Blank 08-Nov-2017---- ---- 4


05-Nov-2017----WP028 08-Nov-2017---- ---- 3

Analysis Holding Time Compliance

Holding times for VOC in soils vary according to analytes of interest. Vinyl Chloride and Styrene holding time is 7 days; others 14 days. A recorded breach does not guarantee a breach for all VOC analytes and

should be verified in case the reported breach is a false positive or Vinyl Chloride and Styrene are not key analytes of interest/concern.

Holding time for leachate methods (e.g. TCLP) vary according to the analytes reported. Assessment compares the leach date with the shortest analyte holding time for the equivalent soil method. These are: organics

14 days, mercury 28 days & other metals 180 days. A recorded breach does not guarantee a breach for all non-volatile parameters.

If samples are identified below as having been analysed or extracted outside of recommended holding times, this should be taken into consideration when interpreting results.

This report summarizes extraction / preparation and analysis times and compares each with ALS recommended holding times (referencing USEPA SW 846, APHA, AS and NEPM) based on the sample container

provided. Dates reported represent first date of extraction or analysis and preclude subsequent dilutions and reruns. A listing of breaches (if any) is provided herein.

Matrix: WATER Evaluation: û = Holding time breach ; ü = Within holding time.

AnalysisExtraction / PreparationSample DateMethod

EvaluationDue for analysisDate analysedEvaluationDue for extractionDate extractedContainer / Client Sample ID(s)


Clear Plastic Bottle - Natural (ED037-P)

WP002, WP003,

WP007, WP008,

QA Dup

10-Nov-2017---- 08-Nov-2017----27-Oct-2017 ---- ü

Clear Plastic Bottle - Natural (ED037-P)

WP015, Blank 11-Nov-2017---- 08-Nov-2017----28-Oct-2017 ---- üClear Plastic Bottle - Natural (ED037-P)

WP028 12-Nov-2017---- 08-Nov-2017----29-Oct-2017 ---- ü

3 of 5:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ET1701509


GDE Survey:Project

Matrix: WATER Evaluation: û = Holding time breach ; ü = Within holding time.

AnalysisExtraction / PreparationSample DateMethod

EvaluationDue for analysisDate analysedEvaluationDue for extractionDate extractedContainer / Client Sample ID(s)


Clear Plastic Bottle - Natural (ED041G)

WP002, WP003,

WP007, WP008,

QA Dup

24-Nov-2017---- 03-Nov-2017----27-Oct-2017 ---- ü


WP015, Blank 25-Nov-2017---- 03-Nov-2017----28-Oct-2017 ---- üClear Plastic Bottle - Natural (ED041G)

WP028 26-Nov-2017---- 03-Nov-2017----29-Oct-2017 ---- üED045G: Chloride by Discrete Analyser


WP002, WP003,

WP007, WP008,

QA Dup

24-Nov-2017---- 03-Nov-2017----27-Oct-2017 ---- ü


WP015, Blank 25-Nov-2017---- 03-Nov-2017----28-Oct-2017 ---- üClear Plastic Bottle - Natural (ED045G)

WP028 26-Nov-2017---- 03-Nov-2017----29-Oct-2017 ---- üED093F: Dissolved Major Cations

Clear Plastic Bottle - Natural (ED093F)

WP002, WP003,

WP007, WP008,

QA Dup

03-Nov-2017---- 08-Nov-2017----27-Oct-2017 ---- û

Clear Plastic Bottle - Natural (ED093F)

WP015, Blank 04-Nov-2017---- 08-Nov-2017----28-Oct-2017 ---- ûClear Plastic Bottle - Natural (ED093F)

WP028 05-Nov-2017---- 08-Nov-2017----29-Oct-2017 ---- ûEK040P: Fluoride by PC Titrator

Clear Plastic Bottle - Natural (EK040P)

WP002, WP003,

WP007, WP008,

QA Dup

24-Nov-2017---- 07-Nov-2017----27-Oct-2017 ---- ü

Clear Plastic Bottle - Natural (EK040P)

WP015, Blank 25-Nov-2017---- 07-Nov-2017----28-Oct-2017 ---- üClear Plastic Bottle - Natural (EK040P)

WP028 26-Nov-2017---- 07-Nov-2017----29-Oct-2017 ---- ü

4 of 5:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ET1701509


GDE Survey:Project

Quality Control Parameter Frequency ComplianceThe following report summarises the frequency of laboratory QC samples analysed within the analytical lot(s) in which the submitted sample(s) was(were) processed. Actual rate should be greater than or equal to

the expected rate. A listing of breaches is provided in the Summary of Outliers.

Matrix: WATER Evaluation: û = Quality Control frequency not within specification ; ü = Quality Control frequency within specification.

Quality Control SpecificationQuality Control Sample Type

ExpectedQC Regular Actual

Rate (%)Quality Control Sample Type CountEvaluationAnalytical Methods Method

Laboratory Duplicates (DUP)

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 11.11 10.002 18 üAlkalinity by PC Titrator ED037-P

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 12.50 10.001 8 üChloride by Discrete Analyser ED045G

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 11.11 10.002 18 üFluoride by PC Titrator EK040P

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 11.76 10.002 17 üMajor Cations - Dissolved ED093F

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 11.76 10.002 17 üSulfate (Turbidimetric) as SO4 2- by Discrete Analyser ED041G

Laboratory Control Samples (LCS)

NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 5.56 5.001 18 üAlkalinity by PC Titrator ED037-P




Method Blanks (MB)



NEPM 2013 B3 & ALS QC Standard 5.88 5.001 17 üMajor Cations - Dissolved ED093F


Matrix Spikes (MS)




5 of 5:Page

Work Order :

:Client

ET1701509


GDE Survey:Project

Brief Method SummariesThe analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the US EPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house

developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request. The following report provides brief descriptions of the analytical procedures employed for results reported in the

Certificate of Analysis. Sources from which ALS methods have been developed are provided within the Method Descriptions.

Analytical Methods Method DescriptionsMatrixMethod

In house: Referenced to APHA 2320 B This procedure determines alkalinity by automated measurement (e.g. PC

Titrate) using pH 4.5 for indicating the total alkalinity end-point. This method is compliant with NEPM (2013)

Schedule B(3)

Alkalinity by PC Titrator ED037-P WATER

In house: Referenced to APHA 4500-SO4. Dissolved sulfate is determined in a 0.45um filtered sample. Sulfate

ions are converted to a barium sulfate suspension in an acetic acid medium with barium chloride. Light

absorbance of the BaSO4 suspension is measured by a photometer and the SO4-2 concentration is determined

by comparison of the reading with a standard curve. This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3)

Sulfate (Turbidimetric) as SO4 2- by

Discrete Analyser

ED041G WATER

In house: Referenced to APHA 4500 Cl - G.The thiocyanate ion is liberated from mercuric thiocyanate through

sequestration of mercury by the chloride ion to form non-ionised mercuric chloride.in the presence of ferric ions

the librated thiocynate forms highly-coloured ferric thiocynate which is measured at 480 nm APHA 21st edition

seal method 2 017-1-L april 2003

Chloride by Discrete Analyser ED045G WATER

In house: Referenced to APHA 3120 and 3125; USEPA SW 846 - 6010 and 6020; Cations are determined by

either ICP-AES or ICP-MS techniques. This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3)

Sodium Adsorption Ratio is calculated from Ca, Mg and Na which determined by ALS in house method

QWI-EN/ED093F. This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3)

Hardness parameters are calculated based on APHA 2340 B. This method is compliant with NEPM (2013)

Schedule B(3)

Major Cations - Dissolved ED093F WATER

In house: Referenced to APHA 4500-F C: CDTA is added to the sample to provide a uniform ionic strength

background, adjust pH, and break up complexes. Fluoride concentration is determined by either manual or

automatic ISE measurement. This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3)

Fluoride by PC Titrator EK040P WATER

In house: Referenced to APHA 1030F. This method is compliant with NEPM (2013) Schedule B(3)Ionic Balance by PCT DA and Turbi SO4

DA

EN055 - PG WATER

Attachment 7: EPBC Act Protected Matters

Report

EPBC Act Protected Matters Report

This report provides general guidance on matters of national environmental significance and other mattersprotected by the EPBC Act in the area you have selected.

Information on the coverage of this report and qualifications on data supporting this report are contained in thecaveat at the end of the report.

Information is available about Environment Assessments and the EPBC Act including significance guidelines,forms and application process details.

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act

Acknowledgements

Buffer: 6.0Km

Matters of NES

Report created: 17/11/17 16:38:58

Coordinates

This map may contain data which are©Commonwealth of Australia(Geoscience Australia), ©PSMA 2010

CaveatExtra Information

DetailsSummary

http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/environment-assessments

Summary

This part of the report summarises the matters of national environmental significance that may occur in, or mayrelate to, the area you nominated. Further information is available in the detail part of the report, which can beaccessed by scrolling or following the links below. If you are proposing to undertake an activity that may have asignificant impact on one or more matters of national environmental significance then you should consider theAdministrative Guidelines on Significance.

Matters of National Environmental Significance

Listed Threatened Ecological Communities:

Listed Migratory Species:

None

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park:

Wetlands of International Importance:

Listed Threatened Species:

None

21

None

None

National Heritage Places:

Commonwealth Marine Area:

World Heritage Properties:

None

None

13

The EPBC Act protects the environment on Commonwealth land, the environment from the actions taken onCommonwealth land, and the environment from actions taken by Commonwealth agencies. As heritage values of aplace are part of the 'environment', these aspects of the EPBC Act protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of aCommonwealth Heritage place. Information on the new heritage laws can be found athttp://www.environment.gov.au/heritage

This part of the report summarises other matters protected under the Act that may relate to the area you nominated.Approval may be required for a proposed activity that significantly affects the environment on Commonwealth land,when the action is outside the Commonwealth land, or the environment anywhere when the action is taken onCommonwealth land. Approval may also be required for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth agencies proposing totake an action that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment anywhere.

A permit may be required for activities in or on a Commonwealth area that may affect a member of a listed threatenedspecies or ecological community, a member of a listed migratory species, whales and other cetaceans, or a member ofa listed marine species.


None

None

None

Listed Marine Species:

Whales and Other Cetaceans:

20

Commonwealth Heritage Places:

None

None

Critical Habitats:

Commonwealth Land:

Commonwealth Reserves Terrestrial:

NoneCommonwealth Reserves Marine:

Extra Information

This part of the report provides information that may also be relevant to the area you have nominated.

None

NoneState and Territory Reserves:

Nationally Important Wetlands:

NoneRegional Forest Agreements:

Invasive Species: 8

NoneKey Ecological Features (Marine)

http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/environment-assessments

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/permits-and-application-forms

Details

Listed Threatened Species [ Resource Information ]Name Status Type of PresenceBirds

Curlew Sandpiper [856] Critically Endangered Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Calidris ferruginea

Red Goshawk [942] Vulnerable Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Erythrotriorchis radiatus

Gouldian Finch [413] Endangered Species or species habitatknown to occur within area

Erythrura gouldiae

Golden-shouldered Parrot, Alwal [720] Endangered Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Psephotus chrysopterygius

Australian Painted Snipe [77037] Endangered Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Rostratula australis

Masked Owl (northern) [26048] Vulnerable Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli

Frogs

Common Mistfrog [1802] Endangered Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Litoria rheocola

Insects

Antbed Parrot Moth [84159] Endangered Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Trisyntopa scatophaga

Mammals

Northern Quoll, Digul [Gogo-Yimidir], Wijingadda[Dambimangari], Wiminji [Martu] [331]

Endangered Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Dasyurus hallucatus

Semon's Leaf-nosed Bat, Greater Wart-nosedHorseshoe-bat [180]

Vulnerable Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Hipposideros semoni

Ghost Bat [174] Vulnerable Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Macroderma gigas

Black-footed Tree-rat (north Queensland), ShaggyRabbit-rat [87620]

Vulnerable Species or species habitatlikely to occur

Mesembriomys gouldii rattoides

Matters of National Environmental Significance

Name Status Type of Presencewithin area

Greater Glider [254] Vulnerable Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Petauroides volans

Koala (combined populations of Queensland, NewSouth Wales and the Australian Capital Territory)[85104]


Phascolarctos cinereus (combined populations of Qld, NSW and the ACT)

Spectacled Flying-fox [185] Vulnerable Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Pteropus conspicillatus

Large-eared Horseshoe Bat, Greater Large-earedHorseshoe Bat [87639]

Vulnerable Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Rhinolophus robertsi

Bare-rumped Sheath-tailed Bat, Bare-rumpedSheathtail Bat [66889]


Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus

Plants

[8635] Endangered Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Cajanus mareebensis

[12431] Vulnerable Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Euphorbia carissoides

[9003] Vulnerable Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Macropteranthes montana

Cooktown Orchid [78894] Vulnerable Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Vappodes phalaenopsis

Listed Migratory Species [ Resource Information ]* Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list.Name Threatened Type of PresenceMigratory Marine Birds

Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Apus pacificus

Migratory Terrestrial Species

Oriental Cuckoo, Horsfield's Cuckoo [86651] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Cuculus optatus

Barn Swallow [662] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Hirundo rustica

Black-faced Monarch [609] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Monarcha melanopsis

Grey Wagtail [642] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Motacilla cinerea

Yellow Wagtail [644] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Motacilla flava

Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Myiagra cyanoleuca

Name Threatened Type of PresenceMigratory Wetlands Species

Common Sandpiper [59309] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Actitis hypoleucos

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper [874] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Calidris acuminata


Calidris ferruginea

Pectoral Sandpiper [858] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Calidris melanotos

Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Gallinago hardwickii

Osprey [952] Species or species habitatknown to occur within area

Pandion haliaetus

Listed Marine Species [ Resource Information ]* Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list.Name Threatened Type of PresenceBirds

Common Sandpiper [59309] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Actitis hypoleucos

Magpie Goose [978] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Anseranas semipalmata

Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Apus pacificus

Great Egret, White Egret [59541] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Ardea alba

Cattle Egret [59542] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Ardea ibis

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper [874] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Calidris acuminata


Calidris ferruginea

Pectoral Sandpiper [858] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Calidris melanotos

Oriental Cuckoo, Himalayan Cuckoo [710] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Cuculus saturatus


Name Threatened Type of Presence

Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Gallinago hardwickii

White-bellied Sea-Eagle [943] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Haliaeetus leucogaster

Barn Swallow [662] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Hirundo rustica

Rainbow Bee-eater [670] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Merops ornatus

Black-faced Monarch [609] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Monarcha melanopsis

Grey Wagtail [642] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Motacilla cinerea

Yellow Wagtail [644] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Motacilla flava

Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Myiagra cyanoleuca

Osprey [952] Species or species habitatknown to occur within area

Pandion haliaetus

Painted Snipe [889] Endangered* Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Rostratula benghalensis (sensu lato)

Reptiles

Freshwater Crocodile, Johnston's Crocodile,Johnston's River Crocodile [1773]

Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Crocodylus johnstoni

Extra Information

Invasive Species [ Resource Information ]Weeds reported here are the 20 species of national significance (WoNS), along with other introduced plantsthat are considered by the States and Territories to pose a particularly significant threat to biodiversity. Thefollowing feral animals are reported: Goat, Red Fox, Cat, Rabbit, Pig, Water Buffalo and Cane Toad. Maps fromLandscape Health Project, National Land and Water Resouces Audit, 2001.

Name Status Type of PresenceBirds

House Sparrow [405] Species or species habitatlikely to occur

Passer domesticus

Name Status Type of Presencewithin area

Frogs

Cane Toad [83218] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Rhinella marina

Mammals

Cat, House Cat, Domestic Cat [19] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Felis catus

Rabbit, European Rabbit [128] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Oryctolagus cuniculus

Pig [6] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Sus scrofa

Plants

Prickly Acacia [6196] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Acacia nilotica subsp. indica

Rubber Vine, Rubbervine, India Rubber Vine, IndiaRubbervine, Palay Rubbervine, Purple Allamanda[18913]

Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Cryptostegia grandiflora

Cotton-leaved Physic-Nut, Bellyache Bush, Cotton-leafPhysic Nut, Cotton-leaf Jatropha, Black Physic Nut[7507]

Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Jatropha gossypifolia

- non-threatened seabirds which have only been mapped for recorded breeding sites

- migratory species that are very widespread, vagrant, or only occur in small numbers

- some species and ecological communities that have only recently been listed

Not all species listed under the EPBC Act have been mapped (see below) and therefore a report is a general guide only. Where available datasupports mapping, the type of presence that can be determined from the data is indicated in general terms. People using this information in makinga referral may need to consider the qualifications below and may need to seek and consider other information sources.

For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from recovery plans, State vegetation maps, remotesensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened ecological community distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and pointlocation data are used to produce indicative distribution maps.

- seals which have only been mapped for breeding sites near the Australian continent

Such breeding sites may be important for the protection of the Commonwealth Marine environment.

Threatened, migratory and marine species distributions have been derived through a variety of methods. Where distributions are well known and iftime permits, maps are derived using either thematic spatial data (i.e. vegetation, soils, geology, elevation, aspect, terrain, etc) together with pointlocations and described habitat; or environmental modelling (MAXENT or BIOCLIM habitat modelling) using point locations and environmental datalayers.

The information presented in this report has been provided by a range of data sources as acknowledged at the end of the report.Caveat

- migratory and

The following species and ecological communities have not been mapped and do not appear in reports produced from this database:

- marine

This report is designed to assist in identifying the locations of places which may be relevant in determining obligations under the EnvironmentProtection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It holds mapped locations of World and National Heritage properties, Wetlands of Internationaland National Importance, Commonwealth and State/Territory reserves, listed threatened, migratory and marine species and listed threatenedecological communities. Mapping of Commonwealth land is not complete at this stage. Maps have been collated from a range of sources at variousresolutions.

- threatened species listed as extinct or considered as vagrants

- some terrestrial species that overfly the Commonwealth marine area

The following groups have been mapped, but may not cover the complete distribution of the species:

Only selected species covered by the following provisions of the EPBC Act have been mapped:

Where very little information is available for species or large number of maps are required in a short time-frame, maps are derived either from 0.04or 0.02 decimal degree cells; by an automated process using polygon capture techniques (static two kilometre grid cells, alpha-hull and convex hull);or captured manually or by using topographic features (national park boundaries, islands, etc). In the early stages of the distribution mappingprocess (1999-early 2000s) distributions were defined by degree blocks, 100K or 250K map sheets to rapidly create distribution maps. More reliabledistribution mapping methods are used to update these distributions as time permits.

-16.93813 144.24853

Coordinates

-Environment and Planning Directorate, ACT-Birdlife Australia-Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme

-Department of Parks and Wildlife, Western Australia

Acknowledgements

-Office of Environment and Heritage, New South Wales

-Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania

-Department of Land and Resource Management, Northern Territory-Department of Environmental and Heritage Protection, Queensland

-Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Victoria

-Australian National Wildlife Collection

-Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia

This database has been compiled from a range of data sources. The department acknowledges the followingcustodians who have contributed valuable data and advice:

-Australian Museum

-National Herbarium of NSW

Forestry Corporation, NSW-Australian Government, Department of Defence

-State Herbarium of South Australia

The Department is extremely grateful to the many organisations and individuals who provided expert adviceand information on numerous draft distributions.

-Natural history museums of Australia

-Queensland Museum

-Australian National Herbarium, Canberra

-Royal Botanic Gardens and National Herbarium of Victoria

-Geoscience Australia

-Ocean Biogeographic Information System

-Online Zoological Collections of Australian Museums-Queensland Herbarium

-Western Australian Herbarium

-Tasmanian Herbarium

-Northern Territory Herbarium

-South Australian Museum

-Museum Victoria

-University of New England

-CSIRO

-Other groups and individuals-Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart, Tasmania

-Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory

-Reef Life Survey Australia-Australian Institute of Marine Science-Australian Government National Environmental Science Program

-Australian Tropical Herbarium, Cairns

-Australian Government – Australian Antarctic Data Centre

-Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Inveresk, Tasmania

-eBird Australia

-American Museum of Natural History

© Commonwealth of Australia

+61 2 6274 1111

Canberra ACT 2601 Australia

GPO Box 787

Department of the Environment

Please feel free to provide feedback via the Contact Us page.

http://www.environment.act.gov.au/

http://birdlife.org.au/

http://www.environment.gov.au/science/bird-and-bat-banding

http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/

http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/

https://nt.gov.au/environment/environment-data-maps

http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/

http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/home

http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/Collections/ANWC

http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Home

http://australianmuseum.net.au/

http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/science/Herbarium_and_resources/nsw_herbarium

http://www.forestrycorporation.com.au/

http://www.defence.gov.au/

http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Science/Science_research/State_Herbarium

http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/

http://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr/herbarium/

http://www.rbg.vic.gov.au/science/herbarium-and-resources/national-herbarium-of-victoria

http://www.ga.gov.au/

http://www.iobis.org/

http://ozcam.org.au/

http://www.qld.gov.au/environment/plants-animals/plants/herbarium/

http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/plants-and-animals/wa-herbarium

http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/collections_and_research/tasmanian_herbarium

https://nt.gov.au/environment/native-plants/native-plants-and-nt-herbarium

http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/

http://museumvictoria.com.au/

http://www.une.edu.au

http://www.csiro.au/

http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/

http://www.magnt.net.au/

http://reeflifesurvey.com/reef-life-survey/rls-australia/

http://www.aims.gov.au/

https://www.environment.gov.au/science/nerp

https://www.ath.org.au/

https://data.aad.gov.au/

http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/qvmag/

http://ebird.org/content/australia/

http://www.amnh.org/

http://www.environment.gov.au/copyright-statement

http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/contact-us

Cairns Office: Level 1, 320 Sheridan Street, PO Box 5678 Cairns QLD 4870

P: 61 7 4034 5300 F: 61 7 4034 5301

Townsville Office:Suite 2A, Level 1, 41 Denham Street, PO Box 539 Townsville QLD 4810

P: 61 7 4796 9444 F: 61 7 4796 9410

www.natres.com.au • [email protected]

Natural Resource Assessments Pty Ltd trading as NRA Environmental Consultants. ABN: 77 011 073 135Certified Integrated Management System: AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008 (Quality), AS/NZS ISO 14001:2004 (Environment), AS/NZS 4801:2001 (Safety).

Documents

King Vol Project Potential Impact to Environmental Values ... · The EVs associated with GDEs at the King Vol project were identified via desk-based assessment and from field cation